The Witcher 2 - More good than bad.

[Zhukov]

So... The Witcher 2: Awkward Subtitle, an action-RPG game by a Polish studio called CDProject. Sequel to The Witcher, in case that wasn't obvious.

I actually want to give a positive impression with this post, so I'll get the bad stuff out of the way now:

The story is very average by video game standards. Which means it's garbage by the standards of other media. The voice acting is rather lacklustre, not bad exactly, but decidedly flat. The supporting characters are nothing special. Although some of them show a bit of promise so I suppose there's hope yet.

Then there's the main character... eaarg. Yeah. See, in The Witcher 2 you play a pre-made character, a fellow name Geralt. This is not an inherently bad thing, I have no problem playing as a set character.

Thing is, Geralt is the most blatant Mary Sue I have seen in quite some time. He's a tough, cynical badass with platinum hair and exotic eyes (gold with feline pupils in case you were wondering) who travels the world slaying monsters while being constantly pursued by amorous women. Also, he's an amnesiac with a tragic past. Oh yeah, and he has a slash scar across one eye, because apparently the developers were working off some sort of cliche checklist. His one saving grace is that he's generally a fairly nice guy.

Okay, now that's out of my system, the good stuff:

The combat. At it's core you have a fairly standard third-person hack-and-slasher. Light attack, heavy attack, parry, dodge etc. Behind that you have some nice robust RPG elements that boost your stats and give extra abilities. And around the edges you have five basic spells (force push, stun trap, flame, charm, shield) and a bevy of thrown weapons, traps and bombs. Lastly, you can get high on... *ahem* buff yourself with an almost worrying amount of potions, oils and incense.

What I really like about this is that none of the various elements feel secondary or useless. Instead, they all complement each other nicely. For example, at one point I was having a great deal of trouble with a big ol' bug monster. After an embarrassing number of failures I tried a different approach. I geared up on incendiary bombs, dipped my sword in poison, lay out a half dozen snare traps and slurped a few potions. Success ensued.

The environments. Oh good God, the environments. They are gorgeous. They are detailed. It would probably be an exaggeration to say they are the best I have ever seen, after all, the Bioshock games and Metro 2033 still exist. But The Witcher 2 is certainly up there. Suffice to say, an early area features a small forest and I was more than happy to explore said forest purely based on how pretty and detailed it was. Not many games can achieve that.

The setting. Well... it's a sword & sorcery game. Set in medieval Europe. With monsters. And dwarves who like mining. And elves who like forests. So yeah, we're not exactly staring down the barrel of originality here. However, it's all exceptionally well realized. The forests are leafy (and gorgeous, did I mention that?), the swamps are murky and the towns are bustling and alive.

That last point deserves some elaboration. Here, have a promo video:



When I first watched that I was a bit suspicious. After all, it's marketing. And how many developers don't claim that their digital worlds are vibrant and dynamic and all that? Well, turns out these guys aren't kidding. There are numerous examples of the detail that has been put into this game.

The one failure in this department is the NPC conversation. They have that Bethesda problem where you hear them again and again. For example, in the video you saw a guy trying to extort protection fees from a blacksmith. Yeah... I've heard that exchange at least five times while playing.

Lastly, there is, for lack of a better term, the passion. And no, I'm not talking about the sex scenes. Witcher 2 is quite clearly a labour of love. Sure, the people who made it wanted to collect a paycheck, but they wanted to do that by making a really good game. Now, I'm not one to say that passion is all you need (it certainly didn't make the story any better), but it certainly helps and in this case, it shows.

...

OH GOD SO MANY WORDS. I CANT BREATH.

TL;DR:

The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings isn't perfect. It's not even great. It isn't a game I can unconditionally recommend to absolutely anyone. However, it is good. If anything in the above torrent of text has piqued your interest then I would strongly suggest that you look into it.

[Ragdollmaster]

This alone piqued my interest: http://www.ign.com/videos/2011/05/18/th ... at-montage

Combat appears to be very fluid and looks nice, like Assassin's Creed, but unlike Assassin's Creed doesn't seem to be retarded (ie only one enemy coming at you at one time and that one enemy being extremely slow-witted)

So yeah, that video as well as your relatively positive review have been enlightening: I'd never even heard of this game before. I might get it for PS3, but the release dates for the console versions haven't been announced yet; for some reason, PC got an early release. Oh well

[rudel_ic]

The voice acting is also pretty good, and the dialogue in general is very detailed and rich.

[Renegade_Turner]

It's downloading as I speak. 9.0 out of about 500 user reviews on Metacritic. And 9.2 out of the 13 critics. I'm excited.

[Zhukov]

9.0 out of about 500 user reviews on Metacritic.

Whoa. It's like a ten pride parade.

In fact, I can't help but find it a wee bit suspicious.

Eh, maybe I'm being overly cynical. I don't really trust the Metacritic method anymore, not since the Dragon Age 2 and Portal 2 incidents.

[Freshbite]

I don't really trust the Metacritic method anymore, not since the Dragon Age 2 and Portal 2 incidents.

Well, Portal 2's highly doubtful score it had the first few days were soon enough evened out, I'm sure that if The Witcher 2 is nothing more than what you describe it as, it will also be balanced shortly after the wave of "first glance" raters.

[kehaar]

I really like the detail in the interiors and the lighting in the Living World video, and this week's Art Asset update from Aubrey was yet another reminder of how awesome OG is going to be.

I'm constantly stunned that they are making OG with 4 or 5 people. I hope they license their engine out for millions to other game companies when it's finished!

[Renegade_Turner]

Hmm...Witcher 2 has stayed at 9.0 and 9.2 for each, but now has 18 critics and 1000 users...I'm guessing it's not the same situation as Portal 2. Besides, shitty games get reviewed shittily even on Metacritic...observe Dragon Age II's user score: http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dragon-age-ii

Seems about right, considering it took me about 4 hours to realise I didn't want to play Dragon Age II anymore. So mind-numbingly boring was my experience.

Suffice to say, I'd trust the combined opinions of hundreds of people on Metacritic over your review, regardless of how well written it was. And that's not me being insulting, that's just me acknowledging the law of large numbers.

[Zhukov]

Suffice to say, I'd trust the combined opinions of hundreds of people on Metacritic over your review, regardless of how well written it was. And that's not me being insulting, that's just me acknowledging the law of large numbers.

No no, that's fair enough. It would be a bit silly to just accept the opinion of one idiot on the internet. Even if that idiot is me.

Thing is, I'm not sure that accepting the opinion of 1000 idiots on the internet is any better. I don't think that the kind of person who signs up to post user reviews on Metacritic is the kind of person I want to listen to.

Or maybe I'm just bitter because I actually enjoyed Dragon Age 2. Despite the narrative being a mess. And the reused environments.

[Renegade_Turner]

Thing is, I'm not sure that accepting the opinion of 1000 idiots on the internet is any better. I don't think that the kind of person who signs up to post user reviews on Metacritic is the kind of person I want to listen to.

Or maybe I'm just bitter because I actually enjoyed Dragon Age 2. Despite the narrative being a mess. And the reused environments.

Wow, sounds a bit umm...rightist. Like W. B. Yeats saying that only intelligent people should be allowed to vote...he was considered to be an intelligent person of high character, and he turned out to be a paedophile. Anyway!

I figure that the most reliable opinion to listen to is the aggregate opinion of the masses.

These are my bases:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-origins
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-ii

Those user scores sound about right.

Note that I'm not saying that something receiving 90 out of 100 from 1000 user reviews means that I'm definitely going to like it. I'm saying it means that the average person is more likely to like it than something which has received 40 out of 100 from 1000 user reviews.

[Endoperez]

Wow, sounds a bit umm...rightist. Like W. B. Yeats saying that only intelligent people should be allowed to vote...he was considered to be an intelligent person of high character, and he turned out to be a paedophile. Anyway!


I figure that the most reliable opinion to listen to is the aggregate opinion of the masses.

Wow, that sounds a bit like implying all rightists have a faulty character.


Aggregate opinion only works on relative matters, and not always on them either. There are many things the general populace doesn't care about, and many things the general populace is mistaken about.
For example, Wikipedia tends to update some articles very, very slowly on some matters. For example, while marids are shown as genies or ocean spirits in Dungeons and Dragons, Magic: The Gathering and so on, they're not that in Arabic folklore. It's been years and the article hasn't been updated; it has only gotten the "contested" tag.

[Renegade_Turner]

Wow, that sounds a bit like implying all rightists have a faulty character.

Yes...yes it does, doesn't it? *Cough*

Aggregate opinion only works on relative matters, and not always on them either. There are many things the general populace doesn't care about, and many things the general populace is mistaken about.
For example, Wikipedia tends to update some articles very, very slowly on some matters. For example, while marids are shown as genies or ocean spirits in Dungeons and Dragons, Magic: The Gathering and so on, they're not that in Arabic folklore. It's been years and the article hasn't been updated; it has only gotten the "contested" tag.

I'm sorry, but to me that sounds like what you're trying to tell me is that aggregate opinions won't be useful if we're considering things that I will never give a fuck about, and which the general populace doesn't give a fuck about. While we're talking about things on Metacritic, however, which means giving opinions on things you've seen or played or listened to, they're generally quite useful.

You basically said that sometimes there can be misconceptions about things on Wikipedia, and that it's not perfectly reliable factually. However, what we're talking about here is opinions on whether or not something is of good quality. Your point doesn't apply here.

[Count Roland]

Democracy's a joke.

[Endoperez]

You basically said that sometimes there can be misconceptions about things on Wikipedia, and that it's not perfectly reliable factually. However, what we're talking about here is opinions on whether or not something is of good quality. Your point doesn't apply here.

I did mention aggregate opinions work on relative matters. I meant things like reviews and opinions and whether or not something is enjoyable, as opposed to objectively measurable things, such as facts and statistics and such. Metacritic is fine for opinions about how enjoyable a game is.

I used wikipedia as an example to demonstrate my point, just as you used Yeats to demonstrate yours.

[Renegade_Turner]

Well, I'm Irish and I'm a misanthrope, I couldn't resist referencing that fascist prick.

Point taken and agreed with anyway, taking popular opinion as fact is a dangerous game when it comes to matters where facts are important...earth once being thought to be round and all that jazz. Misconceptions of the truth are where your point is relevant...but again, law of large numbers would indicate that MOST of the time what MOST people think is a fact is actually MOST LIKELY to be a fact...GENERALLY speaking...MOST of the time...ON AVERAGE...would you agree? Sorry for seeming like a twat but I really had to stress the words which I capitalised.