I approached this curiously because I also felt that the hype is getting overboard, but I ended the read bored and disappointed, with the impression that Adam Carr just wants to play the unfazed role. But he doesn't really give any convincing reasons.
He starts by mentioning TW1's bugs. This is irrelevant. First, this was the company's debut game. Second, this is not TW3. Third, if you want to dig in so far into history, then it applies to the good aspects as well as bad - you mention that the game was buggy, and in the same breath say that "its popularity warranted a full overhaul...". Doesn't it stand to reason that CDPR, the company who has overhauled the game, remembers the bugs? Furthermore, TW3 was delayed twice, and according to previews it is hardly riddled with bugs. Do some research if you want to drive a point home, especially when the point is so nonsensical.
Then he mentions TW1's combat. Again, irrelevant to the hype around TW3. Later in the article Adam Carr himself writes that the combat has been completely changed in the second game, so why should the third suffer from it? Mentioning this serves no purpose other than fattening up the article. And the combat hasn't been the selling point anyway.
Then he writes:
I am not sure what he means by 'restricted' here. As in, where you can physically go? If that is the case, then:
1) Not every game is meant to be open-world, and not every game needs to be judged by that standard.
2) TW3 is open-world, and a big one at that. Again, do some research. I mean, this thing is like the basic of the basic, no? They've been waving that flag since the beginning of the game's advertisement.
Controls - again, irrelevant to TW3.
Standard run of the mill-- etc. I can argue against this, but I don't think it matters. This is mostly subjective preference. I don't see how this is the case.
Onward to TW2.
You have to be really high to say something like.
Make up your mind. You say earlier that the combat was "terrible", and now you say that they changed it (completely, I should add). So for starters, we already aren't facing the exact same flaws. Furthermore, I'd say combat is a pretty big aspect of a game, so if that is improved it's a major thumbs up for the game. It being easy is debatable - by many accounts throughout the web, it can be challenging in the hardest difficulty. Not sure what "mind numbing" means here.
Plot (or does he mean story? I'm not sure) - again, a point that you can argue. Thing is, as the person who's trying to get a point across to readers, you have the burden of proof (or, well, persuasion and explanation). What is cut and dry about it? What does it mean? I personally find it a very interesting story. The protagonist is a tool in the hands of bigger characters, which is rare for games (and outside games), you find out surprising things about the antagonist (who isn't just a lord of evil or a one-dimensional bandit), his unexpected relationship with the protagonist, the story reacts to your decisions like no other game, and more.
"World was still restrictive and generic"
1) Again, not every game is meant to be, er, unrestrictive (if this refers to world size and navigation, as I understand).
2) TW2 had quite generous hub areas. I'm not sure what restrictive means here.
3) Aaand not sure what generic means here, either.
Clunky,
How? I didn't feel it.
Because you can read articles, read previews and watch gameplay footage that shows you how this game is different from those other two?
I feel you are in no position to tell others what they find good about their games. Also, I believe many players of TW3 will be newcomers to the series. Their hype is based on TW3 alone. You're trying to diffuse their excitement without saying one single thing about TW3 itself.
Who are these people who are focusing too much on graphics and combat? In all the previews I read, these aspects have been given attention - just like any other aspect of a game.
Agreed. Not exclusively, but agreed.
Again, plot or story? TW3's plot is simple - go find a girl who is hunted. How the story will develop is yet to be seen. And you haven't explained how the developments of the story in TW1 and TW2 are bland.
How? Why? I do not know many fantasy settings that have Eastern European folkore, humor, irony, racism, brutal wars and complicated politics all in one. That's just off the top of my head. Hell, just the fact that it's Eastern European folklore in flavor makes it the opposite of generic, as there aren't many games of the sort. I can't think of one honestly.
Yep.
Will you bother explaining even one of your points?
And again I feel the terms are being confused here. Are we talking about the concept, or the personality, motivation and history of the character? It doesn't really matter, because both cases aren't explained. But if we just stick to the concept - we're talking about a person whose profession is monster killing, but it's not a glorious and romantic career as most fantasy settings would have you believe. There is no glamour in his life. He's met with suspicion by the very people he's supposed to help, torn about his racial identity and constantly used, or tried to be used, by bigger players in the world. And then there's the dilemmas about what is actually a monster. I am not sure what is dull about this, and what, in contrast, is a not-dull character concept.