FYI I made a short review of the game on my blog here:

http://gamingzoneblog.msn.com/dk/blogpost.aspx?post=a67dbe5b-f9aa-4222-8b7b-d936c64419bf

And in english for the non-Nords among us: 

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=da&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgamingzoneblog.msn.com%2Fdk%2Fblogpost.aspx%3Fpost%3Da67dbe5b-f9aa-4222-8b7b-d936c64419bf

I don't know - I mean a 10 paragraph review, half of which are a single sentence.

When taken in the context of the entire blog -the screenshots of which indicate that this is basically a review written by a non-wargamer (and having said that... cue the 'what is a wargame debate'' you can find that over on BoardGameGeek if you like) who reviews console game material.

In strictly wargaming terms (you know those "old men" ), it would be the equivalent of an Axis and Allies player (or probably Risk), reviewing the old SPI game Mech War 2...  

It sort of begs the question of what is the context of this review? What other similar games have been reviewed there (and by similar I am meaning similar to hex/counter style board games?).

Anyways, I'm all for well written, thoughtful reviews... bring on some more (on any topic).

trauth116,

I think it's more of a kneejerk reaction to the game, What you'd normally forgive i.e graphics etc when a game is working the way it should do out the box you don't overlook if the game has some significant problems.

Still it's not a review as such I wouldn't say. No mention of the pacthes and that it's being worked on.

Also the old men thing is just a bad google translation, it's not what he said in his own country. I saw the same thing with regards to a foreign review of the HTTR expansion.