Review Of Monsters, Men and BROche

[latexmonkeys]

All of this criticism of the esteemed reviewers' tone is irrelevant. It's obvious to anyone but themselves why the potato faction is bitching. Any and all criticism of this game seems to be taken very personally by some here and let's face it, no matter what tone was employed if the review was anything other than positive they would still be nitpicking, whining , and raging.

So why the rage witcher 2 fans? This style of action rpg isn't going the way of the dodo anytime soon, so rejoice! You are being served by many current game developers exactly the kinds of games you crave. It's the rest of us who are being left out in the cold.

 

[Mangoose]

it is a game worth playing.

has little support in the actual article. For that reason the review is "inconsistent".

That's because that line is also sarcastic.

No. Again, brother - please do not doubt my mental capacities. We both are easily able to wade through irony here. As I said - it's of rather crude kind. But was it really just because we are so clever, or did the fact that we both played the game help us, at least a bit? Tell me, honestly - would you be tempted to try this game worth playing after reading this review?

I've only played like 2 hours of the game so I guess it's because I'm clever. Honestly, no, I would not play the game any more, because it's not fucking "worth playing." They were fucking joking when they said that. Jesus. They were making fun of the "it's good for what it was" philosophy.

C'mon, read the whole fucking paragraph:

The Witcher 2 is undoubtedly a product of love, which is a rare thing these days, so in the end it doesn’t really matter what kind of game is it, how linear or non-linear it is, and whether or not the choices matter. Most importantly, it is a game worth playing.

The whole first line is sarcasm in a whole.

 

[Sceptic]

If there's one thing that never ceases to amaze me around here, it's how easily the "you're just butthurt" card gets played.

(in before "butthurt detected")

Here's a newsflash for all you butthurt people: There is no such thing as an objective, unbiased review.

Sometimes the Codex is disturbingly predictable.

Have you read VD's review of MOW? For that matter, why don't you go and take a look at your own review of SOZ? Then take a look at what I posted when I defined exactly what makes a good review (Mrowak went into even more detail, but we're saying basically the same thing).

The perfectly truly uberawesome review doesn't exist. That doesn't mean turning reviewing exlusively into a lulzfest (emphsais on exclusively, just in case people still don't get it) is a good thing.

 

[Rivmusique]

I do not approve of this Witcher hate! Especially when you made it seem like love, it just confused me, like I thought you were potato like me for awhile, but then it became evident you weren't I liked clickfest 2: assassin of PC interface a lot, why cant all you guys?

 

[Darth Roxor]

If there's one thing that never ceases to amaze me around here, it's how easily the "you're just butthurt" card gets played.

(in before "butthurt detected")

Here's a newsflash for all you butthurt people: There is no such thing as an objective, unbiased review.

Sometimes the Codex is disturbingly predictable.

Look at commie's posts and tell me they are not oozing pure, distilled butthurt like a Great Unclean One spreading the hundred plagues of Nurgle.

Have you read VD's review of MOW? For that matter, why don't you go and take a look at your own review of SOZ? Then take a look at what I posted when I defined exactly what makes a good review (Mrowak went into even more detail, but we're saying basically the same thing).

The perfectly truly uberawesome review doesn't exist. That doesn't mean turning reviewing exlusively into a lulzfest (emphsais on exclusively, just in case people still don't get it) is a good thing.

Good sir, I know what point you make. It's just that some lulz every now and then is also good for the mind and body.

Mens sana in lulz sano

 

[PrzeSzkoda]

I think the Codex needed the review to stir more of a dramatic ruckus than the game itself already did. Especially given the fact that many here somehow treat The Witcher 2 as a hardcore, oldskule cRPG godsend while it's clearly a (very much succesful, I guess) step by CDProjekt to move their franchise, which is slowly becoming a motherfuckin' behemoth, into a more next-gen, console-cinematic direction. Which is pretty sad actually. The shit had lots of potential for an aRPG.

Let's take, f. i., swordsmanship. Remember the awesome animations from The Twitcher 1? The brokenness of the borefest combat in the first part notwithstanding, the animations were great - they really made me think that those stances, hey, they make fuckin' sense! After changing his stance, Geralt would move very much differently, he'd use his sword differently, he'd have different moves. The animations themselves made me concede the point that, yes - the at-first-sight-retarded idea of different styles and progression trees for steel/silver makes sense in the end. Due to the fact that they looked so different in-game, and the fact that I'd agree that unholy unnatural abominations would require different tactics to beat than humans.

It had no influence on gameplay, though; just some very nice eye candy. In-game it worked like a dumbass rock-paper-scissors affair with timed clicks, an homage to ye hardkore days of turnbased.

Now imagine they took those great moves that they HAD ALREADY ANIMATED (lots of quality motion capturing, IIRC) with the option of choosing separate moves from various skill-trees, allowing players to choose between them and improve the ones they liked the most. Now that'd be some real-time twitch-fest aRPG combat extravaganza, it'd make character progression a blast, it'd give more options and more freedom to the player to forge Geralt into the type of warrior the player wants him to be. And, most importantly, it'd make the gameplay more interesting and make each character build play differently to a greater extent, if performed well it could even make each build unique (couple that with support skills, like alchemy and signs, and that'd be even better). If executed with fluidity and gusto, it could even give Mount and Blade a run for its real-time medieval melee combat money. The apparent lack of mounts notwithstanding.

And instead we get QTEs and rolling around like there's no tomorrow. Apparently, blocking tires Geralt out but acrobatics do not, making him an accomplished ballerina.

And they really should drop the cutscenes, the crux of modern day self-professed story oriented games. I loved the bit about the Twitcher 3 coming to consoles and cinemas near you.

As to the review, even though I evidently liked some of your glittering gems of hatred right there, I do agree with some other fans of potato that it's trying too hard sometimes. Sarcasm is cool an' all but only if it's executed with exceptional gusto. There are some great bits of that there, heck, I even quoted some of them right here...



...but some are just icky, like that forced comparison of The Witcher's setting with Dragon Age 2. It worked well in the Dragon Age review (IIRC), but here, not so much. It's also a bit confusing at times. Clean up your act, boys.



That said, my point still stands - a review of this kind was what the Codax needed, something of a kick to the vitals. Fuck the haters.

 

[Mrowak]

it is a game worth playing.

has little support in the actual article. For that reason the review is "inconsistent".

That's because that line is also sarcastic.

No. Again, brother - please do not doubt my mental capacities. We both are easily able to wade through irony here. As I said - it's of rather crude kind. But was it really just because we are so clever, or did the fact that we both played the game help us, at least a bit? Tell me, honestly - would you be tempted to try this game worth playing after reading this review?

I've only played like 2 hours of the game so I guess it's because I'm clever. Honestly, no, I would not play the game any more, because it's not fucking "worth playing." They were fucking joking when they said that. Jesus. They were making fun of the "it's good for what it was" philosophy.

C'mon, read the whole fucking paragraph:

The Witcher 2 is undoubtedly a product of love, which is a rare thing these days, so in the end it doesn’t really matter what kind of game is it, how linear or non-linear it is, and whether or not the choices matter. Most importantly, it is a game worth playing.

The whole first line is sarcasm in a whole.

Brother - this is exactly the point that we disagree on. You see, I argued the case with both VoD and VD in a couple of threads. Using the feedback they provided I cannot read the paragraph in question as ironic at all, because it overlaps in meaning in what VD repeatedly stated on numerous occassions. I took the trouble and found some evidence supporting my claim. I did my best not to quote them out of context, and I also provide links for you to check the whole thing if need be.

1)
http://rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=1666461#1666461

I agree with the statment that the story-driven nature of the game somewhat limits player's freedom. However, I cannot say the end result makes the game flawed. Especially when I think of great story-driven RPGs which did C&C part much worse than TW2 such as Betrayal at Krondor, or Planescape.

Betrayal at Krondor was a huge game with tons of places to explore and mini adventures at every step. Planescape had stronger writing and interaction with the world.

The Witcher IS a great game, there is no doubt about it. However, I wouldn't call it an RPG and I wouldn't say that choices & consequences is a strong aspect of the game.

2).

http://rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=1667008#1667008

Then again, I think no one lamented that you couldn't join Delekhan in Betrayal at Krondor, or you had to fight Ravel in Planescape. There's simply a limit for C&C in story-driven RPGs, in the same way there is in a well prepared Pen&Paper campaign led by a competent DM.

Isn't that what I said?

The Witcher 2 is a very enjoyable game. I like it more than the first game, but the C&C aspect isn't strong and I suspect it's because the game is too story-driven, much like PST, which also wasn't known for non-linearity or choices & consequences.

3).

http://rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=1668651#1668651

But it's still insignificant. Who needs one more way to deal with Myrkul or yet another soul devourer ability?

How's that insignificant? You arbitrarily decide that there is no need for those, but C&C is about closing some doors and opening others.

I't insignificant because it doesn't change the gameplay. It's like choosing weapon A or B as a reward for a quest.

Multiple quest solutions and alternative ways to play the game (it's almost impossible to beat the game with high hunger without the devourer ability) aren't the same as different weapons or costs rewards.

Either you just don't get it, in which case trying to explain is a waste of time, or you see absolutely no value in multiple quest solutions and paths, in which case, why are you arguing? Nobody's saying that the Witcher 2 is a bad game.

4). This one is from IronTower forums

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,2064.msg67660.html#msg67660

So, basically, it sounds like a well done adventure game with actiony combat and a fork in the middle. The game's short, from what I've heard, so instead of doing a lengthy linear sequence with minor options, they did a Y design, shortening the game.

Finding the parts where VoD expressed his impressions in positive light is much more difficult, admittedly.

The only part I found was this
http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=1691914#1691914

On the other hand, if you think about it, how many other RPGs had done C&C better than TW2 with its level of contextualisation?

I wouldn't have played the game 4x in a row if I thought it sucked. You will soon be able to read in detail what I think about TW2 C&C.

But in the context of the actual review I am not sure now if he was being "ironic".

So, in the light of the discussion we've partaken in it seemed to me the sentence you highlighted was dead serious. Granted, they could have changed their minds since the debate but I find such 180 degree changes of direction to be not probable. Unless I got mega-trolled in the discussion, and their opinions were sarcastic from the start.

Frankly, it amusing to me that you actually read that sentence as ironic. This serves to prove my point - the review did not offer a clear statement of what the game is. Apparently, for a person not familiar with the context of the debate we had here the game may strike as utter, unredeemable garbage - which, as i showed you, seems to go against the authors' intentions. Depending on your angle - you may read more than is in there. Hence, my conclusion. The article suffers from overabundance of irony. This irony carries significant charge of bias. This bias renders the review "worthless" because one cannot get clear assessment from it.

My intention is not to act again as butthurt Polish fanboy, though I anticipated most of the supporters of this article would label me as such. It's all too easy to handwave arguments of your opponent by attributing him ulterior motives. My true intention is to point out that the articles released of recent do not reach the journalistic quality we should all aspire. If we are to be a "prestigious magazine" I hope that title is conferred through subtle-irony (yes, we are :monocle:, well educated and we know what we talk about, even though we are not technically "magazine") not crude-sarcasm (no, we are not - we can only whine and throw poo at each other). Unfortunately, in my eyes the article in question moves us towards the latter interpretation.

 

[Tormented Seph]

Geralt in the books hates to support anyone, He' s a Witcher, Witchers don't meddle anywhere unless forced.

They support who grants them "$$$$$$" for hunting monsters, in a lot of cases (he needs to survive somehow)...
But Geralt is the only Witcher that invents a "Witcher's Code" for preserving his Moral Code...

About Shani :
I understand where You are coming from.
The assumption that the player could ever be Geralt of Rivia is the one that creates these kind of problems.
It's absolutely consistent with the books, it's not consistent with players decisions.
The choices added in the game are there to create replay value , otherwise this wouldn't be a game but a book, or movie , it couldn't be influenced.

Right, so It's difficult for me to understand the choice to definitely erase Shani from the context, without no mention, no conseguences, no influences...

What was Shani for me?

A generic fling No. 567.
The difference between Her and another girl, maybe Blue Eyes is Her ability to use bandages-nothing more.
She would never follow Geralt, what would She do in the scene when Triss cast's lightning?
Throw bandages at Him?
The ability to kill a Dragon-Hmm, looking forward to the trolling from Cd Project in the Witcher 3.

In the books Shani is a simple secondary character, without an important rule in the plot...
But in the first game CDP choose to use her in a different way, and she became a romance option...
What about the conseguences in the second game? None care about it: that's the problem...

Maybe CDP can try to explain why we start the game in love with Triss, and why Shani is erased from the context, but......does it explained in some way? No: that's the problem...

Hope you understand my point...

The Geralt in the books would never:

Spoiler

Choose the Order, kill Vinsent or Ada,choose Shani, kill Blue Eyes,

for example , yet the player get's this option for the sake of non-linearity,replay value and c&c system.
There are things that are created outside of the lore, this doesn't make them relevant or canon however.
But clearly the players desire for impact on the game is perfectly normal.
---------------

Right, also in the first plot there's some "incoherence" with "Geralt's Canonic Portrait", but I don't care about it just because at that time I still hadn't read the Sapkowsky's Books.
Now I read them, and for this I can see where the plot takes Geralt doing things that would not doing in the books...
For some these defects are not important, but are important to me. This is the reason why I said "Roche Path is incoherent"...

 

[MetalCraze]

8 pages already and no fanboy was able to post some counter-argument. Same shit about "too much lulz!! I want readme.txt!" and attacks on VD.

Did it ever occur to you people, that maybe TW2 is indeed not a good game? And not RPG? And CDP are not good game designers at all? And not every game labeled "RPG" today is good because it's labeled "RPG"?
Think about it. It may be very painful realizing all this because of years of CDP's PR brainwashing about how TW2 is a totally awesome RPG but you have to try.

Realizing one thing:

If TW2 was a good game you would've proven VD and VoD wrong via arguments about the game, not "the review is stoopid hurrr" or "VD said something years ago"

Think about it.

 

[Black_Willow]

snip

Did it ever occur to you that there's the 'impressions' thread where most of this was discussed over and over again? Also, Brother None's review thread, where VD and BN clashed.
Vault Dweller is simply late to the party with his text. Rephrasing the same arguments got a little boring.

 

[Dantus12]

They support who grants them "$$$$$$" for hunting monsters, in a lot of cases (he needs to survive somehow)...
But Geralt is the only Witcher that invents a "Witcher's Code" for preserving his Moral Code...
Right, so It's difficult for me to understand the choice to definitely erase Shani from the context, without no mention, no conseguences, no influences...

I completely understand Your point.
The problem is that both relationships can be seen and even treated as a "friends that fuck thing," it applies to Triss, leaving the fact aside that She is a beautiful woman, Triss can be nothing more than Dandelion or Zoltan if the player decides so.
She is Geralt's friend, someone that will tag along, someone perceived as manipulative for reasons unknown, but She's one of the few people that would never betray Him.
Unless CD Project of course decides to troll us all completely.
Shani is not someone You start the first game. You meet Her later, unlike Triss that is already present.

In the books Shani is a simple secondary character, without an important rule in the plot...
But in the first game CDP choose to use her in a different way, and she became a romance option...
What about the conseguences in the second game? None care about it: that's the problem...

Maybe CDP can try to explain why we start the game in love with Triss, and why Shani is erased from the context, but......does it explained in some way? No: that's the problem...

They explained it perfectly well for Geralt, just not for the player, not trying to fall on Your nerves, but did they explain why You end in bed with Her instantly in the first game ?

If somehow avoiding it then what, something that Geralt wouldn't do but the player can.
Geralt would always end in bed with Her, completely irrelevant if even Yen would be around, She just shouldn't be present, just like Shani is not there.

The "friends that fuck thing," works great for Geralt and Triss, the fact that Triss loves Him is irrelevant.
The player may or may not see it as a romance, it's the player and not Geralt.

Hope you understand my point...
Right, also in the first plot there's some "incoherence" with "Geralt's Canonic Portrait", but I don't care about it just because at that time I still hadn't read the Sapkowsky's Books.
Now I read them, and for this I can see where the plot takes Geralt doing things that would not doing in the books...
For some these defects are not important, but are important to me. This is the reason why I said "Roche Path is incoherent"...

Currently it looks like that the events around Shani need a more expanded explanation.
The problem is coming from the ending of the first game, and the events in the second. Remains to be seen, CD Project said that there is no canon, reminds me of the potential problems with Yen, and Triss and Shani for the players that wanted Her.
The game is doing something really interesting, it resolves the questions only of the first game, the short 3rd act depicted it wonderfully . It feels like the common perception of the entire timeline is completely wrong, and that we are missing something.
But I would fell exactly the same way You feel if I would wake up with Shani in bed, instead of Triss so there are inconsistencies, maybe a expansion will explain things, it's not that games these days have advanced import features that perfectly reflect on the players decisions.

Imagine my shock when Tali started looking at me like I'm the best thing since sliced bread, despite the fact that I tried everything humanly possible to explain to Her in ME that I hate Quarians,and treated Her like dirt, I even tried not to take Her from the Citadel.

So maybe the Shani delay can be repaired with some proper content instead of creating something for the sake of creating.My point is, I'm lacking the ability to coherently write , so maybe it's better for Shani to get full time dedication instead of a few lines, that most players that are now disappointed would get.
----------------------------

 

[Gragt]

Here's a newsflash for all you butthurt people: There is no such thing as an objective, unbiased review.

Yes, there is. It takes a good reviewer.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

it is a game worth playing.

has little support in the actual article. For that reason the review is "inconsistent".

That's because that line is also sarcastic.

No. Again, brother - please do not doubt my mental capacities. We both are easily able to wade through irony here. As I said - it's of rather crude kind. But was it really just because we are so clever, or did the fact that we both played the game help us, at least a bit? Tell me, honestly - would you be tempted to try this game worth playing after reading this review?

I've only played like 2 hours of the game so I guess it's because I'm clever. Honestly, no, I would not play the game any more, because it's not fucking "worth playing." They were fucking joking when they said that. Jesus. They were making fun of the "it's good for what it was" philosophy.

C'mon, read the whole fucking paragraph:

The Witcher 2 is undoubtedly a product of love, which is a rare thing these days, so in the end it doesn’t really matter what kind of game is it, how linear or non-linear it is, and whether or not the choices matter. Most importantly, it is a game worth playing.

The whole first line is sarcasm in a whole.

Brother - this is exactly the point that we disagree on. You see, I argued the case with both VoD and VD in a couple of threads. Using the feedback they provided I cannot read the paragraph in question as ironic at all, because it overlaps in meaning in what VD repeatedly stated on numerous occassions. I took the trouble and found some evidence supporting my claim. I did my best not to quote them out of context, and I also provide links for you to check the whole thing if need be.

1)
http://rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=1666461#1666461

I agree with the statment that the story-driven nature of the game somewhat limits player's freedom. However, I cannot say the end result makes the game flawed. Especially when I think of great story-driven RPGs which did C&C part much worse than TW2 such as Betrayal at Krondor, or Planescape.

Betrayal at Krondor was a huge game with tons of places to explore and mini adventures at every step. Planescape had stronger writing and interaction with the world.

The Witcher IS a great game, there is no doubt about it. However, I wouldn't call it an RPG and I wouldn't say that choices & consequences is a strong aspect of the game.

2).

http://rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=1667008#1667008

Then again, I think no one lamented that you couldn't join Delekhan in Betrayal at Krondor, or you had to fight Ravel in Planescape. There's simply a limit for C&C in story-driven RPGs, in the same way there is in a well prepared Pen&Paper campaign led by a competent DM.

Isn't that what I said?

The Witcher 2 is a very enjoyable game. I like it more than the first game, but the C&C aspect isn't strong and I suspect it's because the game is too story-driven, much like PST, which also wasn't known for non-linearity or choices & consequences.

3).

http://rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=1668651#1668651

But it's still insignificant. Who needs one more way to deal with Myrkul or yet another soul devourer ability?

How's that insignificant? You arbitrarily decide that there is no need for those, but C&C is about closing some doors and opening others.

I't insignificant because it doesn't change the gameplay. It's like choosing weapon A or B as a reward for a quest.

Multiple quest solutions and alternative ways to play the game (it's almost impossible to beat the game with high hunger without the devourer ability) aren't the same as different weapons or costs rewards.

Either you just don't get it, in which case trying to explain is a waste of time, or you see absolutely no value in multiple quest solutions and paths, in which case, why are you arguing? Nobody's saying that the Witcher 2 is a bad game.

4). This one is from IronTower forums

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,2064.msg67660.html#msg67660

So, basically, it sounds like a well done adventure game with actiony combat and a fork in the middle. The game's short, from what I've heard, so instead of doing a lengthy linear sequence with minor options, they did a Y design, shortening the game.

Finding the parts where VoD expressed his impressions in positive light is much more difficult, admittedly.

The only part I found was this
http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=1691914#1691914

On the other hand, if you think about it, how many other RPGs had done C&C better than TW2 with its level of contextualisation?

I wouldn't have played the game 4x in a row if I thought it sucked. You will soon be able to read in detail what I think about TW2 C&C.

But in the context of the actual review I am not sure now if he was being "ironic".

So, in the light of the discussion we've partaken in it seemed to me the sentence you highlighted was dead serious. Granted, they could have changed their minds since the debate but I find such 180 degree changes of direction to be not probable. Unless I got mega-trolled in the discussion, and their opinions were sarcastic from the start.

Frankly, it amusing to me that you actually read that sentence as ironic. This serves to prove my point - the review did not offer a clear statement of what the game is. Apparently, for a person not familiar with the context of the debate we had here the game may strike as utter, unredeemable garbage - which, as i showed you, seems to go against the authors' intentions. Depending on your angle - you may read more than is in there. Hence, my conclusion. The article suffers from overabundance of irony. This irony carries significant charge of bias. This bias renders the review "worthless" because one cannot get clear assessment from it.

My intention is not to act again as butthurt Polish fanboy, though I anticipated most of the supporters of this article would label me as such. It's all too easy to handwave arguments of your opponent by attributing him ulterior motives. My true intention is to point out that the articles released of recent do not reach the journalistic quality we should all aspire. If we are to be a "prestigious magazine" I hope that title is conferred through subtle-irony (yes, we are :monocle:, well educated and we know what we talk about, even though we are not technically "magazine") not crude-sarcasm (no, we are not - we can only whine and throw poo at each other). Unfortunately, in my eyes the article in question moves us towards the latter interpretation.

So, what exatly is wrong with the review? Where the negative impressions are false and what positive impressions are lacking?

 

[Korgan]

I might be a little late to the party, but still:

M: M: M:


of the Codex reviews

 

[MetalCraze]

snip

Did it ever occur to you that there's the 'impressions' thread where most of this was discussed over and over again? Also, Brother None's review thread, where VD and BN clashed.
Vault Dweller is simply late to the party with his text. Rephrasing the same arguments got a little boring.

I feel you bro

From what I remember when I asked fanboi to tell me what's so great about TW2 the arguments were:

- You just hate all games
- You played KotOR 7 times
- Not every game must be like ArmA2
- You haven't played TW2
- You've played TW2 not enough time

Repeating these arguments proving how awesome TW2 is tends to get stale, I agree.

Here's a newsflash for all you butthurt people: There is no such thing as an objective, unbiased review.

Yes, there is. It takes a good reviewer.

Gragt is correct. Reviewer must write a review exactly how other people want it to sound, not express his own opinion.

It's what makes IGN and Gamespot such great review websites.

 

[Mrowak]

...

So, what exatly is wrong with the review? Where the negative impressions are false and what positive impressions are lacking?

Look into my previous posts for details, my good friend. I am not about to repeat myself 20 times just for your convenience. I will only say here that the "review" does not fulfill the requirements of the journalistic genre to be called as such.

It actually would have been a superb feature article (but still not review) if VD and VoD added something along these lines at the end:

“Like the game it analyses, our article is a pretty thing indeed, and quite fun to read on the top of that, but it lacks the core that could make it a ‘review’. Although entertaining, it does not fulfill the aim it was written for. Hence, just like TW2, if you expect the real thing from it, think again. Unfortunately, it just might fail to meet your expectations, in spite of being an awesome piece, in the end”

 

[MetalCraze]

So what you are saying is that VD and VoD should've written a disclaimer warning retards that the review contains humour which may prevent sensitive individuals from seeing a very detailed description of everything in the game?

 

[Shannow]

8 pages already and no fanboy was able to post some counter-argument. Same shit about "too much lulz!! I want readme.txt!" and attacks on VD.

Did it ever occur to you people, that maybe TW2 is indeed not a good game? And not RPG? And CDP are not good game designers at all? And not every game labeled "RPG" today is good because it's labeled "RPG"?
Think about it. It may be very painful realizing all this because of years of CDP's PR brainwashing about how TW2 is a totally awesome RPG but you have to try.

Realizing one thing:

If TW2 was a good game you would've proven VD and VoD wrong via arguments about the game, not "the review is stoopid hurrr" or "VD said something years ago"

Think about it.

Hmm? You're missing the point. TW2 can be a mediocre game without V(o)D's review being a good review. This thread is about the review, not so much about the game.
The review sounds like a 1/10. There are a few parts even somebody acquainted with the codex, its memes and sarcasm can misinterpret.
The short list review VD posted later in this thread sounds like a 3-4/10. Considering I'd give the game something around 4/10 too, we're suddenly not far apart at all. Only from the review alone I'd never have thought so.
The review ends up being ok for a few codex lulz but completely worthless as a basis for a purchase decision for anyone not frequenting the codex and for most regular readers too. Now think about what a review is supposed to do...
Think about it.

 

[racofer]

This thread is about the review.

¿LoL que?!

"ITT: we review the review."

 

[MetalCraze]

This thread is about the review, not so much about the game.

Really? So far most of this thread is "this isn't a review because it contains sarcasm and you didn't tell people about The Gaem!!1" even though in contrast with a generic retarded mainstream review which just faps to TW2 having GRAPHIX!! and the ability to select a dialogue once in a 5 minute cutscene VD and VoD actually made a very in-depth review that isn't boring to read for once. And is actually more objective than any other because VD and VoD write why they think so and give examples.

The problem is that acid sarcasm really burns sensitive morons who are not interested in review telling it how it is and just want to read readme.txts praising the game they like.

 

[Black_Willow]

- You played KotOR 7 times
- Not every game must be like ArmA2
- You haven't played TW2

But those are valid points

EDIT:

I'm a fonboy of the 'review'

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Stop putting quotes around review, you damn potatos. This bears repeating.

Had VD & VoD done this with, say, Oblivion, the butthurt wouldn't have been anywhere near as strong and the same people claming that this wasn't a 'review' would be lauding their literary skills to the heavens.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

...

So, what exatly is wrong with the review? Where the negative impressions are false and what positive impressions are lacking?

Look into my previous posts for details, my good friend. I am not about to repeat myself 20 times just for your convenience. I will only say here that the "review" does not fulfill the requirements of the journalistic genre to be called as such.

You mean this?

One more thing - your conclusion. This was actually the most well-written part of the whole review. But, why on earth was it so inconsistent with the rest of the content? If all the threads you pulled simply led to the conclusion that, as you written, TW 2 is a good game, but not an RPG you would have saved the validity of your article. Hell, if you said that TW 2 was shit that would have been more honest. As it is you spent something like 70% of review sniding at some features (which I recognise as quite legitimate) and 30% on praising some aspects. The hell a reader can infer that TW 2 is any good, I have no clue.

It seems that your problem is that you think that if someone lists lots of flaws of a game, it can't be a playable game. When I read a review I want to know if the game will satisfy my :monocle: tastes, not if it's playable.
Almost any game is playable. It's not some special achievement.
They wrote that the game looks great and is worth playing, but I shouldn't expect anything special when it comes to game mechanics, which is an important information for me. Also, it gives a good image of how game works, which is also important.
All of these make it a much better review than most all the reviews that I've read in paper gaming magazines where even a critical review will usually fail to say how does a game play.

If you like great graphics and the Witcher setting and have a good rig and too much time and money then why not buy it basing on this review?

 

[Excidium]

Stop putting quotes around review, you damn potatos. This bears repeating.

Had VD & VoD done this with, say, Oblivion, the butthurt wouldn't have been anywhere near as strong and the same people claming that this wasn't a 'review' would be lauding their literary skills to the heavens.

True.

"Somebody is not treating my video game national pride with the respect it deserves!"

 

[Brother None]

Codex sure got good at trolling itself.