[Cironir]

He may not have played it as heavily as some of us, granted, and he probably doesn't have the time to read the forums for hours every day, but I still feel the review shows that the guy actually played the game and didn't just talk about superficial aspects like most of the other review. I think he probably played at least ten hours, likely more, while the average reviewer may have only looked at it for a couple of hours. Or, like in some cases, reviewed a pre-release development version and criticised bugs that weren't even in the release version, even though they had been told by IL that they would be fixed.

I think it's nice that someone actually sat down and played the game. TQ has not had an easy time with reviews because it's not hyped, the marketing has been underwhelming and a lot of reviewers never went beyond "it's like Diablo 2, with a few differences". Let's face it, Diablo and Diablo 2 didn't invent the genre and they basically were very heavily "inspired" by text-only games such as Nethack. Diablo, the first one, was essentially just a graphical rogue-like game. And all those shooters that are coming out weekly, I don't constantly read that they are basically the same as Wolfenstein or Doom with a few new features added -- but that is what they actually are, and we played those over a decade ago. There's not been a "modern" shooter that I felt was more innovative or more fun than, say, Hexen or Heretic. One of the troubles with PC games, perhaps video games in general, is that the graphics improve, but the gameplay doesn't.