That rules-lawyering doesn't bother some people doesn't mean you should've put a rules lover on doing the review. That would've been unfair to people who don't give a shit about the rules, and are just looking for a good PC RPG.
Guess we shouldn't have hardcore NFL fans reviewing Madden, either. (How pissed would football fans be if I dinged Madden 2007 and rated it a 4 for "not being more fun like Blitz or Mutant League?") We shouldn't have people with at least a passing knowledge of and preference for real-world racing review Gran Turismo or Forza, either; "dude, it sucks; where's the alternate routes and massive crashes from superior arcade racers like Burnout Revenge!"
Look, NWN2 is a D&D game, and SPECIFICALLY caters to the D&D fanbase. The bloody logo is all over the box. It has tools for making D&D2 modules. It allows for online multiplay using the D&D 3.5E ruleset. THE GAME IS ABOUT D&D FIRST, and generic RPGing second. The audience is D&D NERDS, not overall RPG fanboys in general.
This is the same shit the drives me nuts when I see Nightmare of Druaga, Pokeyman Mystery Dungeon and other roguelikes get dinged for -- get this -- BEING ROGUELIKES. A lot of people LIKE ROGUELIKE GAMEPLAY and want to know how the game holds up AS A ROGUELIKE. Just because it has stats and elves and dungeons does NOT mean it is supposed to play like Final Fantasy or Oblivion.
I hate the stupid sop they throw at the end of reviews like that: "...if you're a fan of mindless dungeon crawls, add X points to the score." Fuck YOU! How about: "...if you're looking for a traditional party-based RPG, subtract X points from the score" -- a reviewer should have ENOUGH experience in gaming to tell what the inspiration, influences, and audience driving a particular design entail, and what the appeal is! If you can't tell Druaga is supposed to cater to roguelike fans; if you can't tell that a DW game is designed to cater to BEU and series fans; if you can't tell that NWN2 is designed to cater to D&D fanboys: DON'T FUCKING REVIEW THE GAME.
MAF pointed out a hilarious review of Vice City Stories on IGN that ends with the same caveat (verbatim): "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories is essentially more of the same, for better or for worse. It's a nice leap over what we saw in last year's release of Liberty City Stories, but it still feels "safe" by many standards. The story is certainly sub-par and there are problems with close combat while armed with a firearm or when attacked in groups, but it still has all of the elements that makes every Grand Theft Auto game great. It's funny, doesn't take itself seriously, the gameplay mechanics are mostly great fun and the world is a fantastic place to screw around in."
The score: 9.0
Now, replace the GTA reference and the predictable series praise with Dynasty Warriors and the likewise predictable eye-rolling:
"Dynasty Warriors is essentially more of the same, for better or for worse. It's a nice leap over what we saw in last year's release of Dynasty Warriors, but it still feels "safe" by many standards. The story is certainly sub-par and there are problems with [strategic management] and the [combo-driven combat], but it still has all of the elements that makes every Dynasty Warriors game [tedious]. It's [laborious], doesn't take itself seriously, the gameplay mechanics are [the same old beat em up crap] and the world is [yet more ancient China] to screw around in."
The score would be a 4.5-6.0, largely depending on the reviewers mood. Yet this series is a million-selling series, and one many, many, MANY people love. How the fuck hard is it to find people who if not like than at least UNDERSTAND the appeal of a given game in a series or subgenre and have THEM review it?