The Witcher 2: Assassin of Overwraught Design and Pretentious Difficulty - User Reviews -
Switch Lights

The lights are on

What's Happening

The Witcher 2: Assassin of Overwraught Design and Pretentious Difficulty

Never let it be said that I won't be honest about a game in a review. If you didn't grasp from my first review, of Uncharted 2, I take after Zero Punctuation, in that I don't give a crap about what people say in response. This is my opinion, I may make jokes or odd observations, I may be unsettling in how much I dislike a game, and even my most liked ones will get criticized for flaws. I won't, however, try to curse every thirty seconds, so at least you've got that on your side.

Anyway, Witcher 2. I'd like to say I beat the game but actually I didn't. If a game can't get me interested within five hours of playing, and I know I could enjoy better types of the same mechanics elsewhere, I won't keep on trying to find enjoyment. In this case, Arkham Asylum, Darksiders, The Force Unleashed II, KotOR 2, and Mass Effect all offer better alternatives for, in the same order as the games: on-the-ball reflex tactics, battles requiring planning and thinking, creative abilities and opponents to use them against, epic storylines, moral choices.

It should be noted however that the reason it took so long to get this review was by memorizing all the buttons and things you can use. Apparently there is some rule that most games from Eastern Europe have to be difficult, as this, like Death to Spies, and Crytek's Warface, is a game made to be difficult, but not in any fun ways.

I realize GI's reviewers have claimed the slow dodging mechanic to not be a bad thing -- but it actually is. It's like Geralt has no sense of direction. His sword swings work fine but even they seem to move slowly. Also, there's a pause-and-play option but it only slows things down. So in other words, someone finally figured out how to stick bullet-time in an RPG....

The story felt pretty standard, all things considered. Most of the universe felt very generic medieval, and the characters didn't convey themselves that well or make themselves in any way appealing. Triss was immediately more of an annoyance than a help, Geralt complains a good bit but apparently doing that in a gravelly voice means you don't get branded the same way Red Faction Armageddon's protagonist was. The sequel supposedly is a great entry point, but for the most part I felt like I was missing a great deal of what had happened in the last game. However, I had heard the last game was even more tedious, so I was stuck either feeling lost in this game or frustrated by the first one -- this is not how to make someone feel welcome, CD Projekt RED (also, quite a mouthful for a studio name, don't you think? How about we drop either the CD or the Projekt?).

Navigating the levels feels like an awkward mix between Arkham Asylum and Dragon Age. Also, there are certain moments where the game tries to freshen gameplay, but for the most part the mechanics aren't that interesting. Fist-fighting has no lasting appeal (especially when compared to Mafia II's brilliant melee combat), targeting medieval weaponry feels even more one-note, and attempts at make the player feel like they're platforming are just boring.

So in reality, we have a very average RPG game with mechanics and story hindered by how "mature" and "intelligent" it's supposed to be. You know what game required some intelligence to make it through? Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II. And I'd say it's mechanics were rather simple by comparison, but still, more of a challenge.

That's about all I have to say, so summon the flameshield because you know some dunce is going to come along and half-heartedly tell me I'm wrong without giving an argument or any valid reason other than that their opinion differs!

  • Never played the game but your review intrigued me. Why did you give it an 8.75 out of 10 if you saw so many flaws and didn't find the game worth playing the whole way through. I mostly read the reviews because I like to know more about the games that I have never played in case one comes a long that makes me want to buy it.
  • I'm not going to flame you, but I think reviewing a game without finishing just completely discredits your opinion. If you don't complete a game just don't write the review.

  • So you didn't even finish the game and you feel yourself fit to review it? What a joke. This, buddy, is why you will never have the tiniest, slightest chance of ever becoming a professional game reviewer, if that happened to be any kind of dream of yours.

    Now I've never played this game, but just from how you are touting yourself in this 'review', I can tell that it's useless and nonsensical. Oh, would you think that this is unfair since I did not read your entire review? I genuinely hope you would, because it would be truly ironic.

    I am not normally harsh, and I am not even necessarily a fan of this game, I just don't have any respect whatsoever to people that make a long-winded review about a game they didn't even f***ing complete.

    Since you haven't actually played this game through, your opinion is useless to anyone actually trying to find out whether this game is worth purchasing or noteworthy because you haven't even played it yourself.

    It would be like if I played through the first stage of Super Mario Bros, and wrote a review giving the game a 6, because I felt the enemies were not very diverse, the platforming was easy, there were a lack of powerups, and the graphics were bad.

    If you find a game too boring to finish (or, more accurately, do not have the self control to play through a part you mildly disliked), then don't review it. Your review is literally a waste of time to anyone reading it. I am glad, at least, that you made it clear early in your review that you didn't play through the game, saving me the time from reading the rest.