Well, from the point of view of a gamer who's already bought, played and finished the game, what do I care what other people think and write about the game? I liked it, and if someone else didn't, too bad for them, but it doesn't take away my enjoyment.

I understand if people are concerned about bad reviews that might scare away potential buyers, but from what I've seen, the bad reviews are a minority and some of them are rather obviously provocative. When I try to judge if I want to spend money on a new game, I ignore obvious hate reviews like "0/10 - this game is a piece of shit".

If I see scores mostly around 85-90% and a few 60% ones (ignoring those 0% reviews), I probably think it's a good game that some people just don't like. I might read more about why some don't like it, and if I don't agree, my final judgement is that it should be worth buying.

In short, I liked the game, and I'm not really worried that a few hate reviews could seriously affect the sales.

I think some reviews are a bit harsh. At least this game has no really big show stoppers like say "cliffs of Dover" flight sim that was completely unplayable for the majority on day one.

The QTE's I think contribute to the lower scores in some cases along with no key rebinding but apart from that it seems really good to me. I like the flow and game world better in the new Fallout series, But this game does stand on it's own pretty well.
I would say 7 or 8 out of 10.

Cheers MarkL

You should see reviews for what they are.

A neutral reviewer that would judge a game in perfectly neutral fashion, that doesn't exist. All reviewers are biased by their culture, their experience, their gaming preferences... and so on. It's called human nature. So you should learn to distinguish the useful reviews from the others.

Useful to whom? To you. It's not about what a reviewer thinks of a game, it's about the differences between your opinion and that of a reviewer. Take any reviewer and look at how he rated some games in the past (games that you played of course). If you find that you have the same opinions about those games than the reviewer then mark it as a good source. It means you have about the same way to "feel" games. Hence the probability that he will judge a future game without deceiving you are pretty good. Of course for other persons that don't have the same "feelings" as you do about gaming this same reviewer would be pretty bad but they would find their "own" reviewer elsewhere.

That's the only way reviews can be useful to anyone. Don't expect all the reviewers to draw the exact same conclusions as you or their peers because that's not going to happen.

For me, reviews are redundant. I wouldn't give 2 craps about what someone else thought about a game. Especially if they are paid to review. More important now are the forum posts of fellow gamers, game demo if available and history of the developer.

In regards, to the Witcher 2, CD Projekt has earned my trust with the effort of the Witcher 1. Its the only game I have ever pre-ordered. I haven't been let down at all.

However I knew how power hungry the game would be and upgraded my PC accordingly. I would not attempt to run this game on a lower spec rig or god forbid a "gaming" notebook.

Hopefully the patch will alleviate some of the performance issues with mid to low spec rigs.

I'd rate it at 7.5 mostly because I hate the combat and RPG systems, I think in this regard Witcher 1 is just better. But its an opinion, its something to get use to because we live in a free society where people are allowed to form their own opinions.

As much as I don't care about other people's opinions, there is another valid reason to hope for good reviews of a franchise you love: sales.

CDPR deserves to sell millions of copies, because I need a personal reassurance that I am going to get more Witcher games.

Had to chuckle at that. My experience is that the more "educated" people are, the more they think they know everything.

Used to be a good education had the effect of one becoming aware of one's paucity of knowledge. Now it seems the result is a bunch of self-important, entitled idiots.

Only 2 out of 30 Plus are negatve, game is getting universal praise everywhere.

It's pretty funny how some people take a criticism of something they like as a personal attack on their worth. "If I like something and you don't, you're wrong and stupid and I'll call you names on the Internet!"

If I had to be critical and rate the games for its flaws as well, I'd give it 85/100.

BUT:

- I expect an editor
- I know the problems will be fixed
- I know mods will take care of most of the remaining ones
- DLC will be free
- I'm having a BLAST

Yes, it's not the most complex RPG, yes it's very action oriented, yes it's shorter than the first game ... but the positives outweigh this and the extras we'll get in the future make this a 90% or so game to me. I secretly hoped that, despite this, the game would get a higher average score because the press tends to overrate console RPGs far too much when they don't deserve it and this game DOES!

Portal got universal praise because critics are tired of normal shooters like cod, they really like the new idea of protal, also because steam own PC. Same deal, many critics think Witcher 2 is just another fantasy RPG, they don't really understand the deeper value of Witcher 2.

Also, it gave them publicity...
Good or bad, people went there to see what they said.

Portal 2 is a wonderfully entertaining game. Im not sure when we got to the point that we have to look for some kind of critics conspiracy for praising a wonderfully entertaining game.

i m not saying protal got good review is becuse critic conspiracy, i m just simply reply OP's thread.