http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/divinity-original-sinhttp://www.gamerankings.com/pc/672174-divinity-original-sin/index.htmlLooks like mid 80s.
"You sir are completely full of shit. " Thanks for the well-reasoned and clearly erudite response. I'll make sure I log that in the appropriate bin.
"but you go and score it a 75? REALLY?" - Before I respond to this, you DO realize that reviews are subjective right? Not every person will like every thing. I like Blade Runner. Most people do. Some people find it to be absolutely terrible. It doesn't make them, to use your parlance, "Full of shit".
"Pathetic. Send your reviewer back to Burger King." - Thanks for your valuable feedback.
Unfortunately the initial response to your post was just rage and thus made your life realy easy to just dismiss it, so here goes something a little more elaborate.
The review in question was clearly made by a reviewer that is very sub-par in this kind of genre. When even my wife can play the game co-op with me witout me saying much in hints and then you have a "RPGer" reviewing the game and having more dificulty in the game it's a very clear sign something's wrong.
Another sign something's wrong is that you have a dozen prefessional reviews over 85 that praise the game and hundreds of user reviews stating over 9.0 average, when mostly all negatives are from people either playing pirated versions with unpatched bugs or people QQIng it's too hard, and then you give it 10 less points as the average. 10!
Another CLEAR sign you review was just made by a bad reviewer is that it clearly states larian released an incomplete game, wich is just absurd as i already ended it with no game-breaking bugs. Even more serious the reviewer criticizes larian for releasing too early and having major bugs and already pachting the game twice when you you gave Diablo 3 a 90!!!!!! a game that was impossible to play for a full week !!!!!! talk about double standards here ah? i could give more examples just browsing your portfolio of reviews of bugged-games-at-launch-with-good-scores
(
http://gamingtrend.com/game_reviews/dark-lord-couch-diablo-iii-review/)
Some realy evident quotes that make your reviewer realy realy bad or realy realy "naysayer" for the sake of it:
"and many quests went ignored because I had no idea where to find the characters to drive them forward"
Yes, it's called reading dialog and paying attention to hints. What is this? a 12 year old playing an RPG after playing Mario Brothers?
"How do I craft an item? Stumble over a recipe book or drag a few random items over one another in your inventory and maybe you値l get something"
He's not even trying. Realy, it was a rushed review. There are soooo many recipies in the world that he mentioning "stumbing" means he didnt play the game more than a couple hours. And yes, you can randomly try to combine items but recipies will tell you everything you need to know.
" Now you must decide if you want your archer to stay near the back of the formation, where their exceptional accuracy but low health (because there are only so many points to go around) will be most effective in combat, or lead the group, where they can quickly locate potential dangers but be much more vulnerable."
What ? this makes no sense at all. What you "lead" outside of combat is diferent from the combat formations, i bet the reviewer didnt even notice the battle formation button. Oh and btw the archer is not accurate at all and suffer a lot from low% chance at high range, magic users are way more accurate at all ranges. Another mistake that clearly says he didnt play the game at all.
I'm realy sorry but this review was a half-baked-sorry-excuse of a review. No mention of the good points of the game because it's clearly a review made by someone that has no clue how to play and didnt go far into the game nor didnt have time to experiment and explore solutions.
I'm realy sorry but i can't take your review site as serious after this review. I'm not trying to be a fanboy defending "larian honor", i'm just realy trying to understand if it was just a poorly made review from your reviewer, or you are "fishing" for page-hits based on this score.
Hopefuly you as an editor in chief will be wise enough to understand it's a bad review. Hell even if you gave the game a 90 it would still be a bad review. Poor texted, poor depth, poor explanations of how the game works, etc. It's a review worth it for an amateur third grade local newspaper. If you think the game deserves a certain score at least provide serious arguments about it either it's a 50, a 75, a 90, etc, and not just a couple of paragraphs criticizing a 100 hour game in a couple lines that don't even make sense and are not true nor objective in fact.
If you say you want to growth this is realy not the way to do it m8.
Good luck in your "review of the review".
