The two biggest complaints in the review seem pretty avoidable to me. The first is that they exploited a bug in combat and then were mad when that broke a quest.
Second is that they said that scaling was odd, with one computer (thickly entrenched 40k nerds are already mad with the use of the word computer instead of cogitator) in an area was an easy skill check to use and one in the adjacent area was difficult to use. That doesn’t seem like a red flag to me, or at least, it doesn’t seem like that in isolation.
So my take away is that some things will be mathematically harder than other things, and don’t purposefully exploit bugs. I don’t think this review has deterred me from buying.
So my take away is that some things will be mathematically harder than other things, and don’t purposefully exploit bugs. I don’t think this review has deterred me from buying.
Well, the review did its job, then. The problem would have been if they had hidden these bugs to make the publisher happy: instead, they have exposed issues that you are free to ignore or not, depending on your needs."
The real issue is that review scores are so inflated that 1-6 indicates “bad” instead of any gradual scale of quality.
The real issue is that review scores are so inflated that 1-6 indicates “bad” instead of any gradual scale of quality.
This is because digital magazines tend to avoid getting on the wrong side of publishers: preview copies allow for reviews to be already publishable on day one, which is a huge source of clicks/money.
