Review of a Review: Witcher 2

Review of a review: The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings

This is a review of IGN’s The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings review, which was published in 24 May, 2011. The author is Charles Onyett who is a PC Executive Editor at IGN. The intended audience of the review are gamers, especially RPG game fans.

The author approached the game in a different manner than most game reviewers: as IGN has not received early copies, he could not rush the game and present a release-day review. Instead, he played the (actually really long) game alongside with his audience and wrote the review in tiny bits. His idea was that this way he “makes the review process transparent”. Additionally, this way he could show the audience his first impressions more accurately.

The main topics of the review are mostly related to the gameplay rather than to the plot. Thus, he mostly analyses and introduces the combat system, performance, visuals, in-game activities (such as crafting and magic) and briefly speaks about the tone and accessibility of the world and even more briefly about the plot. He states that the combat is difficult and takes time to get used to it, and remains challenging throughout the game. The graphics is beautiful but it comes with great cost: the game is really performance hungry. He describes the in-game activities as things that either helps the player in beating the game or just help the immersion into the game. When coming to the plot, he does everything to avoid spoilers. He, however, mentions some little events to illustrate how realistic the world of the game is. To support these arguments, he uses screenshots for the game (for graphics, for example) and some short videos (for the combat system).

The style of the review is definitely not academic and sometimes is on the verge of informality. The language he uses is clear and perfectly appropriate for a video game review. The author is familiar with the many termini tehcnicuses of video game journalism. There are no special features in his language. He rarely addresses the reader, but when he does, he uses ‘you’. Other than that, his tone is professional and analytical.

The review itself is clearly organized, with the introduction explaining the special way it was written. It is followed by a short overview of the game, then he brings up the main topics and the arguments for those in separate paragraphs.  The only thing which is unusual is the lack of conclusion at the end. As the review was written while playing the game instead of after finishing it, the author probably thought it is unnecessary to write a conclusion.

To sum up, this is a well written review with well supported arguments. All the things the author mentions are clear and important, there is no redundant information. The only weird thing is the lack of conclusion and final thoughts. Overall, I liked the review but I would have spent less time discussing technical things (such as gameplay etc ) and more on the game itself, that is: atmosphere, story, themes and so on.