Yeah, I'm a huge fan of video games and Andrzej Sapkowski's books since late 90's, but I'm more on critics side, lol.
I think the 69% as the middle ground between critics and audience is more close to the truth.
Seems normal. Critics and audience often don‘t agree. I usually find both perspectives interesting, but in the end I prefer to see for myself...
However, I rarely trust the overall audience scores.
I usually take that as a good sign. A lot of critics just go the way it seems cool to go. Some of them have rated the show after watching literraly 2x 30 min of different episodes.
That's why rotten tomato is terrible to get an idea of how good is a movie/series. Doesn't mean anything.The score above shows how many critics and fans (dis)liked it. It says nothing of the actual rating. In theory, every fan could like it with a score of 6 (out of 10) and every critic could dislike it with a score of 5 (out of 10).
Anyhow, personally speaking, the show is far from perfect, but I still like it. Let's hope for an even better second season.
That's why rotten tomato is terrible to get an idea of how good is a movie/series. Doesn't mean anything.
AgreeAny rating system is inherently flawed.
DisagreeHowever, Rotten Tomatoes is actually one of the better ones, IF you take into account BOTH score systems. That is, the primary one, which shows whether the show is rotten or not and the secondary one, which shows the average score. Between the two, there can be a deviation, usually indicative of a love/hate relationship. Regardless, both scores still give the best impression you can get for a numeric system and, at the very least, it's a lot better than Metacritic.
I find the critic and audience score comparison to match my own preferences, as follows. High on both = I usually like it. High on critic low on audience = I've never liked it. Low on critic high on audience = I usually like it a lot. Low on both = anywhere on the spectrum, but fun to give it a whirl late on a Friday night.I tend to not trust either scores. However, with such big gaps, I always take extra care to see what has caused it. In the end, when I know I want to see something, I avoid (review) scores and judge it myself. So it was the case with The Witcher.
Another interesting recent discrepancy in reverse roles:
I'd be surprised to see another Witcher game from CDPR, since they seem to be locked in on developing and expanding the new cyberpunk IP. If they ever do return to the Witcher universe, I absolutely don't want to play another witcher, with one exception. Geralt is The Witcher. Any other substitute character of the same order will be inferior. I do think that it'd be fun to play as a sorcerer / witch, or something like that. The one exception to playing another witcher: Ciri. I'd love to play Ciri the Witcher. She's Geralt level badass and then some.Witcher games are done. For Geralt anyway.
Hoping for a more open-ended character for the next game in the setting. I'd like to be a sorceror or a spy.
I was more upset with them using spears and crossbows than their Zerrikanian/Ofirian skin tone.
I think that it's pretty obvious that close quarter / mid range (that require lots of strenght to throw) and slow yet advanced engineered weapons is not what our stealthy green Amazon ladies would craft and use hiding on trees in thick ancient forest. And Sapkowski with CDPR are aware of that as well, unlike Netflix employees.What's wrong with spears and crossbows?
I have read witcher books quite a long time ago, but was battle of Sodden hill actually depicted in there? All I remember it was only mentioned by some characters and vaguely depicted with some important points, e.g. Vilgefortz led them to victory, Triss died, 22 mages and sorceresses surprisingly arrived, etc... Honestly, I am just curious. If yes, I should reread books since I am really interested in this one battle.I enjoyed the series a lot. Henry Cavill did fantastic as Geralt, same for Anya Chalotra and Freya Allan as Yen and Ciri. I'm cool with Triss also (suck it, Triss fanboys and -girls, she doesn't have fiery red hair in the books either and isn't all that important).
Pacing was a bit weird in places, like that bit of Geralt backstory way in the final episode - what was it doing there at that particular time? Also the battle of Sodden stinks in comparison to the books. It should have been a flaming inferno throughout, not a few completely useless fireballs. Likely this is another limitation of the budget, which was clearly visible in some places.
Ha. I'm also not sure how detailed the description really was.. but Triss tells us a few details, how her hair had burned away and how Coral died next to her, a charred screaming torso, and that Triss herself was counted among the dead because of all the blackened bodies and her having lost her signature hair. So I don't recall exactly how much info we have on the battle, but I'd say it's quite strongly implied that freaking loads of fireballs were involvedI have read witcher books quite a long time ago, but was battle of Sodden hill actually depicted in there? All I remember it was only mentioned by some characters and vaguely depicted with some important points, e.g. Vilgefortz led them to victory, Triss died, 22 mages and sorceresses surprisingly arrived, etc... Honestly, I am just curious. If yes, I should reread books since I am really interested in this one battle.
I mean, things are blowing up