Why not? Not including a major talking point in a opinion piece/review sounds like gawker-go-bankrupt style journalism. Dialogue is a major part of the game after all (the most important imo).
including any so-called "talking point" in a review disqualifies it automatically as a serious review
the mixed reviews are at 6.55 on average which is a mediocre score, but it's not negative. it's marginally positive i'd say for a technologically challenged game.
so overall the game was received positively. it sold well too.
one line of dialogue is not The Dialogue. the fact that some people used literally one atom of content to further their dubious preexisting platform does not mean that the game is controversial or negatively hyped or whatever. the game was well received at launch ad remains well liked today.
i'm basically just pointing out that a topic like this has a misconceived implicit starting point - namely that we can assess the game more clearly now that the hype has passed. no. the great majority of people who are really interested in the game always realized that the game is at the very least - OK
One line? Corwin and Safana were also hot topics. Since positive reviewers praise these so called "one liners" it is only fair that negative reviewers can talk about them too right?
including any so-called "talking point" in a review disqualifies it automatically as a serious review
According to who? Beamdog fans? Sort of reminds me how ghostbuster 3 fans wanted journo's to NOT talk about the issues that lead to the film being a commercial failure.
6.55 is definitely a fair score, though I disagree that technology was a key factor. Overall the game was a success yes, it made profits and didn't flop but it has much room for improvement.
I won't comment here for a while I don't want to hijack this thread completely lol but I will say I agree with your last paragraph. Hopefully potential customers (like me) will come out of hiding and give SoD a try.
I have beaten it twice and will continue to play it everytime I play through the series. I was really satisfied with the siege battles on LOB mode. On insane they were fun but I truly felt challenged to the max on LOB mode and that is a great feeling of near perfect balance in gameplay.
Comments
the mixed reviews are at 6.55 on average which is a mediocre score, but it's not negative. it's marginally positive i'd say for a technologically challenged game.
so overall the game was received positively. it sold well too.
one line of dialogue is not The Dialogue. the fact that some people used literally one atom of content to further their dubious preexisting platform does not mean that the game is controversial or negatively hyped or whatever. the game was well received at launch ad remains well liked today.
i'm basically just pointing out that a topic like this has a misconceived implicit starting point - namely that we can assess the game more clearly now that the hype has passed. no. the great majority of people who are really interested in the game always realized that the game is at the very least - OK
Since positive reviewers praise these so called "one liners" it is only fair that negative reviewers can talk about them too right? According to who? Beamdog fans?
Sort of reminds me how ghostbuster 3 fans wanted journo's to NOT talk about the issues that lead to the film being a commercial failure.
6.55 is definitely a fair score, though I disagree that technology was a key factor. Overall the game was a success yes, it made profits and didn't flop but it has much room for improvement.
I won't comment here for a while I don't want to hijack this thread completely lol but I will say I agree with your last paragraph. Hopefully potential customers (like me) will come out of hiding and give SoD a try.