[DISCUSSION] Witcher 3 - Reviews

+
As I feared the guy on Gamespot said that you can easily outlevel enemies if you do side quests and game becomes too easy. This is what I horribly didn't like in DA:I. Even nn hardest difficulty I outleveled everyone and it was too easy.

Also is that PC or console footage, because it looks... quite bad... and framerate seems to go below 30 at times.

This
 
Funny how IGN says the story isn't that good but the open world is fantastic, while I read the verdict of another review (don't remember which) which says the story is great but they failed with the open world. It shows that this kind of things are very subjective and you shouldn't read too much into one review
 
Idk.. I kinda hope so.. she sucked in TW2 lol.. Even John mymyass thought so.. lol Well.. he didn't say she sucked, he just didn't like her voice acting either :)
Well I liked her voice actress in 2, but I am just curious. The voice sounds familiar, but not like the Triss in TW2.
 
I don't tend to care about the big gaming site reviews. Youtube is where it is at for me, Angry Joe mostly. I will definitely watch his review of TW3 once I finish the game myself. Happy for CDPR, I hope that the meta score stays above 90 :).
 
Technical issues are definitely having an impact on the scores. In a situation like this should reviewers update their scores if a patch is released? It's probably for the best that they haven't given out PC and Xbox copies for review yet.
 
Technical issues are definitely having an impact on the scores. In a situation like this should reviewers update their scores if a patch is released? It's probably for the best that they haven't given out PC and Xbox copies for review yet.
You review what is going to be released on day one. The only time I support going back and changing a review is if there is an online component that isn't able to be tested before launch.
 
I expect these reviews to be even higher on the PC version when they get that available due to the graphical upgrades and better framerate.
 
 
Technical issues are definitely having an impact on the scores. In a situation like this should reviewers update their scores if a patch is released? It's probably for the best that they haven't given out PC and Xbox copies for review yet.

I absolutely think reviewers should update scores. SimCity initially had great reviews, but reviewers updated when it became clear the game had absolutely no depth and piss-poor simulation.
In the case of The Witcher, it seems like some scores were lowered due to performance issues. I think this will be mitigated by patches (and scores updated accordingly).
 
I absolutely think reviewers should update scores. SimCity initially had great reviews, but reviewers updated when it became clear the game had absolutely no depth and piss-poor simulation.
In the case of The Witcher, it seems like some scores were lowered due to performance issues. I think this will be mitigated by patches (and scores updated accordingly).
Uh, that just seems over the top to me. If you hand over a game that has problems to review, that is what you gave them to review. Patches later don't change that.
 
Uh, that just seems over the top to me. If you hand over a game that has problems to review, that is what you gave them to review. Patches later don't change that.

Half agree. I don't think they should CHANGE the score, but it would be good if there was some way they could UPDATE it - "It was a 9 now it's a 10". They shouldn't lose the history and pretend it never happened, but they should also acknowledge patches.

And, to those whose posts I deleted, yes, they're all PS4. It was the only version made available to reviewers.
 
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt on PS4 .. Metascore 93 based on 15 Critics.
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim PS3 .. Metascore 92 based on 16 Critics.

We have a new champion? :)
 
Top Bottom