Jenne

In many ways the game is a masterpiece. But they wen't way over the line with the difficulty. Hollow Knight was for everyone, Silksong is not. It's for people who enjoyed and were able to finish Hollow Knight DLCs, which were a notable step up difficulty-wise. Silksong with it's obnoxious lengthy runbacks, lack of checkpoints and stingy game economy is unduly punishing. That said, if Team Cherry kept the difficulty on the Hollow Knight level (which is generally in line with most other metroidvanias out there) and were more reasonable with the checkpoints it'd be one of my games of the decade. It's that good, in most other respects.

I liked the combat, that's what kept me playing for about 15 hours. The writing is definitely a standout, especially in this day and age when writing quality seems to be plummeting - even for studios previously famous for phenomenal writing like Bioware or Obsidian - and the story hook is very interesting. But neither the combat or the story or the characters managed to keep my attention for more than 15 hours and I dropped the game early at Act 2. It's just ultimately not my cup of coffee. But it's definitely a well-written, well-acted and well-crafted AA game, bordering on AAA. If that's the future of the AAA industry it's a good news for everyone.

For long 10 years nobody came close to dethroning Witcher 3 as the ultimate narrative-based RPG. This game is the first real challenger. It's a a consumate masterpiece of a sandbox sim slash narrative-driven RPG. You'll never play anything like this.

It's a bland, soulless, gormless corporate product that has NOTHING to do with the quality and depth of even Inquisition (already a stark decline), let alone the original DA game. But hey, it's pretty, shiny, flashy and slick, which is apparently enough for many people.

Good looking and competent riff on Bloodborne with a lot going for it. Unfortunately the level design is just average, the game is stiflingly linear and combat heavily relies on comically delayed attacks and swings or stabs without any windup or tell, as if the devs couldn't figure out how to make it challenging without resorting to what feels like cheap tricks. It's not a bad game per se, I was having fun for the most part, but hopefully the devs will address some of those fundamental flaws for the **** isn't it weird there were TWO clockwork punk soulslikes coming out in 2023 - Steelrising and Lies of P?

Good looking and competent riff on Bloodborne with a lot going for it. Unfortunately the level design is just average, the game is stiflingly linear and combat heavily relies on comically delayed attacks and swings or stabs without any windup or tell, as if the devs couldn't figure out how to make it challenging without resorting to what feels like cheap tricks. It's not a bad game per se, I was having fun for the most part, but hopefully the devs will address some of those fundamental flaws for the sequel. Btw isn't it weird there were TWO clockwork punk soulslikes coming out in 2023 - Steelrising and Lies of P?

P. much a sequel to Mutant Year Zero, with a bit more cringe writing but better tactical gameplay and more interesting world. If you liked Mutant, you'll almost certainly like this too.

Wow how are people not talking about this jewell? One of the best platformers I've ever played, straight up.

This game copies the Souls formula to perfection. This can be either bad, if you're looking for originality - in that case I can recommend Nioh 2 or Remnant 2 - or amazing if you've played any Dark Souls or Elden Ring and just want more of that same thing. The visuals are absolutely stunning, levels are intricated and crafted with love, the world is amazingly interconnected, there's tons of gear, weapons, magic, builds and other customization, there's PvP and co-op and of course, there's the Umbral world element, a fantastic idea and well implemented. This is everything I could ever want form next-gen Dark Souls 4 and more. Highly recommended.

Expectations are key. If you expect the same artistic and design masterpiece as Dark Souls 1 or Bloodborne you'll be angry. If you expect just a fun Souls-like game you'll be delightfully surprised. Great art style, wonderful atmosphere and level design and a few surprises will make sure of that.

I loved the first two parts of the new trilogy but this is unfortunately a stinker. Very few combat encounters, much more cramped world, fewer things to do, see, collect and upgrade. As a result XP and loot feel mostly useless because you just don't need any of that even on Hard. The story is preposterous even for the ridiculous standard of the series and the characters feel dull and flat, including Lara. The main protagonist is a baffling paradox - a badass tomb-raiding, globe-trotting character that feels flat and boring. There's very little depth to her, very little colour and smell. I guess the writers were trying but miserably failed. The visuals are phenomenal and the optional tombs are great though, just to end on a positive note.

A great homage to System Shock and one of the most atmospheric and memorable - and best - games of the 2010s.

I wasn't impressed with Surviving Mars at launch. In just two hours I found a lot of bugs and a mountain of features and systems that clearly needed a bit more time in the oven. When I saw it in a bundle with Aven Colony and Stellaris for 18 euro though I gave it another shot. And boy has this game grown. I immediately bought the season pass and with all the content the game is simply amazing. It already swallowed 30 hours of my time and I still feel haven't seen anything yet. A minor gripe - too bad the visuals are not nearly as sexy as the Tropico games, especially the UI looks cheap and old. I think it's a mistake for strategy/building game devs to underestimate visuals, it's what sells. But the rest of the game is phenomenal. The depth and complexity is absolutely spot on for my tastes, it's one of my favourite games of the last decade.

I like indie Souls. I liked Lords of the Fallen, Ashen, Surge and this. It's a bit more basic than Surge, let alone proper Souls games by FromSoft but it's fun. Kindda short, finished in 13 hours, but there's a solid build variety, with different shells and weapons you'll get very different playstyles. Can't expect too much enemy or world variety, the main world is kindda drab and confusing and almost all enemies are humanoids. Despite all that Mortal Shell is a solid game to scratch that Souls itch.

I'm positively chuffed. Sure it's basically an interactive movie but it's so completely, wonderfully devoid of all the modern BS it melts my heart. Just driving my convertible with my buddies, listening to Luis Armstrong, busting balls, smashing cars, shooting punks in the head. No multiplayer, no MTX, no 500 collectibles to hooover up all over the map, no hamfisted references to slavery on every corner, no powerful 80 pound women throwing burly bangers left and right like ragdolls. It's a blast of fresh air from a simpler, more innocent past. Loving it.

Just as SkillUp said in his video review - this is The Last Jedi of videogames. Or more precisely - Star Trek: Picard of video games. Universally hated by everyone, left or right, except the journalists. It encapsulates everything that's wrong with postmodern writing, obsessed with deconstruction. One point for the execution, especially the acting and motion capture, which does genuinely feel like next-gen.

This is a perfectly average game, exactly 5/10. It looks nice, sounds nice and everything is...fine. It can be a great introduction to the Settlers/Anno style of game. But if you're already a veteran of this genre looking for a new adventure then BWL won't contain one iota of surprise for you. It's everything you played a 100 times before - setting up basic supply chains, researching new stuff - only in with a small visual twist.

Gameplay is still the same as in Rise, puzzles are even better and the game looks incredible. But the world is smaller and more cramped, the "story" is just completely ridiculous even for the low standard of the series, the writing in general is much worse than in the first two games, the NPCs are dull and Lara is unlikeable and boring. There's also barely any combat, rendering most loot and XP pointless. Two bad, the previous two games are great though.

I'm all for immersion but this game doesn't just try to depict mental illness, it's actively trying to drive you crazy. The constant annoying voices, the cringey writing, the tedious puzzles....I couldn't get through the first hour. This is gaming for hipsters, emos and pseudointellectuals. Thanks but no thanks.

I couldn't get into the first Surge but this one swallowed me whole. I'm having a blast even though the improvements, while noticeable, are not exactly game changing. But the level design and enemy variety improved a lot and that's good enough for me. One of the best Souls-likes on the market.

Incredibly pretentious, brazen faced vanity project. It's astonishing how many "journalists" have taken the bait and proclaimed this ridiculous clump of pseudointellectual, faux-highbrow nonsense a masterpiece. Hideo Kojima has become the Darren Aronofsky of video games.

The expectations were much higher than what we got. Obsidian games used to be deeper, more impactful, more complex. Plus you have legendary names like Cain and Boyarsky adorning the box. Everything about this game is bland, safe, chirpy, fluffy. The tone is all wrong - it's like Futurama trying to dabble in serious societal critique. Plus the critique part has all the depth and nuance of an American college student's idea of things like corporate culture, inequality and the world in general. The plot, quests and writing is shallow, predictable, bland and boring. However if you care mainly about gameplay there is fun to be had in TOW, I guess. Provided you can stand the garish, eye-straining graphics where everything is pink, red or purple, garish enemies blend with the garish environment and the non-human ones look like colourful inflatable beach toys. I for one couldn't.

Better than F3 but dragged down by its engine. Great worldbuilding and story but everything is brown and ugly and the combat is barely passable.

Well, it's an Anno game so as per usual it looks stunning. Unlike in Anno 2205 we got a stand-alone sandbox and a multiplayer this time around which is nice. Unfortunately Blue Byte learned their lesson only partially. Just like in 2205, challenge scenario maps, factions and rotating world events are prominently missing again. Plus the campaign is even shorter than in 2205 and much more boring. In fact, boredom suffused the game in general for me. I basically stopped playing once I finished the short campaign. Can't really put my finger on it, it plays well and all the tried-and-tested, fan-beloved features are here. But maybe that's it - Anno 1800 feels like a very safe bet. After the radical departure from the traditional formula with 2205 fans were calling out for a return to the roots. Problem is Blue Byte did that and very little else. There are a few new features like expeditions but they can't carry the weight of the game on their own. On the whole Anno 1800 plays like a "best of" the previous games. I suppose the additional content that should come in the course of the next year will make the game miles better, just like it happened for 2205. But I doubt we'll ever get any more factions, challenge scenarios or rotating world events and the campaign will stay lame forever. I admit, I wanted Blue Byte to return to the roots too but after playing Anno 1800 all I can say - screw going back to the roots. If I want to play the beloved old formula I boot up 1404 or 2070 again, both of which are still eminently playable. Next time, Blue Byte, give us something new and exciting.

With all the DLCs and addons Anno 2205 is a great building/trading game in its own right. It looks absolutely breathtaking, the biomes are incredibly cool and it plays well too. The problem is how it stacks up to previous Annos. In many ways it feels like a downgrade - there are no scenario maps, no world events like in 2070, no stand-alone sandbox and even no multiplayer. The combat was initially exiled to separate mini-zones and made optional, which was an attempt to accommodate those Anno fans who don't like combat. Obviously all the Anno fans who do like combat complained so Blue Byte added invasions and calamities which are cool the first two or three times but eventually they WILL drive you completely crazy. A big chunk of criticism also comes from Anno fans who don't like futuristic settings but that's not my beef, I love it and it's very well done. EDIT: Writing this review after the release of Anno 1800 I regret to say that Blue Byte learned their lesson only partially. Anno 1800 does include multiplayer and stand-alone sandbox but is sadly missing challenge scenarios and rotating world events, for many Anno fans the best features of 2070.

Parts of the game are visually astonishing, especially the underworlds in the second DLC. And they had the right idea about the combat, even though it's still undercooked in Origins and it took Odyssey to perfect it. But relying on side quests instead of activities is a huge downer. They are boring, repetitive and unrewarding. I MUCH more preferred activities of the old AC model.

What initially looked like an low budget embarrassment for the series turned out to surpass all expectations. A great mix of an M&M and Wizardry, this game delivers on all fronts, except for the badly optimised engine and long loading times. Probably the best "proper" RPG dungeon since the old days of yore. Too bad it flopped commercially, mainly because a lot of MM fans decided to "punish" the game for being released by Ubisoft on a non-Steam platform, so they just pirated it. Well done, we'll never have another MM game again.

Shameless, insulting, infuriating. When it comes to one of the best videogames ever created, PC players are treated like a dirty peasant crowd. First Bamco gives us maybe the laziest and most insulting console port ever and 6 years later it tries to sell us a patch for 40 dollars. Do they think they can get away with anything? Yes they can because a lot of players are actually praising this...product, especially the journalist because of course they do.

It's simple. There are two types of Souls fans - one camp can play and reasonably enjoy Souls clones like Lords of the Fallen, Surge or Darksiders 3. The other camp loathes all clones and can only play Souls games by FromSoft. If you're in the first camp Ashen is absolutely a game for you. It is not as a complete package as Dark Souls is - none of the clones are - but it's very, very good. I'm not necessarily a big fan of this kind of stylized art, I prefer more realistic, grounded one, but the combat and atmosphere are so good I can get over it. I'm sure a lot of people will even consider it beautiful. All in all, three hurrays for this genre and all good Souls clones. And kudos to the devs, they made something really special.

A very well done and well thought out Souls clone, especially if you like the slower, more tactical Dark Souls 2 type of combat.

In a way similar to Lords of the Fallen - your opinion on this game is entirely dependent on your expectations. If you expect the same level of narrative and gameplay brilliance as Dark Souls you may dismiss Darksiders 3. But if you want just an entertaining and engaging Souls-like romp with solid level design and surprisingly tight combat you'll have a ton of fun with this game (maybe wait for a sale though, the full AAA price is probably the only major problem with Darksiders 3). Journalists, as per usual, completely failed judging this game fairly.

This is exactly the kind of game journalists love - it's pretty, technically flawless and fun to go through effortlessly. Game journalists hate frustration (i.e. challenge) and bugs (i.e. made by non-AAA developers that can't afford 1000 workers in their QA department). But what is it that you actually do in RDR2? Mostly riding from place A to place B and watching cutscenes. It's an AMAZING interactive movie. But actually playing the game is nothing special, unless you are willing and able to fully roleplay a cowboy. The best way to enjoy this game is to save your money and watch someone entertaining playing it on Youtube.

Nah, not a fan of the new formula. Side activities and challenges from AC1 - AC Syndicate were replaced with side quests in Origins and Odyssey, problem is most of them are boring, dull and unfun. In Origins whenever I saw another side quest mark on the map I just sprinted past it. Here it's the same. Call me old-fashioned but I actually preferred the old AC formula and I did like the modern meta story, it made the series unique and mysterious. I understand Ubi wanted to try something different (many people were actually pestering them about that) but I think it's time for a return to roots.

The laziest, greediest and most cynical remaster I've ever seen. Unfortunately it's a remaster of the most glorious game ever made. Over the years the community gathered a huge pile of ideas how to improve the game, how to make an "Ultimate Edition". Bamco included only a handful of these ideas and this remaster is far, far from ultimate. In fact the changes are barely perceptible. I could safely ignore this abomination if I knew we'll get a true remaster in the future. But if it turns out this is the only remaster of Dark Souls we'll ever get, I'll hate Bamco beyond my grave.

It looks great and the combat is just as excellent as in the prequel but everything about this game is super safe. Again an ancient evil is waking, we fight skeletons and goblins, go through swamps, cast spells and rescue princesses. I feel like I'm playing something I've played 100x times in my life. When you reach your 30s and you've been a gamer since your childhood you start to appreciate RPGs that are more quirky, different and innovative like Dark Souls or Kingdom Come: Deliverance. This is just a competent rehash of a tired formula from the 1990s and I've had my fill with those.

If you think a game without dragons is "lool boooring" and you're easily put off by a slight animation jank here and there - steer clear! If you absolutely insist on playing exclusively AAA titles with 100+ million budgets, microtransactions and loot crates this game will probably annoy you. But! If you loved Gothic back in the day. Or New Vegas. Or any game that can be a bit janky in its presentation but offers deep, immersive, complex and rich systems, characters, combat and **** boy, you're for a treat. You'll see many reviews saying "Kingdom Come Deliverance is great but the technical issues drag it down - 6/10, wait for sale". And then you see the same reviewer gave Fallout 4 high praise, saying: "There are some technical issues but the game is great! 9/10, instant buy!" Yeah. The bottom line is this - there's some jank, there are some bugs (but nothing game breaking or dramatic; the usual stuff we expect for new open-world releases). And there's also deep, rich, complex, incredibly well written and charming RPG. It's up to you what outweighs what for you personally.

Unfortunately most complains revolve around the PC port and controls. Honestly, if you've played DS1 and DS2 ports, then DS3 port will look positively fantastic. And M&K controls...they're fine. At least the game doesn't need any third-party tweaks and patches this time around. But who cares about bugs and control issues in a Dark Souls game? The series has always been about four gigantic virtues - the combat, the vibe, the surprise/exploration, the on-line element. Demon's Souls, DS1, DS2 Scholar and Bloodborne always delivered fully on all fronts. DS2 needed all the DLCs and a light remake to achieve it but now it's an excellent game. Unfortunately DS3 delivers only on the combat. Everything else feels incredibly disinterested and by-the-numbers. For casual fans or people who came to the franchise only now it won't matter, they don't know any better. But if there's anything that can absolutely kill a Souls ****'s the lack of soul. Dark Souls 3 is a Souls game without a soul. Playing any other FromSoft game you can feel the love and care, the attention to detail, the delightful secrets, little surprises and devious tricks. DS3 is not completely devoid of those but you can palpably feel that this time around the developers just wanted to make the product and ship it out. After all Miyazaki said many times he doesn't want to make another Souls game and it shows. DS3 almost feel as if it was outsourced to someone else - they met the minimum requirements for a solid Souls game but didn't add much more. Parts of the game even feel like unfinished stumps - the poise system is clearly a makeshift solution of someone who just can't make heavy armor work properly, there's a system for absolving sin but no sin mechanics, the covenant system is much simpler and worse than even in DS1 which is just shocking. The New Game + is incredibly phoned-in, especially after the excellent NG+ system in DS2. The world is even more linear than in DS2, and all this after the stink the community raised in reaction to DS2. As if From didn't care anymore. All in all, DS3 is a skillfully animated corpse. The body still moves fine and may even fool newcomers but there's no soul anymore. Vast majority of the old delightful, devious playfulness, inventiveness and spirit is gone and what we are left with is mostly a polished mass market product. A difference between a fabulous dish by a French master chef and the same dish prepared by KFC - the calories are still there but most of the flavour and surprise is gone.

Guys I'm being serious - my biggest problem with ACO is...there's just nothing to do in this damn game. Listen, they've removed the optional challenges (my favourite feature of AC games), ALL collectibles, most side activities like optional assassinations and things like improving your hamlet in AC3 or playing with your fleet in AC4. And they have replaced it with....nothing. I guess people were fed up with collectibles and side activities but when you remove it all and replace it with ****'s boring. It really is. ACO is flashy and beautiful and pulls you in for a few hours but then you'll realize you're doing just two things all over again - side quests and looting lairs (animal nests, forts, villas etc.) Over and over again. There isn't anything else to do. All the interesting set pieces and closed assassination areas like in Syndicate are gone too. Sure there are oodles of side quests but they are usually about "go to X, talk to Y, kill ABC and bring back the stolen stuff". Plus the story is not very exciting, the beginnings of the Assassins are kindda humdrum. And the characters are boring too. Bayek is grouchy and uncharismatic and Aya is smart and strong but also about as warm and likeable as a granite block. The villains are just one big grey blob and the villain alpha dog looks like a beta neckbeard. There's nothing quirky or interesting or distinctive in the characters or the writing, it's all just one big, smooth and featureless mass product. I know most people don't like the modern storyline about gods but at least it made the game unique. I've always thought the problem with the things people got fed up with over the 10 or so games - the optional challenges, the collectibles, the side activities, the modern storyline - was not that they were there but that they were half heartedly implemented. In ACO instead of improving them Ubisoft simply took them away. I had a blast in the first 10 hours, then lost all interest. I just rushed the end. I never thought I'll say it but ACO is probably the most boring AC game since the first one, despite the attractive setting and potential for the metastory. Even AC3 was more interesting, at least there was Haytham. In it's boringness and staleness ACO is on par with Revelations. Looking back at it I feel like going back to Black Flag or even Syndicate. I actually liked Syndicate. Sigh. Positives? The combat is fine, certainly more engaging then in previous games (although I liked the Syndicate combat too). And the world is beautiful and just gigantic. Too bad they haven't filled it up with much.

Mechanically solid and complete game but I can't forgive Firaxis for what they've done to the art style and the general vibe of the IP. Realism has always been important for Civ games, feeling like a real leader of a real nation has always been something unique that other 4X games didn't have. Why then Firaxis chose to go for a this cartoony, goofy art style? They can't say it's just because the cartoony map is less cluttered and easier to navigate because the leaders are just goofy, cartoony caricatures of real people too. I understand that for most players the art style of a strategy game is not important but for me personally it completely ruins the experience of playing a Civilization game. The only consolation is it's not 2005 anymore, Civilization is not the only 4X game on the market.

It's exactly what I expected more of the same fun gameplay, interesting story (by Homam standards), witty writing and subpar voice work. The new faction (Dungeon) is neither the best, nor the worst, it could've been a bit more innovative, instead of traditional minotaurs, beholders, black dragons and manticores, but hey, I'm not complaining. All in all it's a very solid, very steady and reliable expansion with ample gameplay time I've clocked in about 15 hours and I'm still in the third campaign map. (As for the negative reviews, most of them are, and probably will be, aimed at bugs and technical issues; there were substantial problems on launch with uPlay again but it's slowly being fixed; everything else about this game is very good).

A disappointment. Certainly the best XCOM game since Terror from the Deep and a ok game for what it is but that's about it. It's short, dumbed down, the production values are iffy, the RNG combat mechanics stupid and annoying, the art style terrible. Too bad Firaxis didn't want to make a truly great game. They just wanted to make an accessible game.

Sure, the third AC is mostly overhyped and overpraised, especially on the big videogame portals, but it's definitely NOT a dud. The animus-part story is miles better, more complex and more layered than the rather dull wanderings of Altair or the cheesy, cartoonish escapades of Ezio. Yes, Desmond is a stupid character but I rather like the outside-animus sci-fi story, although the brief Desmond gameplay stuff itself is just terrible. It's almost if instead of putting some real effort in making the Desmond parts better Ubi bosses said: "Folks don't like Desmond so let's make his part as short and simple as is necessary for the overall story." Another improvements over the previous installments - minigames are finally fun, especially the naval battles, which are fantastic, and the hunting, which is very acceptable. And almost all the side characters are very likeable and well dubbed (especially Haytham). Oh and I also LOVE the way this game handles difficulty - the basic campaign is so easy a 5 year old could cakewalk it while watching cartoons but most optional objectives can be VERY difficult. So you CAN finish the game in under 20 hours (10 if you skip the cinematics) but if you like some extra challenge, you can grow old and crazy trying to do the 100% sync. ********* Now to the not so good things about AC3. The graphics is a mixed bag. The cities are great, as usual, and the naval part is simply phenomenal. But although the Frontier has it's shining moments, it's marred by really bad textures, pop-ups and overall inescapable feeling that the game has been made primarily for 8 years old console hardware. It just shows. Even the first Crysis is still miles ahead when it comes to forest environments. Of course Ubi is not to blame here - Microsoft and Sony are. ********* And now for the cons. First and foremost - Connor. Everything that's been said about him is true. He is humouress, dull, moody, annoying and interacts with NPCs like a computer trying to pass the Turing test. It's also disappointing you can't go parkouring over the rooftops anymore because the streets are too wide and there are guards on every second roof. But the biggest disappointment is the way the whole game is put together. As I said, the main story itself is fun and interesting, but the gameplay is...well, almost boring. It's usually about walking from point A to point B and watching a cutscene. And, if you're lucky, the game let's you press a button in a critical moment. More often than not if feels like an interactive movie than an actual game. And for the side missions and optional activities the exact opposite is true. Improving your homestead, hunting, crafting, trading - all of it is quite fun but completely pointless and useless. Yes you can skin animals and craft weapons and sell your produce but what for? There's almost no difference between the available weapons, you'll massacre a redcoat regiment with the basic sword just as easily as with the ultimate endgame model. There's also NO gameplay difference between the available outfits, except they look different. So even though you can spend countless hours collecting feathers and improving your homestead and whatnot all you get is a stupid T-shirt, basically. Furthermore you can't actually buy anything useful for the money you make from craftin and trading, maybe except a map of chests containing - more money. "But you can do all these things just for the enjoyment of seeing your homestead grow and prosper or for the fun of the hunt," I hear some of you objecting. But for me, in an action adventure game like this, all these side activities just feel pointless. I enjoy building my town economy in Settlers or SimCity or Colonization as much as the other guy but those games are ABOUT building and trading. AC3 is about crushing the Templars and how does crafting barrels and skinning rabbits help you with that? ******* So the verdict - AC3 definitely feels epic and expensive. It exudes the money and expertise and astounding artistic talent that went into making it. But it also feels like the fantastically talented team of writers, artists, architects, historians and programmers was steered by a very poor lead designer. Despite all of that, it's still a towering achievement in the vast sea of stupidity, shallowness, cheesiness and desperate run-of-the-millness that's the current AAA videogame market.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly sympathize much more with the likable indie TL2 than with the obnoxious and unrewarding D3 but truth be told - I spent 100 hours with D3. With TL2, I couldn't get through the first five. I just couldn't find any reason, any motivation to play on. The story and characters are just nonexistent. Sure, a good ARPG doesn't have to be a Witcher-type masterpiece of a videogame novel. But TL2 takes the ordinariness and simplicity of the story and characters to the absolute extreme. Diablo 2 had a simple story and characters but they were interesting and fun. In Diablo 3 the story and characters are dumb and trite but well crafted...like a Disney movie. With TL2 I felt like playing some kind of Atari game from the 80s or something. Moreover I just for the life of me couldn't stand the infantile WoW-ish art style. I just couldn't stop feeling like I'm playing my 6 years old niece's game. Sure, most games nowadays are childish to some degree but TL2's art style is just too much. I read some guys from Runic saying they chose it to stand out, to be different - well I'm sure you can be different without looking completely silly. But I really loved the way this game just oozed with enthusiasm and gusto, the core gameplay mechanics was fantastic and puts stupid D3 in shame. Unlike with D3 you won't be spending weeks on empty, frustrating farming, collecting nothing but dull and boring garbage. In TL2 the loot is plentiful (maybe a bit too much), interesting and fun. The character development system is not something to be excited witless about but it gets the job done quite nicely. And most importantly - all the monsters die spectacularly and violently, bursting and exploding with satisfying meaty effects. Despite all that I can't give this game better than five stars. Unlike with most other modern games it's a great triumph of substance over style. But the end result is the same - overall averageness.