@Tremblay343 Shooting stuff is what you do in a shooter. If anything, Dinklage scanning stuff takes away too much from the shooting. If I complained that all there was to do in this action RPG was to fight monsters and level up my character, I'm kinda missing the main purpose, right?

@iMpLuX I'm actually comparing the reviewer, as that is the only thing in common. It is my contention VanOrd rates fantasy/RPG style games much more leniently than other games. The abnormality is the suspiciously similar pros/cons between Lords and Destiny, yet the end score is quite different. It's ok, I am quite content to disregard his reviews on non-RPG games, as he's usually way off from the average review. My worry is if his bias is propping this game up too much.

@carolino Are you suggesting Mass Effect 2 is a FPS game? It's actually an action RPG, more in line with the fantasy games VanOrd loves so much. Plus, it has a very nice story/plotline, which is super important for VanOrd.

@jtb_pred Yes, bias is a bad thing. Especially in the realm of reviews. If he has a pro-fantasy bias, then I don't know if this review is accurately reflecting the game, or just his own personal taste. Personally, I like that VanOrd plays and reviews a lot of fantasy games. It makes me trust his opinions more on the subject. But he doesn't review very many FPS games, and I doubt he plays them that often. Whether the scores fall more negatively on these games, or he inflates scores for fantasy games, leaves the reader to distrust his reviews to a degree.

Let's see....
Lords of the Fallen: Great atmosphere, combat. Terrible plot, vague levels lead to too much wandering... EIGHT.
Destiny: Fantastic vistas/music, excellent gameplay. Terrible plot, repetitive missions lead to too much grinding... SIX.

Bonus similarity, Lords is as much a clone of Souls as Destiny is of Halo (no sarcasm).

Your pro-fantasy bias is showing, VanOrd. Maybe you should stick to reviewing fantasy games.

While I don't disagree with the score, I think you put yourself at a disadvantage when you start the review with, basically, "I've only played through the previous game once, and now I just play a little while then restart". A reviewer's job is already difficult enough (coming up with cogent critiques on a short time scale) without taking a step backwards by making it sound like you don't really play the game. If I reviewed a game like Super Mario World (to keep it simple), and I said "I beat SMB3 once, and now I just play to the Kuribo's shoe level and restart for 600 hours straight", would you really trust what I had to say?

35 hours WITH all the sidequests? Ugh.... that better be an action-packed 5-6 hours of main quest game.

@Dannystaples14 Or maybe he doesn't review enough racing games to be qualified to speak about them. He reviews about 1 every year. Maybe that's not his fault and just his marching orders, but when he reviews dozens of RPGs a year (and tends to give those good scores), maybe he's a little biased/under-informed when it comes to racing games.

@Sefier1 Having people trying to run you off the track is pretty normal, in racing games (and real life racing). Maybe a better way to handle this is to have an option for racing "ghost" cars that can't hit each other.