First review out out from GI: mixed but overall positive.

[Jack Dandy]

Hmmm. Guess I should wait until I play the game to finally decide about the combat system myself. 1 week to go..

[Crashbanito]

That and Game Informer are partners with GameStop, so by default all digitally distributed items lose 2.75 points.

But honestly guys a 7.25 is still not that bad. Most gripes the reviewer had seemed to be based on their general disdain for this type of game. Some game types aren't for everyone after all.

One thing that strikes me as a bit odd is their gripe about texture reuse. A bit of an odd thing to complain about when texture reuse is a vital part of any video game.

[Mameluk]

There was bound to be at least one or two slightly negative reviews. It's a game that doesn't fit in everyones pocket.

[Kthanid]

Given the niche nature of the game I'm honestly (very pleasantly) surprised at how positive all the reviews I've seen so far have been. To please that wide of an audience with a game like this is really a great sign in my opinion. I don't need to see more than a few seconds of any of these review videos to know it's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for.

[Botiquita]

Game Informer, Gamespot and IGN cannot be trusted. If you want honest and professional reviews go first to Rock Paper Shotgun, then read Edge Mag and Bit-Tech.

These sites have adult and experienced reviewers.

By the way, RPS gave a great review of LoG !!

[Soulmancer]

His main issue though made sense. He stated that at first he enjoyed the combat but in the later levels it became unbalanced to where monsters could slaughter your front lines so effortlessly that often you had to exploit poor AI or kite foes around pillars to overcome them. I'd rather see monsters being slightly a bit smarter and less over-powered to make combat more strategic and properly paced.

[maskedhobo]

With the combat being grid based there is only so much the AI can do, and if you look some of the enemies are going to be very dangerous. The problem with reviews is that if you don't like the type of game you are already biased. I wouldn't want to review a resource management game or Madden, I would not really give it my best. I mean games that are constantly cranked out every year with no real changes get rave reviews but some great games that are not very well known get nothing. That is why I do not trust large reviewers because they don't care as long as they make money, too many of these companies are owned by such large media giants that they are never really honest.

Reviews are inherently flawed is what I am saying, all you can do is gather as much info and try anything similar and make your own choices. I am sorry if this post seems offensive or brash. I think people are forgetting what great games used to be like even with some flawed mechanics. We are just too used to the way games are now (I love current games as well) that it is hard to see how much fun using your mind and imagination can be.

[EtrianO]

I should wait until I play the game to finally decide

Word - I`d dedicate this to all folk whose mind seems to be made up already here ;) I`d really struggle to recall an RPG "perfect" on all fronts, given how complex these games are.
The reviewer sounds like he knows what he`s talking about and perhaps these issues really exist.

I do disagree with his final statement though :"I rage at its failure to recreate the kind of tactical combat that made me fall in love with PC RPGs in the first place. Which side of that scale you lean toward should tell you whether this is going to be a good investment of your $15. "Unbalanced" has nothing to do with "tactical" - EoB`s combat for example was mostly of the click 1/2/3/4-cast spell-retreat-rinse-repeat kind, hardly great tactics here and yet quite amusing. But the game itself was more about exploration & puzzles anyway.

More importantly I don`t think some minor issues should detract anybody from trying it - it`s only 15 (12!) bucks for krissakes :) And I can`t see any competition in the field either.

Game Informer, Gamespot and IGN cannot be trusted. If you want honest and professional reviews go first to Rock Paper Shotgun, then read Edge Mag and Bit-Tech.
These sites have adult and experienced reviewers.

Lol ;) These paragons of virtue you quote can be as flawed/biased as the "bad guys", it`s the nature of the beast. Edge was a bible, yeah - 10 years ago though. And Gamespot isn`t actually as bad as people tend to paint it. (Gamestop has its own huge digital distribution service now by the way)

[DJK]

Combat in games like these was always going to be the weakest link.. and that's fine, we know what to expect, we know the genre and there are certain pitfalls that are hard to work around... you could "dance" around and kill the end boss (beholder) in Eye1 with a rock if you wanted to... I saw the vids and the potential to get past most combat situations by straf/hitting is definately there.. again this is natural to the genre and I know some creatures will at least have some beyond basic responses (charging (sure) or striking sidewards (not sure) for example).. that and Im sure there will be traps and hall configurations that make it hard to dodge/hit as well.

[luthur1964]

Regardless of the reviewer's comments (and of course, he is welcome to his opinion), I follow the developer's intro story tag. My adveturers will be a rag-tag band of prisoners who, reluctantly chained together, will collectively move in a chaotic fashion (backing up, side-stepping, etc.) as means of survival. I love this kind of real-time strategic action, even if others don't get it.
Bottom line: I will be emersed in exploration and combat in a familiar yet hectic way, which I will call "damn good fun". So, nice comments, yet, I know what I will be doing next week, and I can't wait!