Vault Dweller said:
Character system - poorly designed, disconnected from the combat system, can play the game without it
Combat - poor man's action game
Quests - probably the weakest aspect of the game, very poor design
Alchemy & Crafting - mediocre
Items distribution - godawful
Dialogue skills - max at 3, completely optional, don't affect anything
Effect of skills (what skills?) on gameplay - zero
Choices & consequences - linear, most choices are meaningless, very few choices have affect on gameplay, very DA2, never in control, zero freedom.
Setting & characters - very good to excellent
Graphics - superb
In my mind, this is a pretty accurate description of The Witcher 2's features and their flaws/merits. I'm still a bit miffed though. I mean, the comparison between TW2 and DA2 is pretty much fucking spot on IF, and only IF you accept that each of the above listed features in, or parts of, the game, can be analyzed seperately. But while VD and VoD claim the game has a strong similarity to DA2, the review also claims that TW2 is more than the sum of its parts. Hell, VD even said it himself in the comment-thread of BN's review:
Vault Dweller said:
Black_Willow said:
Shame that for VD picking different rewards for completing quests (weapons, skills etc) are the only gameplay affecting C&Cs.
And where exactly did I say that?
You want an example of a gameplay affecting choice in the Witcher's context? How about:
If you trigger the pogrom, your dwarven buddy will die unless you manage to save him. There. Not some meaningless no-name non-human scum, but a key-fucking-character with whom you have a relationship
If I may be so bold as to re-phrase the point VD makes here, it is that context determines the weight and import of C&C (at least in this instance). I.e. dwarf we care about > than dwarf we don't care about, to which it follows that light consequences to content we care about are better than light consequences to content we DO NOT care about. And if we agree that the setting and characters of TW2 are,
in VD's own words, "very good to excellent" compared to DA2's very bad to mediocre (those are my words, mind), then the fact that your choices impact (lightly or no) "very good to excellent" stuff in and of itself raises the C&C above that of DA2. I.e. while the consequences in TW2 might be as light as those in DA2, they are still better when you take context into consideration. Unless of course, VD holds that DA2's setting and characters are 'very good to excellent'. I'm sure he'll correct me if he does, but for the purposes of argument I'll continue as if he doesn't. Summa summarum, TW2 is better than DA2, because its strong points makes its weak points stronger than DA2's weak points.
So here is my question: Why is VD (and if he agrees with VD in this, VoD too) so hellbent on the DA2 comparison? I loathe DA2, but thought TW2 was a good game which had some major defuncts. Why is my opinion important to this argument? Because I agree with VD and VoD in everything in their line of arguments - I just don't seem to come to the same conclusion for some reason. If I interpret VD's comments correctly I'm having a hard time figuring out how exactly TW2 is so similar to DA2.
The majority of its parts might be - but its sum is not at all. Or, put differently, I agree with VD's analysis of the parts of TW2, but I'm not sure we find common ground as for the sum.
Conclusion: The fact that this question even jumps to mind makes me think of the review thusly: though it is fucking hilarious and, in my mind,
very accurate in describing the parts of the game it explores, it fails to confer to the reader the opinion of its authors completely and without question. Even after reading ten pages of discussion on the subject I have no idea what our lovely duo of game-reviewers (who are among the truest of bros - no mistake there!) actually think of the fucking game.
That is all.
PS. The above is pretty much my single criticism of the review. No matter what, it's a fuckton better than average game-journalism and, as I said, it is pretty accurate and thoughrough in describing the flaws of the game.