Zero Punctuation: The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings

Recommended Videos

BodomBeachChild

New member
Nov 12, 2009
338
0
0
Hmm... something about this review seemed different to me. I've been waiting for this review since I am a Witcher and ZP fan, and I loved his review of TW. But this... seemed... so, strange to me. Yeah, I have a lot of problems out the gate with pacing and other bugs (fucking never selects the spell or throwable weapon I want is a big one) and yeah it's a beast to run. But this ZP didn't even seem thought through.
 

Sabinfrost

New member
Mar 2, 2011
174
0
0
It's fun if you like morbid depressing settings, which I do. I think the richness of the game and the fact I grew up on games from a less forgiving, rather uncompromising generation makes it seem far more enjoyable to me. I played through Baldur's Gate as a mage after-all, I can do anything!
 

Kahunaburger

New member
May 6, 2011
4,141
0
0
searanox said:
Kahunaburger said:
I don't agree with this at all. He makes legitimate critiques - the problems he has with this game, for instance, are absolutely problems with the game.
Let's review these complaints, shall we?

1) Yahtzee claims early on that the game requires patching and updating when playing. This is not true. If he bought a retail copy, he would have had to activate the game using SecuROM, otherwise there is no activation and no mandatory patching. The patch that was available on day one took approximately ten seconds for me to download, and was fully optional.

2) Player training isn't handled well. This is kind of true, but I think people overstate it and confuse "learning curve" with "difficulty" and "bad training." The game spams you with pop-ups early on, and that's definitely not the best way of handling things. On the other hand, it takes about 3 seconds to figure out the controls, and the first battle where you're supposed to fight "dozens" of enemies actually requires you to do absolutely nothing, as you'll have just as many allies on your side during that very battle, who are glad to do the heavy lifting and let you figure things out in the background. But then, I guess I can't blame someone for assuming they're going to be Fucking Badass Incarnate at level 1 and ruin all the enemies by diving onto their swords, right?

In truth, I would have added a sparring practice or something to the king's war camp to let players get the basics down, but it still took me all of five minutes to become comfortable with the game's combat.

3) Kind of ties in with the above, but blocking. This is what we call "RTFM", kids. Blocking requires vigor so that you can't just sit there blocking endlessly. If you have no vigor, your block won't work because Geralt is fatigued. While it's a legitimate complaint that the game doesn't do the best job telling you this stuff, it's clearly in the manual as well as in the tutorials found in the journal - and the game makes it quite clear that you should read them the first time through without outright forcing them to. And then if they were forced, people would complain about that!

4) Yahtzee complains about not being able to dodge properly. I... don't know what to say here. I guess he must suck at the game, because Geralt always dodges in the direction I tell him to, and instantly, unless he's been hit. But yeah, sure, let's just ***** about the game not playing itself, how about that?

5) Spell names? Not completely obvious upon looking at them? Have to read the manual? Oh gnoes! How dare my fantasy game not be absolutely 100% generic as shit! Why isn't my game playing itself yet?!

6) Complaining about the different sword types? Really? First off, it's a pretty damn standard component of the lore. Second, it's explained pretty clearly in the game that silver swords have magical properties, and as such are used to fight monsters since they're more sensitive to the metal. Of course, silver is also a weak metal and not useful against armoured human opponents. Complaining about this is about as fucking stupid as complaining that ammunition designed for dealing with soft targets is less effective against armoured ones. Well, at least the game automatically chooses the right sword depending on what type of enemy I'm facing, so I guess it wins points for playing itself a little bit!

7) Drinking potions before combat rather than during it is a pretty obvious design choice and basically comes down to encouraging smart preparation rather than chugging potions while enemies wail on you. It's also more true to the lore, since potions take time to take effect and most of them are useless instantly upon imbibing. But I want my Quik-Heal(TM) button dammit, and nobody better take it away from me!

8) Interface for meditation is hard to understand? Uh? If Yahtzee is confused by four labels written in clear text (Meditate, Character, Drink Potion and Alchemy) then I guess there really is no hope for him. That, or I guess I missed the point where PC mind-reading devices were released and obsoleted all user interfaces. God dammit, why is this game not playing itself?!

9) Tying in with the last, how do you know when battles are going to happen? Gee, how about intuition and common sense? If you were wandering out in the wilderness and saw monsters in the distance, I'd take that as a pretty clear indication of impeding danger, hm? Foreboding-looking cave with strange sounds coming from it? Perfectly normal! Obviously telegraphed pivotal plot point? Now why would I ever expect violence to come out of that? And more importantly, why is my game not playing itself yet? We're nine points in and I'm still waiting!

10) I agree about the interface, in part. It's clearly been designed as a compromise for gamepads, but I didn't find it impacted the usability of things too much. It's easy to figure out how to use weapon upgrades (drag and drop), and while I agree mutagens should have been explained better, that's the only major problem I can really think of interface-wise.

11) See what I said above about writing, but suffice is to say Yahtzee is pretty much ignoring the game's quality on the basis of genre. Which, as we all know, is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Silent Hill 2? Well, it's one of them survival horrors, right? I played one of those, it sucked, ergo, all survival horror games suck. Fall before my flawless logic!

12) On combat: learn to dodge, learn to use crowd control, learn to use bombs, learn to use spells/signs. Oh, right, almost forgot it's supposed to be playing itself! Whew, lucky I caught myself there!

13) On autosaves: I actually agree, more autosaves would have been nice to have before major quest events. Apparently these have been and are being patched in, but I still don't see why Yahtzee seems to look on quicksaving with some sort of disdain.

14) On unskippable cutscenes: that cutscene is skippable, and I don't think he's actually talking about the cutscene right before the fight, but rather, the one prior to that, because the one immediately before facing the boss is very quick. Either way, point invalidated.

So yeah, out of the 14 major complaints Yahtzee addressed here, we've got about 1.5, maybe 2 that are actually legitimate in any way. The rest are either petty and superficial, come as a result of not taking the time to actually learn to play the game or read the manual, or are simple bad logic if not outright hypocritical when put next to things he's previously said. But hey, don't take my word for it, I work at the dick-sucking factory, right Yahtzee? Har har, fuck you too.
Hey, I agree with you on 90% of these - I'm about halfway through the game now, and I think it's one of the best I've ever played. But look at the big picture of what he was saying - Yahtzee isn't alone in finding the game unintuitive or hard to get into. A lot of people (Penny Arcade, notably) had the same problems with getting into it. And the combat is a little weird, although a lot of that was sorted out in patch 1.2. But it's not like these are deal-breakers, and Yahtzee doesn't seem to think they are either. He didn't attack this game as much as he attacks 90% of games haha.

JohnnyDelRay said:
Kahunaburger said:
searanox said:
Yahtzee = petty troll. If he's not bashing PC gaming or Western RPGs, he's making factually incorrect statements and superficial complaints about characters' eyelashes.

Move along, nothing to see here.
I don't agree with this at all. He makes legitimate critiques - the problems he has with this game, for instance, are absolutely problems with the game.
He's right about this:
-Piss-poor player training
-Inventory is a mess
-Upgrades and mutagens are not intuitive

He's wrong about this:
-All cut scenes are skippable
-Combat unfair against groups (once you upgrade Quen and Whirl, you hardly have to do anything but button mash. And then you get group finishers, so yeah.)

Preparing before battle being a pain and the game being too long are just opinions which is entirely fair, as is the game not being fun. Everybody's entitled to these.

Oh, and Geralt has 2 swords because of the lore, silver for monsters and steel for humans. The game doesn't laugh at you if you pull out the wrong one, once you get powerful enough you can use a freaking broom if you want.
I agree with basically all of this, too.

Come to think of it, I think that some of the things some people find weird - silver and iron swords, no potions in combat, dying against groups, the swearing - are examples of http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnrealistic. Of course people in the middle ages used different weapons against different targets (and silver is soft enough to get wrecked against any kind of armor), of course it's hard to drink something while someone's trying to cut your head off, of course it's basically instant death in a swordfight to get surrounded, and of course people in the middle ages used profanity. But they don't jive with the way stuff like this is usually portrayed in fiction, so they throw people off haha.
 

Neural.Rust

New member
May 8, 2008
5
0
0
First things first, I have never, at any time until now, disagreed with yahztee's reviews.
sure, some of his points are relevant, most of them have been fixed in the second patch which makes this review a moot point.

but my response to some of the complaints raised are;

There is so much hatred aimed at this game..
Couldn't figure out how to play? Read the damned Manual,
Couldn't understand the spells? well thats because you Never played the first game properly, Or read the manual.

Had difficulty with combat, this i understand, it was very slow to respond but i got through it by using Traps, Spells, Bombs. all the weapons at my finger tips to win, Now with the new patch gameplay is much more responsive to the point i'm playing through a second time, and having even more of a blast.


the game was a nice change of pace, something that presented a bit of a challenge rather than being completely cake.

very biased, very bad review, and hopefuly i'll never have to say that about a ZP again.
 

BreakdownBoy

New member
Jan 21, 2011
96
0
0
I agree with Yahtzee to an extent. I never finished The Witcher as it just became to bog down with to many useless crap and also seeing clones of everybody all the time, also the cvoice acting sucked. Otherwise it was a cool game with much potential, but was just not polished enough.

The Witcher 2 is not an option seeing as my wife might not take kindly to me having degital sex with an evil elf, also a game that makes it dificult to use basic functions that you are expected to use often is just plain stupid.
 

Pat8u

New member
Apr 7, 2011
767
0
0
tehroc said:
In-ven-tory. In-ven-tory. Not in-Ven-tree.
no its in-ven-tree or in ven tory
ot:Nice review and mods you better lock this thread since its been derailed
 

Frank Cross

New member
Jun 9, 2011
2
0
0
Lots of misinformation in this video. You can skip the Kayran boss fight cutscene, the combat is not that difficult (people are beating it on Insane mode as we speak), the game isn't PC snobbish (it's built from the ground up for consoles), and it's also not any longer than most RPGs.

Sorry Yahtzee, but this video didn't really make me laugh, so all that's left is a poor review of a game that actually tried to do something different in a genre that's growing rapidly dumber with each release.
 

Abriael

New member
Dec 4, 2003
134
0
0
Hey, lookie! Yahtzee knows nothing about gaming, and he doesn't feel good if he doesn't remind us every week :D

Mildly entertaining as usual, inaccurate, unfair and simply an insult to human intelligence as usual.
 

rasblak

New member
Apr 8, 2010
4
0
0
Why does Yahtzee mention the 'mouse and keyboard' bit?
I've been playing mostly with the XBox360 Controller.

IMO some people on The Witcher's production team have a direct line to the "Awe-striking" chord of those of us who held the 486 as the 8th Wonder of the Universe when our 15yr-old minds got sucked into the worlds of the original Prince of Persia, King's Quest, and Golden Axe.

Combat is about making use of the space when outnumbered. I started off literally running around like a pussy to stretch my opponents and not let myself get swarmed. Got better as I started to recall the 'timing' aspect of the gameplay. (CD Projekt, pretty please do not dumb the game down)
 

Hobonicus

New member
Feb 12, 2010
212
0
0
Some of the things Yahtzee said were mildly true, but nowhere near gamebreaking. Most complains though, were ridiculous, arbitrary, and superficial. I wouldn't mind in the least about his gripes if he had actually finished the game, or got to one of the best parts (where you first meet Letho and have to make a extremely important game-changing choice; it happens almost immediately after that boss) but he didn't. It's not that he's simply exaggerating for comedic effect, he clearly did not enjoy the game for reasons are amazingly laughable and downright pathetic.

searanox said:
Definitely one of the best and most detailed comment given so far. It's obvious that you put more thought into this response than Yahtzee could have. Unfortunately these days a lot of gamers seem under the impression that they're junior game developers moonlighting as critics and will take any opportunity to judge a game as objectively as possible on technical design merits.

The Witcher 2 has actually ruined future RPGs for me because of how high it's set the bar in so many areas.
 

Zannah

New member
Jan 27, 2010
1,081
0
0
Kahunaburger said:
The journal is part of the writing. It frequently gives you hints as to where to go in the game. Think the Civipedia. It's also, incidentally, the only in-game journal I can think of that isn't painful to read. I personally didn't find the game impenetrable - it just expects its readers to keep up haha.
If I walk in on a public execution, tense music starts, and I'm expected to interfere, and I then have to open the journal (without any indication that I should do so), to find out who these people are, and why I should care, that's not good storytelling - not to mention that you encounter people several times, and are expected to react to them in a dialogue, without the chance of accessing the journal first.
Videogames, as the name implies, are visual mediums, and therefore operate under "show, don't tell" rules. If a game has to hand me a manual, for it's story to make sense, that's pathetic.

That the first act might as well be titled "Robin Hood 2: The Sheriff joins the KKK", to the point where the forest the scoi'athel live in, is actually called "Sherwaedd", and that Saskia is a better Jeanne d'Arc impersonator, then the one from the actual Jeanne d'Arc game.

This doesn't really make sense either. Could you elaborate?
I actually posted a lengthy rant about that issue a while back -
Basically, there's this civil war thing going on, and this conspiracy, and the player sees both, and personally, I was interested. It wasn't first class writing by any stretch, but pretty atmospheric, and I could imagine having a lot of fun with that story, as a pc-generated char. Unfortunately, I'm forced to play a dude, who doesn't care about any of this.
Geralt wants his memories (that I only see three cartoon cutscenes of) and his girlfriend (which I only see one sex scene of). The game completely fails to get me interested in either - Geralt on the other hand isn't interested in the real plot going on, and keeps contradicting his own paperthin justification for being a part of it - (He keeps saying he wants to clear his name, while also claiming he doesn't need to, towards Triss - you can tell Saskia you believe in her ideals, but ten minutes later, Geralt will tell her he doesn't care).
Geralt has little reason to be in the plot, and seems as annoyed by me trying to speak for him, as I am by him contradicting me, and his own emotional and actual baggage keeps hijacking the otherwise interesting plot - personally, I feel like this plot was written for a pc-generated character, and then they decided to make it a game about the witcher, rather then one merely set in the world, hoping to sell more copies that way.

Oh also, I hear you're tasty :p
 

predatorpulse7

New member
Jun 9, 2011
160
0
0
Been watchin Yahtzee for years now and I can safely say that this is the first review where I constantly though to myself "BS! BS! BS!" with some minor laughs along the way.

Yahtzee truly sucks at some games but in this vid he covers it up with a punch in the nuts to the pc crowd to make himself look cooler to the console fans. Instead of admitting that he can't play worth a damn he hits at the pc "elitists" as it were.

I've been mostly a pc gamer for the better part of 13 years,my fav series are assassin's creed and prince of persia and mostly play action adventure and fps. But this(and the first witcher) got me hooked into the rpg scene for a while. The only other rpg's I've played were diablo 2(which frustrated the hell out of me on the latter levels) and morrowind(oblivion was decent not great). Also gave DA 2 a shot a couple of weekends ago but it seems cartoonish and superficial in comparison to the witcher 2.

Reading some of the comments here, it's easy to see why gaming is becoming more and more dumbed down.

The only legitimate gripes one should have with this game is the poor tutorial and the fact that you need a good gaming rig if you want to see the full effects(but even on low this looks AMAZING).

I honestly didn't get why people complain about some of these points:

1)combat - not great but not worse than anything I've seen in other RPG's. I LOVE the tactical element to it and the fact that it doesn't become a potion chugging contest like in other RPG's. You have to know what type of weapon works on what, how to parry, use signs, lay traps, throw bombs. And it's only difficult in the beginning until you learn what to use on a particular type of monster and how to use bombs on crowds. It's actually one of the easiest games I've played when you pass the first half of Chapter I and I wasn't a guy to abuse Quen.

2)inventory - seriously guys? What the hell is wrong with it? Oh, it's not the traditional cell type, boo hoo! The only dumbass thing about it is how you supposed to apply mutagens, I stumbled onto that nearly by accident when looking at the character screen. The rest is fairly typical, when you scroll over an item on the left(oils,runes,etc.) that can be applied to Geralt's armor and weapons, that particular piece(sword,silver sword,trousers) will be highlighted. I don't see how anyone with any decent attention span can miss this.

3)dodging - I'm sorry, if you don't know how to dodge in this game you are one dumb mofo.

4)skipping cutscenes - ha ha, all cutscenes are skippable in this game.

5)the signs aren't labeled fireball and whatnot - sorry to hear that you are ignorant and couldn't check out the journal(press J) or the manual.

5)drinking potions before battle - ok, this is where people get truly ignorant. I have not read any of the books but I knew from the first witcher that this is in the lore. And I actually think it adds depth to the game, you can't drink 30 freaking potions while in a fight, swinging your sword. Also, all the bellyaching about "but how am I supposed when a fight will occur?" is hilarious. Gee, I don't know, maybe before you enter a freaking cave or go outside the city walls. 90% of the fights occur in those places. Once you get into one of those places, drink potions that increase your vitality and other stats, coat your blade with damage enhancing oil(or a specific oil if you are hunting something particular) and you are ready to go.

6)poor optimization. In the words of kyle's mom, what!? what!? what !?

The witcher 1 was poorly optimized. I had a damn good rig at the time and it ran like s**t, taking five minutes to load a save game. The enhanced edition solved near all of those problems.
The witcher 2 on the other hand(GOG version maybe others are different I don't know) runs on my NVIDIA 9600 GT(with patch 1.2), which isn't even ancient, it's from the pleystocene. And I run it on low-medium setting and it is still jaw dropping gorgeous, with about 30-35 fps.

Witcher 2 improved tons of things from the first one. Graphics are better, combat is simpler, story is still amazing with turns and twists and they even got the length right this time. Witcher 1 was TOO LONG. This is just right, considering it has big replayability value. Most of my friends are already on their second playthrough.

I, like many others here, hate "complex" games that frustrate the crap out of you but Witcher 2 isn't that by any stretch of the imagination. People who hate it are either not fans of the genre(and TW 2 is easily in the top 10 of best RPG's ever IMO) or just damn lazy. This is a big improvement over the original. I could understand ditching the original as it had MANY problems(until enhanced edition came out) but witcher 2 is a terrific game outside of a cluncky tutorial and that mutagen thing from the character screen.
 

Gametek

New member
May 20, 2011
180
0
0
Zannah said:
Why am I doing this to me=
Becouse I look like a sweet and polite man that would not hit you? In any case thank the same.

Zannah said:
DA2 could claim that title, if it took two more years to develop, and was free of attempts to please the BG-crowd.
Actually interesting point, that usually draw a long line about what we like in a game and what we do not. I'm just guessing, you liked the story and disliked the gameplay? Or what? In any case, I agree that they needed two more year: on my battle with Meredith, Nataniel appeared out of thin air with even saying an "hello".

Zannah said:
As for the differences in writing - DA2's writing wasn't hermetic for one thing, where the Witcher 2 is, even with the help of the journal and wikipedia, nigh impenetrable for the first few hours.
It was hermetic? On the ending of the first you saved Foltest, and he force you to stay at his side to protect him. The world, the rule and morality are reaped of from the dark age. Said that, the King have a position given by the gods, and it can not be contradict. The Prologue is completely filled by a battle for taking a city, and then Foltest is killed Geralt is blamed to have done it, and have to go hiding. Flotsom is a peripheral region of the kingdom, and so on. I actually find the story pretty linear until mid way the first act...
What was so hermetic about it? The fact that it seem just everyone is half way round their little conspiracy?


Zannah said:
For another, DA2 didn't have to blatantly steal half it's conflicts.
Mage Vs Templar is the most reoccurring conflict. If you count even the qunari, trying to recover their holy bible, as a conflict, that make two. This against lobby of lesbo mage trying to rule the world, king that set war beetwen them self, another kindoom that complot against them, and the mysterious wild hunt, whose scope and motivation are still unknown.
So... ok, this stuff is mostly reaped of an story book. You know, being completely original is not possible, and this can be felt on most of any fantasy book/film/game. Or I'm getting your opinion wrong?

Zannah said:
It also didn't have to use a main character, that follows a completely different plot, and set of motives, then the game he's in.
Because Hawke come to Kirkwall deliberately to blown up the mage tower. Yes. Ehi wait, no he is emigrated because is village have been burned to ashes.

Zannah said:
(Which is my biggest gripe with the writing really - if they had not fucked that up so horribly, the horrible combat, and habit of not telling the player anything would have been forgivable, maybe even the blatant lies about having choice
Speaking about the witcher or dragon age, here? You know, I lament from ages that any non-dps build of DA is downgraded to the ground, compared to DAO. On Dragon age there is no need to tell you anything, even if most of the background story is explain only through codex entry... On the other point, on TW series in general, they actually tell you to study your opponent weakness, that is usually done killing enough monster, or reading a book. They fall near on that point. Only TW is more role played, and less Bioshock's audio diary.
About the plant lie about having choice, Da2 nothing change, whatever our reaction to what happen around us is. On TW change what happen some hour after our decision. I really can't understand which one of the two you are pointing against.

Zannah said:
But hey, at least both games ran out of money or time, before the third act was done.
Agree. The last act could have been longer, and could have been more an ending, and not a scream for sequel. TW2 ending feel like they have cut down the story half way.
 

remnant_phoenix

New member
Apr 4, 2011
1,439
0
0
MelasZepheos said:
I actually defend this attitude to reviewing games (not finishing the whole thing) because it perhaps shows better what sort of game you're playing.

A good game will keep you playing to the end.

A bad game will not.
Amidst all the backlash of "He just doesn't have the attention span!" "He's not a PC gamer!" blah blah blah...

I noticed that people seemed to miss that Yahtzee's biggest point on why he stopped playing was, and I quote, "I wasn't having fun!"

Too many people take gaming too seriously. Games should be fun first, everything else second. Certainly people have different standards of what constitutes "fun." Some think unstructured open-world freedom is fun. Some think hardcore skill and strategy is fun. Some think that going round after round of tea-bagging noobs in Call of Duty is fun.

But can you really fault someone for refusing to continue playing a game because they just aren't enjoying it?