just reached ACT 3.. i think reviewers probably didn't get to ACT 3. otherwise the score 10/10 will immediately drop to a 5/10.
First I have learned to ignore reviewers that give 10/10 or 1/10 ratings, especially if they give them more than once ever year or so. The reason is a 10/10 should reflect a perfect game that needs nothing done (maybe some MINOR tweaking) and such a game has never existed. The same with 1/10 which is a game (IMO) have has ZERO redeeming qualities, I have never seen a game that bad, all have something, even if it is just minor, that could make it fun.
Having played through the whole game, a 5/10 score is LOW, I would still go 7.5 to even 8 out of ten as the game is very well done, even with the flaws. There is no way I would go higher than 8 unless the third act is revised and the game optimized. As for the performance, PART of the blame for that lies with the hardware enthusiast community that has lied to gamers, telling them that the GPU is the be all/end all for building a gaming PC. To many people have unbalanced builds. Also RPGs have always been more CPU heavy than shooters, which is what is used in the majority of hardware benchmarking.
Also you mentioned Starfield, while direct comparisons are really bad as these are two very different styles of gaming, I found Starfield to be boring and just poorly made. They are using an ANCIENT game engine that is obviously way past it's prime and an open "world" that feels empty compared to many other RPGs. Not to mention massively glaring poor design choice such as not giving you an in game map for moving around the city. Even if you have to discover the locations, a map showing the way around would be awesome, plsu this is the future, hell we have a map on our phones today.
