The first Lords of Shadow was grossly underrated simply because it didn't copy the same Metroidvania formula ad nauseum that had been done since Symphony.

Too bad the Edge article stated that they wanted to make the game "more accessible". That usually indicates the end of a great franchise.

@zzmovie The game is definitely not a 10 out of 10. It has way too many flaws. You can't simply overlook the flaws because you enjoyed certain aspects so much. Pretty much all of the reviews that gave the game a 9.0 or higher are just as off-base as this 4.5 is. The game at best, is an 8.0 and a 6.0 at worst.

@zaxafreon The review doesn't make that claim anywhere. People in this thread do.

@GH05T-666 No, which is why so many people think that this review is laughably off base. Sure, many people have enjoyed "bad" games before, but this isn't a case of that. Gamespot simply didn't even come close on this one. At it's very worst it's a 6.5; and that's being extra harsh on it.

Imagine what ZombiU would have scored if Kevin had reviewed it. Kevin and Carolyn are the only two around here that make sense most of the time.

The game is a 7.5 easily. I've played through it multiple times (twice without dying). You actually don't even need to use the bat anywhere nearly as much after the first two hours or so of the game--if at all(you get a weapon that gives you basically infinite ammo as long as you don't miss).

You can also get your weapons back even if you die two times in a row. They respawn randomly in a different location and you use your CCTV to find them.This review does hit some of the negatives accurately, but misses quite a bit in other areas and just sounds like he didn't even want to review the game in the first place, and was forced. He completely withheld all of the positives of the single player aspect. Mostly atmosphere. It's not an action game really either, which is his main mistake.

Also, the game isn't a "Resident Evil ripoff" just because it has zombies in it. If you had actually played it, you would see that it's much more like Condemned than any other game, with some RE stylings here in there as far as textures and *some* locations go, but that's about it.The worst things about this game are the initial overreliance of the bat, because the melee combat is so entirely boring, and the awful loading screens that seem to pop up every few minutes and take anywhere between 10s - 20s total.

I honestly have to wonder how far the reviewer made it through the game, because really, the early section of the game SUCKS. Once you actually get a few more weapons and hit the newer locations it really starts to shine, and does so all the way up until the "eh?" ending.

Easily one of the most misrepresented reviews this site has done in a very long time. While the game definitely does have it's fair share of issues, a 4.5 it is not, and whoever actually reviewed it (when watching another playthrough by the guy who claimed to have been the one to review it, it wasn't Maxwell) doesn't seem to be a fan at all of survival horror games; a genre that essentially died out after RE4.

That's cool though, keep on giving those mandatory, minimum 8.0s to every single FPS ever created this generation, no matter how derivative or even identical they are gameplay wise.