Crazy Zaul said:
I don't know why everyone thought Sacred 2 was so good.
I like it mainly because it at least tries to be different. Skill use is based around timers instead of mana, and not just a fixed cooldown, but timers that depend very much on your own choices. Plus it has a much more open world, and even a choice of which side you'll be on with two storylines crossing over, than most Diablo-type games tend to have. It's far from a perfect game, but given how many games in the genre tend to be little more than horribly cliched re-skins of Diablo 2 it's nice to have a bit of variation.
OverEZ said:
The whole review seemed rather joyless but it gets a 3 out of 5? I think you're being generous, Jim. I have not seen one positive user review on Steam yet and that never happens.
3 seems fair enough, you just have to think about what different scores actually mean. 1 star doesn't mean it's not a particularly fun game, it means it's basically just broken to the point of being unplayable. 2 stars means the game probably at least works, but you may well wish it didn't because either there are still things horribly wrong with it or it's just that bad. 3 stars essentially means that the game is functional, just not particularly good. 4 and 5 are then varying degrees of actually being a good game.
For all the complaints about score inflation and games rarely getting below 60-70%, that's actually exactly how it should be. If you give 1 star to a game that works fine but isn't very good, you have nothing left to give to games that actually don't work. Games getting below 60% or so are rare because games that aren't at least functional shouldn't be released at all, so of course there aren't that many of them.
So 3 stars seems perfectly fair here. It's a solid "the game works, and that's the best that can be said about it".
