The problem is I've seen Niero comment about how much he hates those kind of reviews. You can always try Kotaku though.
Also, Destructoid: Come for the features, leave for the sterling reviews.
My problem is less with aggregation (meh, even a really off review isn't going to impact the aggregate scoring that much) and more with how useful it is for me personally. I feel like Dtoid reviews aren't comparable to each other at all. They're more like the user features or something: interesting comments about a game from the community, but not any attempt at any sort of objective, consistent system of evaluation. Given that I see Reviews as more about the latter role and user features, op-eds, and other blog-type articles as more of the second... this is an issue for me.
Dtoid reviews are a good read, but they pretty much do not inform my purchases at all.
Excuse me, handy capable.
Reviews SHOULD be inconsistent. They don't obey some magical, predetermined algorithm. People aren't robots. I fucking hate it when people use "inconsistent" as an argument against a review. The implication is that reviews can be charted and predicted, like all games obey strict mathematical rules where all its qualities can be quantified according to a national standard. This is not the case, and that's bullshit thinking.
The Witcher 2 got the score it got because, despite having more flaws listed, they impacted the experience in a slightly bigger way. Pretty simple. Emphasis on "slightly" because the score difference we're quibbling about is a 0.5.
The only thing consistent with reviews is the pettiness of certain comments.
You suck at the game plain and simple, you don't play the game right....you whine about potions, but every fan of the series knows that Geralt has to drink potions to survive and that not drinking them in combat actually challanges you. Oh and the entire Alchemy tree encourages you to drink potions constantly. No excuse for your whining.
You think you won't miss anything not doing sidequests? Wow, thats dense. I managed to pick up excellent equipment and new quests BY DOING THE SIDEQUESTS!!! You get the best weapons and armor DOING SIDEQUESTS!!!! I guess you did not play the game fully.
The story is far from a stopgap...and its only not interesting for those looking for blood and guts epic battle between good and evil...its not, its a personal journey of Geralt to restore his memories and to clear his name. And it fullfills while fleshing out the world and its characters. The Witcher series never was about clear resolutions and never will be.
Lack of fast travel...who needs it, the world is small enough. And maybe if you didn't play the game like God of War, the games targeting wouldn't fail you. Geralt targets the enemy in his vision first THEN the one closest to him.
And how is requiring ta player to read the manual a bad thing. You know what is worse? Mandatory tutorials...yuck. You whine about the difficulty curve however, note that you cannot use finishers on bosses and that enemies are tougher. In fact, the toughest battles are in Act II and Act III of the game with the Harpy Queen and The Operator respectively.
Your review is getting slaughtered because it is full a fail. Not because your opinion. Its because you played the game wrong, criticize features that fans accept and even praise, and miss the point.
Yes, such guesswork as listening to Sile yelling use the "Yrden" on the Kayran.....lol. The witch tells you exactly what to do, and you are saying that the boss fights require guesswork...lol
Graphically, I suppose it could all have been a notch higher on the eyecandy scale, but what is there is easy enough on the eye (I'm playing the PC version). I think the game world has been very well imagined and nicely put together - but there is no doubt an additional level of polish would really have elevated the entire thing to another level. I love the character designs, not just the two leads, but enemy design - especially the Wargar (think Peter Jackson's Orcs) are satisfyingly evil-looking and appear to stepped straight out of Mordor.
All-in-all, and after some six hours of play, I can safely say this is a good, solid experience. I have few complaints. For me, it looks like a fairly decent 7.5/10.
There is a fair chunk of Unreal engine jank, like you find in Gears of War. Head shots not hitting because of an invisible clipping plane on cover, texture pop-in etc. I love the artwork and setting but for a game with a number of enviromental puzzles its enviroment is just unpolished. You can break open one barrel, but not another. You can crawl through that hole, but not that one. What the hell is up with the animations when you crawl through a hole? You can climb all over a messy pile of rubble, but you cannot pass a plank of wood.
Needed a bit more work, but it is pretty damn fun nonetheless. And I am playing in single player, not co-op.
I'll still keep checking out this site, as it's one of the few that doesn't seem to get carried away by press release hype and ad-dollar pressure, but I'll be taking Jim's reviews a lot less seriosly from now on.
Would you trust a movie critic who said Shawshank, Jaws and the Godfather were average? Of course not. So therefore you would think less of him and the company he represents - he's not giving you advice that is most conducive to you having a high likelihood of making a good choice. Even critics who dislike certain types of game/film should be wise enough to ascertain a films quality by the general standards of the genre in question.
Example, way back when, I watched a film critic say that Predator wasn't his cup of tea but that it was a well made and superior example of action movie well worth seeing for those seeking such. You see? He used his knowledge and wealth of experience to deliver a shrewd and insightful review despite his own distaste for some of the films elements.
Jim simply gets angry, rages, seemingly doesn't bother to think and then often trolls for good measure.

surf dtoid with 

Rising (10+)
People you follow























follow


