So, you're seriously implying that some critics are deliberately giving the game a lower score than they normally would just because the developer is not famous?....wow.....

A bug in a lesser-known game is more likely to get its score lowered than a big-name title from Bethesda, Rockstar, or the like. That's just how it is.

I'm implying well known devs get softer treatment, and that certain well known devs have informal relations with certain media outlets that help to garner positive reviews. Rockstar is the best example.

They may (or may not) get softer treatment, but these review outlets are definetly not making up imaginary faults for The Witcher 2. Every less-than-steller review I have read for the game has hit all of it's issues on the head. It is far from a polished game.

That maybe true (and it quite possibly is) but it is a known fact that a well know publisher/developer, especially one that offers exclusive hands on, will get a better review of their final product in the end... because a review of a popular product (especially one with a rabid fanbase) translates to clicks, which in turn translate to revenue.

And in turn if you think that the journalists still mantain a code of conduct and are not for sale... you must be from Tau Ceti.
Incidently my comments are not designed to favour one point of view or another. I am simply commenting on the state of the industry.

its not like its a flawless game or anything... it DEFINITELY has its share of problems that need fixing... id say the score is pretty fair.

I would have to agree with you... However I believe the problem here is not that Witcher 2 is rated so low, but that other games are rated so high when compared to it.

For example... Game Trailers gave Witcher 2 9.4/10... They had to give it that much because Dragon Age 2 got 9.3/10 and it is currently universally recognized fact that Witcher 2 makes Dragon Age 2 look incompetent... to say the least.

So the problem here is that Dragon Age 2 should have never gotten such a high score, but because its BioWare and EA it was rated so very high to begin with and there is no rewind button in real life. This act alone have broken down any application of fair scale...

But as it is fanboys display Sith like mentality... if you are not with us, then you are against us. So if I love the game it is 10/10 and a best game ever (ever is a very long time) and if dislike something about it (regardless what it is) its 1/10... there is nothing in between. And if you have something, anything negative to say about my best game ever (until the next best game ever comes out) then you are... [insert 12yo morally challanged statement here]

1.) Tau Ceti? What the hell is that?
2.) I was not implying that. What I was stating was that the impression I was getting from these posts is that people think that reviewers are "making up" faults in the game so they can justify a lower score, because as all the fanboys on this forum are eager to point out, The Witcher 2 is obviously the most perfect game ever made and any score lower than an 8 is BS.

Basically, I am trying my best to kill the disease of fanboyism before it ruins gaming anymore than it has. Because I see these comments and can't help but think back to when Enslaved: Oddyssey to the West came out and all the fans were saying that everyone needs to buy it so "we can support developers with really great ideas." I take offense when people over-rate a game and tell me to spend my money on a mediocre product just because there is a slight possibility that their next game may actually be perfect and not filled with flaws.

1. Tau Ceti, 43 Trillion Miles from Earth, it's where System Shock 2 takes place, for unknown reason this just happened to be on my mind.
2. Read my post above to understand my views on fanboyism, I believe you and I share a similar point of view :)

I noticed that we do. Sorry, but you posted that while I was typing my reply so I couldn't see it.

Who cares? They're all highly subjective. There is no standard for grading a game. What one person says is 60% could be someone else's 80%. I don't understand why people point to numbers to say that game X is better than game Y or get worked up over a game's score from whatever review site (not saying you, just gamers in general). People get far too worked up over a meaningless number because they feel it doesn't exactly match their opinion. It's sad that so many people just can't think for themselves any more and feel they need to be told what they're supposed to like and dislike. :(

I think they should also post a reviewers' rate per score points. I.e. some reviewers make $1k per one point score, more famous reviewers in well known magazines make $3-5k per score point. But, of course, they'll never write 10/10 review to look "professional" and keep the business running. There are also separate bonuses to make a score better than a competitor, the top score goes to the highest bidder. Personal relations works better than money but real "professionals" usually resistant to these tricks and play the game well exploiting all sides of the competition. Welcome to the real world guys and girls.

And it's lucky to be as high as it is.

I fail to understand this post.

Why should a game like The Witcher II, which has a host of problems (especially bug-related at launch), have an >90 score?

It's incredibly fun to play, but it's not perfect.

Opinions are personal and will differ greatly. While some people rate the Icewind Dales high, I do not fall in that camp. For me I rate the games down because they do not balance exploration and discovery with fighting enough for me, If I start yelling at the screen "Will you just bleeping let me look around for a while!" I tend not to like the game very much. I have yet to even finish the second one, I got bored.

Any way opinions are like ...... Well, you know.