I don't think it's even 6 hours... he probably didn't even leave the starting areas -.-

It's his opinion and he's entitled to it.

Though I admit the inclusion of console vs. PC themes in the review irked me.

Sure he is entitled to it, just like others are entitled to disagree with it and voice their disagreement.

It's ok, he didn't talk about the game much. Well, yes, it was bad, because his reasons were... empty? Pretentious? Just plain stupid?

Now excuse me, please, i need to steal something

He seems to be speaking honestly, and is entitled to his opinion.

However, his piece is an opinion only, not a review, or a meaningful critique. But I did agree with one thing he said:
"Some Witcher 2 fans will undoubtedly claim that six hours are not enough to give the game its full due."

A complex plot, subtle dialogue, characters with real emotional depth and game-play that really challenges the player is going to take some time and patience to unfold properly.

It's a shame that he didn't enjoy it, but it's probably not a good start to any game/book/film or whatever with fixed pre-conceived views on what a thing should be, unless you don't mind constant disappointments.

I'd actually agree that PC gamers don't understand the difference between complexity and depth, but it's only a technicality, I don't think most gamers (PC, console, or some mix thereof) understand it period.

It seems fairly obvious to me that his points are somewhat valid. A game has failed on some level if it takes longer than six hours to provide the player with a compelling reason to keep playing. Perhaps it's fair to dismiss the Tolkien discussion; that should be its own essay. But I can't say it's not a valid point. It reminds me of Yahtzee criticizing games for being pieces of shit. If you have a valid point about every game in the fantasy genre why not bring it up every chance you get? And why should we let TW2 get away with it?

I haven't played the game yet, but I as good as guessed it would fall into some of the problems mentioned in the review.

He brings up some interesting points, but at only six hours of play, he can't really know for sure these truly apply to TW2. Until you play a game through, any general criticisms will only be assumptions based on a very limited amount of play. If they are specific criticisms, he didn't give many of those, they should be accurate, eg the meditation problem is incorrect, (at least on pc), and making potions really is very easy .
In fact, his mind seems already made by the first hour, as he says himself. It's true, you should know in 6 hours if this is a game for you. It wasn't for him, but that does not mean everyone will have the same experience as he did with the game.

Just in case, I did not mean to suggest that Sapkowski's works were too similar to Tolkein's - that would be demonstrably unfair especially since I haven't read them nor do I even believe that. When I made the point about the game rising above the usual fantasy tropes regarding Elves and Dwarves even though by their existence and some characteristics one can see the origin from Tolkein mythology (or at least shared derivation), I meant to apply that statement to the game's world - which obviously was created by Sapkowski. Despite that I have not read the books, I would imagine many of the facets and wrinkles present in the world that I find appealing in the games come from the books from which the game was adapted. I appreciated the depth of the world (which a couple of reviewers have called impenetrable, but I call very well fleshed out) which is due to the game being adapted from a book series. My comment regarding faulting the game's writers adapting the works of Sapkowski in the first place was meant to be from Bissel's viewpoint since he didn't care for the game world rather than mine since I liked the game world. :)

I have thought about reading the books, but unfortunately my reading list long already (longer than my game backlog even, which is already too much to deal with!). Just checked Wikipedia, seems a couple stories and collections have been translated into English and the rest have been translated into everything but English. :( While I might be able to handle the French, I think I'd be better off waiting for English translations. Ah well, as I said, my "to-read" list is long anyway! :)
Well in my mind actually not being a target audience, it is still somewhat fair to review something as people who are likewise not in the target audience do need to know they aren't in the target audience. :) That said, one should probably finish the game if one is going to review it ...

TW2 was originally panned for it's terribly brutal and unhelpful tutorial system. I think it's fair to criticize it for that, it deserves it after all. He is writing off the rest of the game, though, and I'm not sure if that's justified or not. A lot of people manage to make it past that unhelpful beginning section.

I think calling this a review is a bit of a misnomer, it seems more like a "first impressions" to me. As a first impressions I can't say he's outright wrong about most of it.

Well I think more than that, everyone has their own optimum between complexity and depth and it changes depending on the game genre - i.e. for a 4X turn-based strategy game I expect a certain skew towards both complexity and depth which I don't expect from other game genres. People saying I feel a certain game has too much complexity for me in review is perfectly fine, even necessary as a game review should reflect the author's opinion. Coupled with the author's history of reviews relative to one's own preferences, a prospective customer should then consider if the review is relevant to whether they would like the game or the balance between complexity and depth.

But truly, simplifying a game while maintaining depth (or contra-positively increasing depth without increasing complexity) is one of the hardest and probably one of the most interesting problems in game design.

Well, I don't actually like the words he used, to me there's "complexity" and "obtuseness". Complexity, in the way most understand the word, IS "depth", it adds new levels of game play for the user to plumb, ideally if and when they want, and provides shallower layers to the uninitiated or those that simply don't care to go deeper.

Obtuseness is the opposite of this, it's complexity that has no purpose to it. It's that stupid inventory management system you're always fighting with. It's ridiculous fast travel requirements. There's a million examples, in fact, but you should know it when you see it, because there's actually no reason for it to be there, it could have been done better. It's not challenge, it's annoyance.

The problem seems to be that so many can't spot obtuseness and mistake it for genuine complexity (i.e. game play depth or challenge). It's why you see so many genuinely bad games get defended as "good" all the time.
Ah, but these are the gems of gaming. A simple, but complex game, with layers of depth that can be peeled back at will to expose a more rich and fulfilling game play. All the while none of that is required, you can simply "play" at the simplest level of game play if so desired.

Terrible review, with contradictions and unnecessary comparisons to Tokien fantasy.

Just because something is based on a style, does not mean it can weave one of it's own. The art in TW2 does that magnificently.

Sure he's entitled to his opinion, but it's a stupid one.

It's actually interesting how quickly some of you jump to crtitize one mans opionion. IMO either of the Witcher games are that expectionally good. Both have their own fair bulk of badly written dialogue and both of them have parts which seem to drag on.

The complaint about inventory I understand, as I don't particulary like the UI design of either game.

What comes to adult themes, I think the story tries a bit too hard from time to time and there are some moments in which the game feels almost like it's making a parody of itself. Adult themes are fine and dandy with me, but sometimes it takes a bit less to make a bigger impact.