|
|
|
stranger
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2014
|
Since they apparently didn't run into bugs on Diablo 3, they didn't include it in the review--so what's this review doing mentioning bugs that apparently were from research after playing it? (and there are some bugs out there, some bad, most relatively minor, that cannot be denied, but nothing really uncommon from a AA cRPG on release; it's not like NWN or NWN2 were flawless upon its release, far from it). No, I didn't run into a single bug in Diablo III for the console. Not one through two plays through with four characters. So no, I didn't mention anything in the review about bugs. Lucious ran into bugs in this game, minor or otherwise. Just because it's a cRPG doesn't mean it gets a free pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2014
|
I don't understand what being a good guy has to do with being professional in a review that is seen by thousands of people and will probably make some people not buying the game when you say "but that really might not be a risk an average buyer will want to take". We are talking about potential sales lost mainly due to a bad review made by a guy who was either realy realy tired or realy, i don't know. Nothing. It's just sad to see people pile onto a good dude, regardless of the circumstances. I also understand that you want to defend him no matter what, it's a commendable action from your part and i do the same with my reviewers (not PC gamming tough, Motorcycles as a side information), but sometimes we just need to understand that our actions move a huge amount of people (and money) and thus we need to be professional and spot-on perfect even in a "small review". Completely agreed. I don't want to defend it if it's wrong through. I'm a disabled vet, so I ride a Can-Am Spyder motorcycle. Now ya really hate me?  Again, i'm criticizing the quality of the review (lack of), not exactly the score. I also understand the poor usease of pictures, it was lazy, but completely excusable, sometimes time is scarse and shortcuts are made. Yep. I think that was a factor here to some degree. We'll do better in the future. ALso: "We received the game well in advance of release".
I'm sorry but AFAIK larian didnt send out review copies because the game was being made up to the last few days before the 30th June, wich means that your reviewer played the beta version of the game, or a preview code that was not finished, or he played the final version after the 30th June, but most patches were done up to the 3rd July so... i'm kinda confused here and not sure what version he played. But probably it's not relevant to this conversation i guess, because all other reviewers played the same version and even tough all mention some minor bugs, it seems your reviewer was the only one (and another one in a lowish score i think) that state the game is probably not worth buying for that price due to being imcomplete with bugs... oh man, this is so wrong, unfair, biased and untrue that it boils my heart. I looked it up (sorry, bouncing between threads) and we did receive it on the 30th. We just ran into bugs with the retail launch before they were patched I suppose. We don't review beta products as final though - you are right, that's not how you conduct good business. Anyways, i'm not going to keep arguing with you. You already mentioned that you will review what was done and that you already have your weekend destroyed, i don't want to be responsible for making you even more upset, i'm not that mean.
I genuinely hope you can make the review fair and true. Don't change the score if you don't think it's needed, but at least provide more depth and arguments to the criticism in it. Good luck I appreciate that. We'll be making a decision shortly now that I've had a chance to really talk it over with my editor. I promise we'll make it right though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
OP
member
Joined: Nov 2010
|
Clicks are pretty easy to come by. We don't need to throw out low reviews to do that. As I said before, if we botched this we'll fix it and I'll contact Metacritic and Gamerankings to have our review pulled until it hits where it should. Thanks for that, as you can see there are allot of people here passionate about the game. I do want to thank you for actually taking the time and posting here and in my book you get a browny point for that. I hope you can understand that we've seen a number of reviews now which have used beta information or where we clearly see that the reviewer didn't really play the game enough to provide a factual review and that's why tempers flare high sometime. I really hope that you will take the time to play this game, it's a great game and lots of fun. A fact-filled and informative review of this game is really only possible if you've put a good amount of time into playing this game. It's really not something you can play for 10-20h and then have a good understanding of. P.S. you said you are old and busy my wife and I are both 40's work full time (well more than full time) jobs so only get to play this game seriously on the weekends and we aren't struggling too badly with finding this etc. Also my wife isn't a big gamer and we are having zero problems with any difficulty on normal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2014
|
Here we go with the "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't!" portion of this bit of "fun". We are going to pull down the review and spend some more time on it. Given the length of this title, probably a few weeks to ensure we do it justice. Right after I post this I'll be reaching out to Metacritic and Gamerankings via email so our review won't affect the overall score. We also have a few more folks on staff who have the game as well - we'll test every aspect.
I'll apologize on behalf of Lucious and of the site. We didn't hit the high bar that we hope to with our reviews here. In the end, I think we've done the right thing by addressing it directly. Hopefully we can redeem ourselves when we post our revision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2014
|
[quote=GamingTrend]Clicks are pretty easy to come by. We don't need to throw out low reviews to do that. As I said before, if we botched this we'll fix it and I'll contact Metacritic and Gamerankings to have our review pulled until it hits where it should. Thanks for that, as you can see there are allot of people here passionate about the game. I do want to thank you for actually taking the time and posting here and in my book you get a browny point for that.
I hope you can understand that we've seen a number of reviews now which have used beta information or where we clearly see that the reviewer didn't really play the game enough to provide a factual review and that's why tempers flare high sometime. Totally understood. I felt just as angry when I saw reviews for the recent SimCity. It was a travesty at launch, but people based their review on the non-public review servers. We saw what happened at retail. I appreciate the passion. I really hope that you will take the time to play this game, it's a great game and lots of fun.
A fact-filled and informative review of this game is really only possible if you've put a good amount of time into playing this game. It's really not something you can play for 10-20h and then have a good understanding of. That's part of the reason why we chose to pull the review. Lucious put in quite a few hours, but just like games in the Suikoden series, you need to get quite a few hours in to have touched on everything. P.S. you said you are old and busy my wife and I are both 40's work full time (well more than full time) jobs so only get to play this game seriously on the weekends and we aren't struggling too badly with finding this etc. Also my wife isn't a big gamer and we are having zero problems with any difficulty on normal. I'm joking. I just turned 38 a few days ago. I game pretty much every day (or at least every day when I'm not doing stuff like this 0_0 ) I picked up the game and I'm eager to take it for a spin myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
|
Here we go with the "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't!" portion of this bit of "fun". We are going to pull down the review and spend some more time on it. Given the length of this title, probably a few weeks to ensure we do it justice. Right after I post this I'll be reaching out to Metacritic and Gamerankings via email so our review won't affect the overall score. We also have a few more folks on staff who have the game as well - we'll test every aspect.
I'll apologize on behalf of Lucious and of the site. We didn't hit the high bar that we hope to with our reviews here. In the end, I think we've done the right thing by addressing it directly. Hopefully we can redeem ourselves when we post our revision. Appreciated and your engagement and open communication with us both here and on the Steam froums honours you. I hope you not only play the game to re-review it but also to enjoy it a bit...
Last edited by LordCrash; 13/07/14 05:31 AM.
WOOS
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2014
|
I hope you not only play the game to re-review it but also to enjoy it a bit... Are you kidding? Big Box old school RPGs back to Ultima 1 and Zork all the way! I still remember spinning that code wheel to not have the Umber Hulk wreck my party in that pyramid in Pools of Radiance. This game was on my to-do list long before this, I just had other stuff to tackle and couldn't do the review myself. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
|
I hope you not only play the game to re-review it but also to enjoy it a bit... Are you kidding? Big Box old school RPGs back to Ultima 1 and Zork all the way! I still remember spinning that code wheel to not have the Umber Hulk wreck my party in that pyramid in Pools of Radiance. This game was on my to-do list long before this, I just had other stuff to tackle and couldn't do the review myself. Haha, then have some great fun.
WOOS
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
OP
member
Joined: Nov 2010
|
Definitely hope you and Lucious have fun playing the game some more and that reviewing the game hasn't soured the experience for you. In the end games are made to be played and to have fun in them, and I'd hate to think that because of flared tempers it would ruin the experience of playing this game for anyone.
Anyhow thanks again for coming by and actually posting and also owning up to things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
OP
member
Joined: Nov 2010
|
p.s.s GamingTrend at least your review wasn't as bad as this one... Score: 8.8 http://pressplaynews.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/divinity-original-sin-review-pc/Look at screenshots, and the completely superficial way in which the game was described really makes me wonder if this reviewer even played the game... Diablo reference, seriously? "The story puts two heroes amidst an uprising of orcs which threatens the free people of Rivellon by using not just their sheer strength but also an arsenal of dark magic" Really.... Score 7.5 http://business.financialpost.com/2...r-the-easily-frustrated/?__lsa=0a6a-9f1fThinks that Larian is looking down at players with a "knowitall" attitude because they made the game hard.... (not going to state the obvious irony that this is posted on a business news website) I would venture Larian thought they'd make it a bit harder so people can live up to their potential and aren't treated like lazy idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jun 2014
|
Since they apparently didn't run into bugs on Diablo 3, they didn't include it in the review--so what's this review doing mentioning bugs that apparently were from research after playing it? (and there are some bugs out there, some bad, most relatively minor, that cannot be denied, but nothing really uncommon from a AA cRPG on release; it's not like NWN or NWN2 were flawless upon its release, far from it). No, I didn't run into a single bug in Diablo III for the console. Not one through two plays through with four characters. So no, I didn't mention anything in the review about bugs. Lucious ran into bugs in this game, minor or otherwise. Just because it's a cRPG doesn't mean it gets a free pass. Ahem, if you're review of Diablo 3 (ostensibly a PC game) is going to be based on a version which came out one year and four months after the actual release on the main platform - PC. Maybe you should take down your review of Original Sin, and have someone actually play through the whole game at around autumn 2015, you know, so that you actually treat games equally and fairly. Oh, also I noticed you gave Mass Effect 3 a 99, one of the most unpolished major RPG releases in history, one which was also ridden with many times the bugs of Original Sin, oh I also noticed that review was quite a lot longer than the Original Sin one, despite the fact that Mass Effect 3 includes less content, and not a single one of the terrible flaws (not just the ending) was mentioned in it. Sounds like marketing $$$ played a part in that review, or you guys just have extremely lax quality standards on who reviews and game and how he goes about it. Look, I don't usually care too much about reviews, 90% of modern reviews are by players who don't know what a video games is and give more points the easier and more linear a game is, handholding = good (as was implied in your Original Sin review), and they give polished AAA turds high scores, because that's what you do or they got paid to do so (like The Escapists 100 review of Dragon Age 2). Have someone, who knows what a cRPG is, sit down and play through Divinity Original Sin (preferably in co-op), start to finish this time and then you'll have a review, which could be described as non-faux. If you're gonna give Mass Effect 3, a game that was so low quality for it's budget, with missing assets and assets of abysmal quality, character retcons all over the place, which also straight out was lied about (your choices would matter), that's ridden with hundreds of minor to medium bugs a 99, calling it one of the closest to perfection games ever, then Divinity Original Sin must be divine ambrosia worth at least a 220, at least it respects the player enough to let him play the video game, but I guess that's not what makes a good game, according to your review staff. Also you gave Fallout 3 a 94, and gave New Vegas an 86, even though it was quantifiably better in every category, while also being nearly twice as large in scope and content, while providing content of higher quality at the same time, I haven't read your reviews of either, but I will be doing that later today, look forward to seeing how you AGAIN gave the AAA hamburger a higher score, than the actual video game.
Last edited by Kriss; 13/07/14 07:37 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2014
|
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if an identical game was released by Bioware it would have a metacritic in the mid 90s and hailed as a glorious return to CRPG roots.
Dragon Age 2 has an 82 ffs, I don't think it's an awful game but it's a 7/10 at the most if I ever saw it.
Personally I have lost all faith in the gaming press, the games buying public aren't their customer, it's the advertisers who are. Any time a big AAA title with lots of advertising gets released the gaming press hype it up and they will generally get glowing reviews regardless of quality.
There are different standards applied to smaller studios when the games are being reviewed. Not one of the big reviews I read mentioned Mass Effect 3's ending yet deducted points from The Witcher 2 for it's ending. People are criticising D:OS's inventory, perhaps rightly so, but how many complaints about Skyrim's inventory did you see? New Vegas was slaughtered because of bugs yet Fallout 3 got a free pass.
I have no problem with games being marked down for these issues, they should be, but only if the same standards are applied to all games which they clearly aren't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2014
|
Very well handled GamingTrend with taking the review down until it gets some work (Everyone makes mistakes, owning up to them and fixing them is where true colors are shown). As others on here, the steam forums and other places have said, its not the score that bothers most people just some of the things written inside the review. Still, I must say well handled, when I sent an email I did not expect this to get dealt with, well done addressing it quickly!
Last edited by kozzy; 13/07/14 10:07 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2014
|
I said it already on the Steam forums to you GamingTrend but I just wanted to say it again. Yes we are passionate about the game and maybe a little bit defensive about D:OS when we see that the review contain some major flaws. It shows great character to show up here in the lions den and on Steam and have an open conversation about it. Respect for that. 
Last edited by DukeMcFishy; 13/07/14 10:18 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2013
|
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. Funny how some low reviews can drop a score right? You scored lower than the fraud panned review, so don't act as if you were somehow being reasonable. This is all subjective, but when you pass out 90's for games that are commonly known as garbage, and then pan this game, it shows extreme ignorance to this title. The fact that you have users here trying to educate you on your own job? /sigh Sir, if you worked for me, you would be fired. I think you misunderstood him. He's not the guy who did the review... I know, but he keeps defending it. He represents the journal and by proxy the reviews his site provides. It would be fine if he would have fully admitted the review was extremely poor and stopped there. He didn't though, he began to defend the score, the review, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jun 2014
|
I know, but he keeps defending it. He represents the journal and by proxy the reviews his site provides. It would be fine if he would have fully admitted the review was extremely poor and stopped there. He didn't though, he began to defend the score, the review, etc...
People defend things when they are too scared to accept the flaws in them, and judging by the other reviews on the site - 1.5 years late D3 review is somehow fair to the 3 weeks after release review of Original Sin, 99 for Mass Effect 3, Fallout 3 having a higher score than New Vegas (laughable), I'd say this website has no credibility and they have exactly 0 quality control of their reviews. Offtopic: Their Fallout 3 reviews is filled with lies, blatant lies out the backend. Their New Vegas review is a broken snippet of text that makes little sense. I smell SHILL in the air. (seriously, look at this, Yikes, my eyes! indeed)
Last edited by Kriss; 13/07/14 02:56 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
|
Oh, also I noticed you gave Mass Effect 3 a 99, one of the most unpolished major RPG releases in history, one which was also ridden with many times the bugs of Original Sin, oh I also noticed that review was quite a lot longer than the Original Sin one, despite the fact that Mass Effect 3 includes less content, and not a single one of the terrible flaws (not just the ending) was mentioned in it. Sounds like marketing $$$ played a part in that review, or you guys just have extremely lax quality standards on who reviews and game and how he goes about it.
Dude, relax and get off your high RPGcodex delince horse... There are people who like Mass Effect 3. Personally, I love Mass Effect 3. And before you ask, no, I don't care whether it's a good RPG and I don't care if its features where sufficient to even be called RPG. It was a great game which offered a lot of fun and entertaining, ending included. The review of D:OS on Gaming Trend had obvious flaws because it both stated some just plain wrong facts (like price, features, very old screenshots,..) and the reviewer refuses to review core elements of the game at all (like co-op mode). None of these "technical" failures are apparent in the Mass Effect 3 review. Also the Mass Effect 3 review was done by another person so the comparison is bollocks. You can argue that a score of 99 is stupid in general but then all the 10s from users on metacritic are stupid as well (and even then you have to give reasonable arguments why you think so). Imo it's perfectly valid to give a game a "perfect" score if you really like/love it and if you think that the entertainment value is so good that minor flaws doesn't cloud the overall picture over all (minor, non-game breaking bugs included). You might disagree with various points in a review and of course with the final verdict and score based on your own tastes and expectations for Mass Effect 3 but that doesn't make your opinion more valid or more correct than any other opinion, the one from the Gaming Trend reviewer included. H might be a Mass Effect fan, someone who exactly likes the experience which this game offered. So what? Apparently people expect the same for D:OS, that only fans of old-school isometric party RPG should review the game and that everyone else doesn't have enough information to do it properly. I can agree with that, since it's in fact better or needed that the reviewer at least has an affinity for the type of game he is going to review. But that doesn't mean that he has to believe in some dogmatic and bigotted "decline vs incline" philosophy... On top of that the owner of Gaming Trend alredy stated here that they changed their review policies recently in order to use the full scale instead of only the 7-10 range like some sites like IGN for example. That makes every comparion to "old" review scores pretty much pointless in general. About the D3 review: every review is a product of time, taste and expectation. There is nothing wrong with making a late review. If I play a game and make review of it on Steam, I don't care whether it was released yesterday or 10 years ago. I make a review based on my personal tastes and expectations at a certain given time. Reviews are also not about fairness, it's not a tournament in which only the best reviewed game can win a prize. A review is a work of critique that tries to evaluate the value of a product at a certain time. It's not the fault for Gaming Trend or other websites that comparison sites like metacritic are unable to offer a differentiated review scale based on time. It's the flawed metacritic philosophy which is the problem here, not "late" or "early" reviews.
Last edited by LordCrash; 13/07/14 04:18 PM.
WOOS
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jun 2014
|
Oh, also I noticed you gave Mass Effect 3 a 99, one of the most unpolished major RPG releases in history, one which was also ridden with many times the bugs of Original Sin, oh I also noticed that review was quite a lot longer than the Original Sin one, despite the fact that Mass Effect 3 includes less content, and not a single one of the terrible flaws (not just the ending) was mentioned in it. Sounds like marketing $$$ played a part in that review, or you guys just have extremely lax quality standards on who reviews and game and how he goes about it.
Dude, relax and get off your high RPGcodex delince horse... There are people who like Mass Effect 3. Personally, I love Mass Effect 3. And before you ask, no, I don't care whether it's a good RPG and I don't care if its features where sufficient to even be called RPG. It was a great game which offered a lot of fun and entertaining, ending included. The review of D:OS on Gaming Trend had obvious flaws because it both stated some just plain wrong facts (like price, features, very old screenshots,..) and the reviewer refuses to review core elements of the game at all (like co-op mode). None of these "technical" failures are apparent in the Mass Effect 3 review. Also the Mass Effect 3 review was done by another person so the comparison is bollocks. You can argue that a score of 99 is stupid in general but then all the 10s from users on metacritic are stupid as well (and even then you have to give reasonable arguments why you think so). Imo it's perfectly valid to give a game a "perfect" score if you really like/love it and if you think that the entertainment value is so good that minor flaws doesn't cloud the overall picture over all (minor, non-game breaking bugs included). You might disagree with various points in a review and of course with the final verdict and score based on your own tastes and expectations for Mass Effect 3 but that doesn't make your opinion more valid or more correct than any other opinion, the one from the Gaming Trend reviewer included. H might be a Mass Effect fan, someone who exactly likes the experience which this game offered. So what? Apparently people expect the same for D:OS, that only fans of old-school isometric party RPG should review the game and that everyone else doesn't have enough information to do it properly. I can agree with that, since it's in fact better or needed that the reviewer at least has an affinity for the type of game he is going to review. But that doesn't mean that he has to believe in some dogmatic and bigotted "decline vs incline" philosophy... On top of that the owner of Gaming Trend alredy stated here that they changed their review policies recently in order to use the full scale instead of only the 7-10 range like some sites like IGN for example. That makes every comparion to "old" review scores pretty much pointless in general. About the D3 review: every review is a product of time, taste and expectation. There is nothing wrong with making a late review. If I play a game and make review of it on Steam, I don't care whether it was released yesterday or 10 years ago. I make a review based on my personal tastes and expectations at a certain given time. Reviews are also not about fairness, it's not a tournament in which only the best reviewed game can win a prize. A review is a work of critique that tries to evaluate the value of a product at a certain time. It's not the fault for Gaming Trend or other websites that comparison sites like metacritic are unable to offer a differentiated review scale based on time. It's the flawed metacritic philosophy which is the problem here, not "late" or "early" reviews. 1) Like Mass Effect 3 all you want, but objectively speaking it's not a 99/100 game or RPG. 2) Yeah, they wouldn't be apparent in a shill review. 3) The fact that they were done by different people doesn't matter at all, reviews have to carry some air of objectivity, reviewing something means to critique it, not to just post if you like it or not. 4) "The everything is an opinion argument" I wish people who use this argument were never allowed on the internet. No, in fact a lot of things carry objective value such as plot structure, gameplay elements, graphics, environmental diversity, encounter design etc. Games can and should be judged comparatively, as objectively as possible by critical individuals, otherwise there is no difference between a professional review, and someone's Tumblr page. 5) An affinity isn't needed, a familiarity with the genre, it's conventions and understanding what fans of the genre like and expect is needed. 6) They changed their policies, ok, so their old reviews won't be changed to reflect this, even for high profile games? Talk about a lack of journalistic integrity. 7) I agree, there is nothing wrong with a late review, but when your reviews go up on metacritic, which you know full well has influence in the industry it means you should strive to judge games fairly, after all, review scores serve a purpose, that is to compare games, because they aren't isolated, they exist in an industry and the only way of knowing if game X is better than Y is to play and judge for yourself, or in an ideal world have actual critics, and not teenagers who can't even be objective about anything. 8) I agree, meta critic should never have the influence it does, but it has it, and if reviewers continue to ignore it, and continue shilling for that all important marketing $$$, the industry will never change. Luckily kickstarter came along and several experienced development studios managed to get funding to make video games, not committee designed hamburgers like Mass Effect 3. ![[Linked Image]](http://i.imgur.com/z9H2m.gif)
Last edited by Kriss; 13/07/14 05:03 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: May 2014
|
Since they apparently didn't run into bugs on Diablo 3, they didn't include it in the review--so what's this review doing mentioning bugs that apparently were from research after playing it? (and there are some bugs out there, some bad, most relatively minor, that cannot be denied, but nothing really uncommon from a AA cRPG on release; it's not like NWN or NWN2 were flawless upon its release, far from it). No, I didn't run into a single bug in Diablo III for the console. Not one through two plays through with four characters. So no, I didn't mention anything in the review about bugs. Lucious ran into bugs in this game, minor or otherwise. Just because it's a cRPG doesn't mean it gets a free pass. Doesn't answer my question. If your reviews don't factor in bugs you don't find while playing them, why is the review mentioning bugs that Lucious didn't find? I don't actually have a problem with that at all, and in fact, I think all reviews should mention if other people are having trouble, but that's contrary to how you claimed you guys do things. You know what I said but chose to answer a different question instead. Guys, before you start praising this guy's character, you should have seen his attitude on the steam forums. He was quick to chastise people here for "personal attacks" when it wasn't more than criticism, then chose to attack me (and others) on the steam forums and told me how appropriate my username is, etc, then giving a smarmy apology with "woe is me" self-crucifixion crap. He's here because, quite simply, he got pissed off at everyone making noise about it.
Last edited by MindlessAutomata; 13/07/14 04:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jun 2014
|
Since they apparently didn't run into bugs on Diablo 3, they didn't include it in the review--so what's this review doing mentioning bugs that apparently were from research after playing it? (and there are some bugs out there, some bad, most relatively minor, that cannot be denied, but nothing really uncommon from a AA cRPG on release; it's not like NWN or NWN2 were flawless upon its release, far from it). No, I didn't run into a single bug in Diablo III for the console. Not one through two plays through with four characters. So no, I didn't mention anything in the review about bugs. Lucious ran into bugs in this game, minor or otherwise. Just because it's a cRPG doesn't mean it gets a free pass. Doesn't answer my question. If your reviews don't factor in bugs you don't find while playing them, while is the review mentioning bugs that Lucious didn't find? You know what I said but chose to answer a different question instead. Guys, before you start praising this guy's character, you should have seen his attitude on the steam forums. He was quick to chastise people here for "personal attacks" when it wasn't more than criticism, then chose to attack me on the steam forums and told me how appropriate my username is, etc. He's here because, quite simply, he got pissed off at everyone making noise about it. Post screengrabs of the posts on the Steam forum please. I look through a lot of their reviews and the practices of this publication are no different to those of IGN and other AAA-shill-centric publications.
|
|
|
Moderated by ForkTong, gbnf, Issh, Kurnster, Larian_QA, LarSeb, Lar_q, Lynn, Monodon, Raze, Stephen_Larian |
|
![[Linked Image]](http://a.pomf.se/fwhgdo.jpg)