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.
