Sorcery reviews

[Runa216]

adriane23 said:

Fixed your sentence. Whether the game is good (I'm guessing you mean fun) is subjective and shouldn't give reviewers license to gloss over the bad parts of a games. That's like saying a car is so fun to drive, you're willing to overlook the fact that it breaks down every 10 miles and may or may not catch fire if you sneeze at it. Also, the size of the game is no excuse for the level of bugs in Skyrim. Kingdoms of Amalur is a huge game and is relatively bug free compared to Skyrim with a much more fleshed out combat system.

Skyrim is sloppy no matter how you look at it, and this isn't the first go-round for bethesda. They have a history of making big, sloppy games that are in my opinion filled with doing the exact same thing for different NPCs in different similar looking caves and I honestly think they don't care about quality so long as enough people buy their games.

Oh stop it.  I don't know how much simpler I could say it:  we all agree the game is buggy, but the volume of content, variety of quests, massive world, open gameplay, replayability, alternate game styles, secrets, and storytelling basically meant that it's not a big deal. 

dozens of things on the good side, one thing on the bad side. you get over it.  

If you were having a delectable meal and there was one little patch that was burnt, would you say the whole thing was bad, or let that one small bit ruin the whole dish for you?