That overall sounds pretty opinionated to me. Which I guess all the reviews are, but docking a game that was built mostly for MP competition for not having a "hold your hand with cutscenes" campaign seems a bit odd.

So tired of seeing complaints about "no tutorial".

Took me 2 single player skirishes to completely know what I'm doing.

Technical issues aside, if you can't figure out this easy to pickup-and-play game, you need to go back to your hand holding kiddie console.

Have to agree that it is weird to dock for the cutscenes. Last time I checked, games came with a manual... made of paper! =D

Reviewers have no right to complain about the lack of a single player campaign. Why?

Sins of a Solar Empire, the game that gathered universal praise, had no campaign. Unreal Tournament had no real campaign. Team Fortress 2. Quake 3. Battlefield 1942/Vietnam/2/2142. Smash Bros. (N64 + Gamecube, Wii had a decent one). The list goes on. All were reviewed with high scores.

Multiplayer games can stand apart as multiplayer-centric titles. Likewise, I don't see any reviewers marking down FFXII because it lacks multiplayer. Sheesh.

Is it a review writen by reviewers from UGO.com or an actual blog from someone, because I am not very fond of blog written reviews.

I agree its extremely irritating when reviews make negative points about there being no singleplayer, theres a difference between just providing factual information and speaking negatively about it. But lets be honest the review is pretty damn positive, not much to complain about. Just because it doesn't get A's all around doesn't make it a bad review.

Well, speaking negatively has its place, as long as it's in context. Every game should be reviewed on what it was trying to accomplish, not a "checklist for RTS features" where you go through and check off what a game has and doesn't have and make a score based on that

If a game promises an epic single player story but fails to deliver, that's a cause to point out that single player is weak. But if a game like Demigod never tries to hide the fact that it's geared towards competitive online play, complaining about lack of strong single player is pretty nonsensical.

Idk, for some reason it's listed as an Actiontrip review on gameranking, but the link for it goes to UGO Games Blog.

Review is ok I guess, but as others said, I don't know why a game with simple mechanics gets marked down for no tutorial, also don't get how they can say it has great replay value, then only give it a C for value.

I played with/against that guy a few times over the weekend.

Yeah, maybe folks think this game is about light and dark sides meeting together in the middle to have a picknick?

Light vs Dark, kill the other guys, blow their shit up and in the mean time click a few things and see what they do.  I know it's hard to grasp, but hard work and perserverance, and you might  be able to actually kill and easy AI... some day.

I love how they say that the connection is meh, but never mention that with Stardock DAY ONE IS ONLY THE BEGINNING. Tons of updates are coming this game's way, and the connections are through a somewhat different type of server than the norm. So there's going to be issues!

if there would be a singleplayer with 10 missions and 10 cutscenes these 10 missions just would be 10 skirmishes and all reviewers would say "that singleplayer is crap". so i think it was a good idea to leave out a campain completely.

Obviously you guys have different taste in games then others.  Singleplayer is important to some people and with the cast of characters this game has it might be been interesting.

A tutorial would of been nice to teach you about the various structures in this game and their importance rather than you limbering around aimlessly while you don't fully understand why you are capturing certain points.  Not everyone is a gaming guru, not everyone picks games up fast.  Most people who are just average or below average would pick a game up, get frustrated and never play again.  In an online intensive game you can see why this would be considered bad.

I like the game, yes it is simple to learn if you give it the little bit of effort.  I would of preferred a story mode but am perfectly fine without one.  But I can at the very least understand the "nit picks" as some call it and I am sure if they have these complaints there are legions of people who share these complaints as well.  Elitism is never good for a community, or a game.  A good hardcore game is one that invites newbs, not by making the game easy but by at least giving them a feeling that they might be able to compete one day if they keep learning.  Doing so would give them the very basic knowledge they need to grow.

Well, single player is important to me in a lot of games, as I primarily play SP.

But the fact remains that Demigod was never going to be the great single player experience, it made no attempt in hiding it and it didn't promise a campaign.

Sure, it may be noted in the review that there is no campaign to inform the readers, but how can you you penalize the game for it when it was pretty clearly labeled as a primarily multiplayer game from the beginning?

Probably felt it could of been better with one, a B is a good score either way.