Oh, so I see what happened. This game deserved a glowing review(being better than anything else of similar scope and gameplay style released in the last few years), but this is the tone this dipshit used to review it:
Is Expeditions: Viking a good game? Yes, yes it is. My criticisms are many, but they address the relatively lofty heights to which the game clearly aspires: a turn-based tactical RPG that somehow merges elements of an exploratory, resource-management strategic layer with a quest/story-driven model. The results are ambiguous, and in many ways, I prefer the tightly woven mechanics of Conquistador. But if you were to ask me whether it is worth the money, I would answer, absolutely: it is a game that provides robust turn-based tactical combat, a competently written historical setting, and plenty of entertaining quests. I dearly hope that the Expeditions series continues – and continues to tinker its formula.
This is close to a negative review. He could have just erased this last paragraph and written "meh, it was good for what it is" instead. People who read this and gave it value either didn't play it or left it at their backlist.
ITT, the game shouldn't have been reviewed by a pillars of faggotry fan. These people are unable to recognize incline.
