Company
Genre
Format
Did anyone tell Polish developer CD Projekt to stop making roleplaying games about a scarred old man in leather trousers? If so, it was in vain. The Witcher 2 is unapologetically faithful to the 2007 original and its hoary protagonist, eager depiction of sex, and morally bleak fantasy world.
The studio did, however, appear to take some notes: The Witcher 2 hasn’t had any dialogue hacked out of it at the last minute, there are no obvious mistranslations, and you’re not rewarded for bedding women with a sad collectible card of their breasts. A new engine shows a much more sumptuous world, but at the expense of performance on middling PCs.
The obstacles between you and the fascinating RPG CD Projekt keeps threatening to make are fewer and more forgivable. But the game is still agonisingly slow to get to the good stuff, and its remaining problems are at their worst during the least interesting content.
The opening three hours are spent establishing the character of King Foltest in flashbacks, a device which is necessary for the reason establishing him isn’t: he’s dead. His traits – a man of the people, experienced soldier and philanderer – are illustrated at the expense of giving the player anything more interesting to do than a string of irrelevant fights and QTEs.
It also establishes the main frustrations that’ll be accompanying you throughout. The revised combat system is a standard combination of light and heavy attacks, dodges and blocks, but any convenience that simplicity might have offered is crippled by a maddeningly erratic targeting system. In a game where your target determines which direction you’ll dive when you dodge, or leap when you attack, being unable to switch to the right enemy is often fatal.
It’s exacerbated by the strange decision to lock off all combat conveniences for the first eight levels or so. Your sword won’t damage enemies it passes through, except the targeted one, until you’re allowed to buy that ability with a talent point. You can block only a couple of times per fight until you can upgrade your Vigor stat. You take devastating damage from rear attacks until you access a trait that reduces it, which would be fair if your orientation wasn’t at the mercy of the targeting system.
Comments
786 my arse.
Yeah, i agree.
I went out my my way to make an account just to say this review is a pile of crap. I picked up the edge magazine this article was featured in a few days ago as i hadn't picked up edge in awhile and was absolutely amazed it got a 6.\
I could understand it if it was for a game like Lord of the rings: Aragorn's quest, or the latest harry potter game released, but witcher 2? a 6? really?
I could understand 7 or 8 out of 10 but a 6 is just showing a lack of any sort of understanding of what a good and a bad game is for a magazine such as this. This isn't about opinion, this is just a fully inaccurate and misleading review, and since most readers, or at least myself, read for accurate and fair reviews to help decide if a game is worth getting, this tells me that accuracy and fairness isn't what edge is about. just fringe opinion based writing. I've played Witcher 2 almost all the way through and 6/10 is just stupid, bad, inaccurate, and misleading reviewing. Never buying Edge again.
And to the writer: take a break from playing games, i think you are burned out. I saw your 6/10 for infamous 2 as well.
I also went out of my way to make an account...found this site off of a real gaming website: Gamespot. I didn't think it was real at first...but apparently it is. A 6? I've seen many great games get bad reviews...and many bad games get great reviews...but this tops them all. It's not even remotely close to what the rest of the world rated it.
Its tutorial takes place in the middle of a siege...a siege that starts off with a naked redhead...a siege that goes on to let you explore a siege tower...and a siege that's interrupted by a huge freaking dragon. Starts off slow? Hah...this game's like a Ferrari when it comes to starting out. What a steamy pile of (Use your imagination) review.
LOL
A slow start, are you ploughing me? The prologue is set at a absolutely breakneck pace! A castle siege is a bombastic way to kick things off, and it really works hard at establishing your connection to the doomed king. Yes, combat is somewhat flawed and there are control issues - but what of the excellent script and voice work? The dialogue has elicited many genuine guffaws from me and the artistry on display in areas like Flotsam is breathtaking. Despite the almost ruinous boss fights, this is much closer to an 8 at least.
LOL - And so it is, Edge have to be the guy's to give the game a poor review, so they (in their twisted minds) can look like they have better taste than anyone else, well guess what... it's had the opposite effect!
They gave Crysis (a game all high end cards are yet to play on high settings) a 9 and this a 6? What? Crysis was unplayable at the time, and now a 6 for this brilliant game? Get off your arses guys and have a think about what direction you want the magazine to go in, as at the moment its diving into the ground and through to the pits of hell!
Haha careful what you say about Crysis. Opinionated might hear you ;D
But I pretty much agree with what you said haha
6 is very surprising...
Pretty much what I was expecting. If anybody saw yesterday's CDPR streamed event, there was an hint to Edge... I lol'd so hard :)
6 seems about bang on, to be honest. The amount of fanboy nonesense this sequel has garnered seemes to be have come out of nowhere...Get over yourselves.
get out... no leave your bags, just go!
You've won this argument through sheer skill. Well done.
Disagreeing with one reviewer's opinion is legit, but asserting that the magazine is merely taking a contrary position to others for the sake of it is as daft as it is hopelessly speculative.
I haven't played either this or the prequel, but I'll be interested to see how the general perception of this title pans out over time. Particularly in light of the recently announced Xbox360 version, which might correct the control issues.
The Witcher isn't prequel... it's the first game. A prequel is "a work that supplements a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting.". As there were no other games in the Witcher series at the time of the first, it can't be called a prequel.
If the next Witcher was based before the events of the first then it would be a prequel... just saying....
Thanks for that.
This is probably the most unbalanced review of this game I've ever seen. I couldn't care less about the final score, but I do care about whether a highly visible review at least gives a fair analysis of a game which can only be described as a labor of love from its maker, regardless of the final verdict. Here we having instead someone who decided to hate the game before even picking it up, as evidenced in the numerous comments reflecting the reviewer's hatred for the main character (take the opening paragraph as an example). That's not what game journalism is about. This person didn't review the game. He decided to hate it, then searched for ways to justify that hatred while ignoring absolutely everything positive about the game. Even the most negative review must acknowledge the source of the opinion. This reviewer tries to pin his dislike for Geralt on the developers, as if they did an objectively bad job with the character--witness the pompous first sentence of the review--rather than honestly admitting that he simply doesn't like the character. He tries to make his personal biases have universal relevance, and they don't.
I'm not usually one to care about a dissenting opinion in a review, but in this case the reviewer simply doesn't seem appropriate for the job at hand. He seems too biased against the game by its nature. This review was exceptionally negative with almost no mention of the many positives this game has. Give it a 6 if you want, but that doesn't mean it's okay to ignore the many ways in which this game does excel. Any review, no matter what the final score happens to be, needs to be balanced, and this one wasn't.
Paraphrase please. Not reading that wall of shit.
Are you talking to me? The wall of text isn't my fault. The comment system here removes newlines. There were plenty of newlines in what I actually typed. A quick summary is that this reviewer seems like he hated the game before he played it, as evidenced in the first paragraph of this review, where he pompously implies that nobody would want to play as Geralt. It seems that the reviewer just hates the character of Geralt and let that spoil his experience with the entire game.
So you're suggesting the reviewer should not take into consideration the things he doesn't like and should give the game a better mark despite the fact that there are lots of things he doesn't like?
No, that's not even close to what I'm suggesting. I didn't even complain about the score. If he wants to give it a six, then whatever. I'm suggesting the review should be balanced. No final score, whether it's a 1 or a 6 or a 10, justifies shoddy journalism. A review is not a dumping ground for low-level hatred; it's a place for high-level reflection and analysis. I would really appreciate it if you could address me in a less condescending tone and take more care in reading what I wrote carefully if you want to discuss this with me. You first refer to what I wrote as a "wall of shit," even though it's no fault of mine that this website disallows paragraph breaks in comments, and then you drastically simplify what I wrote into some amusing straw man.
However, all that said, I am suggesting that a reviewer should put aside prior biases when reviewing a new game. There's no point in conducting a review if you've decided you're going to hate the game before touching it. In that case, don't waste your time playing the game; just post the score and be done with it, as nothing else matters. The result will obviously be unbalanced, so there's no need to write anything down. And that is clearly the case with this reviewer, who proudly announces that his dislike for something as basic as the central character long preceded the existence of this game. The review should not focus on something unrelated to the game, like the fact that [some Edge employee] doesn't like pale-skinned and white-haired middle-aged men. The review should rather focus on whether the game successfully conveys Geralt's character, whether his voice acting is up to par, whether the conversations allow you to shape his dialogue well, whether his character develops over the course of the game or remains static, how deeply his personality is defined by the story, and so on.
[Line break!] In short, a reviewer is certainly allowed to have personal biases, but it's incredibly important for the reviewer to write clearly so that the reader can tell what is merely bias and what is an actual flaw with the game. This reviewer heavily mixes pre-existing bias with some low-level complaining about various areas of the game, never attempting to distinguish between his own biases and the game's faults. In short, he doesn't review the game. He just reaffirms personal hatreds. This is the classic error that I would expect freshmen writing students to make.
If you like the game why does it bother you so much that somebody else doesn't? Clearly you weren't depending on the review so who cares? Reviews are 100% personal opinion.
Why would the fact that I like the game justify poor writing?
It's nothing to do with poor writing, you're annoyed because the review doesn't coincide with your opinion. Get over it.
It's everything to do with poor writing. You're annoyed because I actually have legitimate objections to the review. Get over it.
Why are you so offended that someone would think this review is poorly written? If you like the review why does it bother you so much that somebody else doesn't? What do you think this comment section exists for? It exists for people to comment on the review, and that is exactly what I've done. I think you're more bothered by my objection to the review than I am by the review itself. The most amusing thing is that in critiquing me you are doing exactly what I have done to this review, and thereby your critique applies to yourself. Comments are 100% personal opinion. So I repeat your own advice: Get over it. I think this review sounds like it was written by a flunking freshman English student, and you'll have to live with that verdict from me.
I'm not offended or annoyed at all, I couldn't care less what they gave it. I like the game and that's enough for me. And I'm not the one writing huge blocks of ranting. I await your rants on how bad the reviews are when you have the same opinion as the review, if it's only the poor writing that's the problem.
You don't seem to have understood my post: you're annoyed at what *I'm* writing, just as I was annoyed by this review. Your insistence on a point disproved stands in contrast to your contention that you are neither offended nor annoyed by my comment. You've criticized my comment just as I criticized the review, failing to realize that your critique of me thereby applies equally well to yourself. Let me make that even clearer: I posted my opinion, which happened to be disagreement with another opinion in the form of a review. You then disagreed with my post. Surely you now see how you are guilty of precisely the same crime that I am. And it will please you to know that I have criticized positive reviews of games I like as well. I find many previews unbearable due to their mindless positive outlook, even if I've already played the game and enjoyed it. It is absolutely a problem with the writing, not the score, and it's downright funny how you find that unbelievable.
The only funny thing, apart from the fact that that you think I would be annoyed by your opinion. is that your opinion is an attempt to demonstrate objectively that the opinion of another is wrong. Your first comments don't criticise writing at all, they criticise opinions - bias and 'low level criticism' whatever that is. These are not issues with poor writing, they are issues with opinion, wherever the reviewer may have got them from. If you don't agree with them, fine, neither do I. But if you think that somehow reviewers should conform to some universal standard then you might as well go away and play Killzone 2. I hear it's wonderful.
Riight, you're repeatedly checking this thread multiple times a day because you're not annoyed one bit. You referred to what I wrote as a "wall of shit" because you're not annoyed one bit. You wrote that big block of text, filled to the brim with an unfriendly tone, because you're not annoyed one bit. Your lack of self-awareness is adorable. And, of course, I never attempted once to demonstrate that some other person's opinion was wrong. To the contrary, I wrote several times that the reviewer is more than welcome to give the game a 6. He can give it a 0 for all I care. I read the words in a review and pay almost no attention to the final score. Most humorous of all is that you have objected far, far more to my opinion than I ever objected to the reviewer's opinion. In fact, I didn't object the reviewer's opinion at all. It's adorable that you think telling me to play a game is going to be an effective insult. You know what? You can go play a game too! Take that! In seriousness, though, why are you even bothering to go on with this conversation? Every single retort you've made against me has been a laughably weak strawman, and you've revealed yourself to have as much angst as you're accusing me of having. By caring so goddamn much that someone thinks this review was poorly written, you've brought yourself down to my level. I'm perfectly happy down here at this level, where people actually use the comments section to comment on a review, but you're clearly not.
Lol, here I am again following you around because my life is so empty without you! Anyway, I put a thread on the forum if you want to extract some of the more salient ideas from your walls of shit and discuss them with the other forumites who don't generally wander out here. Some of them might even agree with you.
WTF? Game scores are comparisons. A six places Witcher 2 down the mediocre end of PC RPGs! If a game is a true 6 you would be wasting your money to buy it, because its mediocre, like Dungeons and Dragons Daggerdale, like Hunted, like Blink, Like Fable 3, Like Dragon Age 2....Like every game that ever came out of the UK.The content is not interesting? The game is obsessed with leather pants? These are ISSUES? This is the substance of the game and problems with it???? Wow. That's the 3rd 6 from a UK publication, after 5 scores of 100 from various other pro firms, and more than 20+ 90 + scores from all over, the 3rd UK team that called this game a 6??????? You think this is a game to be avoided, because it is that bad? And dissent is fanboy nonsense? 'Your sword won't damage enemies it passes through...' (Boo Hoo Hoo?) The problem with the combat system in the UK apparently is that UK reviewers (and only UK reviewers) dont have the requistite 40 IQ needed to learn how the combat system works. precisely why the Brits are so totally fucked in the head and incompetent at this simple basic manual task is not clear ,perhaps a result of education under the government of Tony Blair. Lets hope Edge reviewers join their beer-adled friends at Destructoid and STAY on the ALE, enjoying plenty of Fable 3, or whatever shit it is they think is 10/10. You can add this publication to the list of obese drunken UK morons that sink slowly into irrelevance along with a 'nation'.once envied and emulated, now gone to the dogs and the new demographics. LOL. And wait in vain, for any game from the UK to ever rate a true 5/10. let alone these nonsense ones these turds are posting these days. Was it the Tolkein joke that annoyed them? He was actually South African, for what its worth.......Paraphrase please 'I'm from the UK, an arrogant turd in a 'nation' declining into terminal irrelevance!' Yeah the rest of us noticed. Troll away morons! The game indeed is not perfect, but throwing 6s is nothing more than arrogance, the commentary little more than insolence, and the reviewer nothing other than INCOMPETENT. The Witcher 2 is a flawed masterpiece. If you forgive the flaws it scores over 9, if you dont its high 80s on passion and world-creating merit alone. A 6 from another talentless, passionless UK FUCK is insulting. Thankgod the coming economic storm will put all these wothless morons out of work, its time, at last, for the brits to go to the salt mines. That's where this fool belongs.
Are you not from the UK then?
fwiw, 6 is harsh. I'd have said it's an 8. It's good. Drove me nuts for the first hour or two but we've become friends now. Some of the comments about the combat system are spot on but no slating of the totally bizarre option to play the prologue out of sequence, the obsession with robbing houses no matter if the owners are there or not, and the useless tutorial prompts that disappear before you've had a chance to read them? Just that little bit of extra QA would have made this brilliant. It's got to be said though, we Brits like our production values and we can get mighty uppity if things have rough edges.
Orctowngrot - thanks for taking the time to comment on the review. By all means, feel free to communicate your displeasure at our opinions, but please keep in mind that racism, in any form whatsoever, will not be tolerated here. Let's try to keep things friendly, eh?
He's right, though. Brits are stupid. And probably gay too. And drink too much tea.
@Kow I am guilty, in varying degrees, of all of those things.
Thank you for your good manners in the face of my bad ones. I'm not anti Brit actually. Hardly ever meet a Brit you can't like (this is true). and your good form in response to my trolling proves it again. But i am mystified as to why all the low scores are coming from the UK......Of course cursing the UK isnt racist, I'm British by mixed descent (Irish, Anglo, Welsh, Jew), its culturalist. Thanks again for your good manners, and I will mind my Ps and Qs (also keep my fat arse away from the ale)
@orctowngrot - good, good, thanks for understanding. It'll be a much nicer place to discuss our differing points of view if we can avoid name calling. As for the low UK scores, must just be a cultural difference in taste. As long as you enjoyed playing the game (and if you really read our review, you'll see we had far from a bad time with it), then that's all that matters :-)
What? You really saying you actually enjoyed it and if we read the review we can see that? Well read the review and that's nonsense...
With all due respect, have you read the review yourself? This review does not in any way suggest that "we had far from a bad time with it." It's pretty much the most negative review published on the game from a professional source.
He's not being racist! I am from the UK but didnt take offence to his comments! I take more offence from your review! Yes the targeting system needs work etc, but the review smacks of bias against the dev and game. Now THATS offensive!
Add Edge magazine gave that awful abortion 'Sims medieval' a 7, which is a neat point of comparison, different reviewer perchance, but same fixation on pleasing the advertising power of EA, and indifference to what might be called 'The Truth'. Seems like EA can not only buy hyped BS for its own titles, but buy, deceitful attacks on it rivals. Shame Edge! As if any of your reviews play and enjoy Sims medieval! Of course you dont its 2/10 CRAP! But let's not mock EA, they pay such good dollar every month to buy banners and our SOULS!
Stay out here, ok?
orctowngrot - please join our burgeoning new forum. It would benefit immensely from some of your non-British 'spunk'.
Did you not hear what I said?
For the record, Edge is also responsible for giving The Witcher 1 its lowest recorded score (on metacritic at least) of 50. I don't know if the same person wrote both reviews, but it seems Edge has had the harshest review out of all critics for both The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 2. Interesting.
hey octobot, come to the forum- WE NEED YOU.
Shit, I can't post a picture of a big spider web.
I had to create an account to write how much I absolutely dispise this review. ALMOST the entire review is about the combat system, at least it seems like he only played the first 10 hrs and just gave up. If he has legitimate issues or knew what he was talking about I would except it but clearly this is not the case. Let me say that the Witcher 2 goes where no other RPG would dare to go and succeds brilliantly. Which RPG will show you this kind of RAW concequence for your actions and not JUDGE you upon what is right or wrong. Think of any? No? I thought not. Fallout 3 got higher score than this...WHY!? It was so bland and had horrible nagging issues that persisted throughout the game. Not one place did you go to in Fallout 3 that displayed any sort of atmosphere compared to Witcher 2. The Witcher 2 has people hustling and bustling in a busy part of town or will have people run out of rain days. Your actions had real impact and flow, whereas Fallout just told you that what you did was not the right thing to do...Oh I'm sorry I didn't know the game had GOD as your overseer. I have no respect for this reviewer at all, he doesn't know how to do his job.
I'm sorry but if you are going to do a review at least have the decency to tell us WHY you actually didn't think the game deserved it.
While i disagree with the review on many points, particularly on a score that might disparage people from buying what i think is a great game made with incredible passion from a relatively low profile team, i'm not very happy with some of the responses to this review either, are some of you still in primary school? Anyways, review seemed rather unfocussed and completely skipped over things that could actually deeply entice a reader to invest in the game, bit of a letdown when this game, to me, deserves so much more
Your comment is badly written and full of biased opinion.
Night fever night feveeerr