Ah, have to disagree. Life has no rules at all. :)

Have to say I don´t really like Bethesda games in a vanilla/ unmodded state, except for Fallout New Vegas, the others I had to mod to a certain degree to enjoy them. I think that´s what makes their (Bethesda) games so great, not the story or the gameplay, but how you can change certain aspects of the games through mods, only my oppinion of course.

I´d give the Empire Earth series 7 points, but I agree on you with Pillars of Eternity, the story may be good, but i couldn´t get into the games.

What I don´t get is, all we do is talk about our own oppinions, not facts, they differ from person to person and we won´t change them just because you tell me how amazing "!XYZ" is, so why are some people trying to shove their oppinion down others throats ? Oh yeah, having an oppinion is considered trolling ? ...Well, okay...

Only by people who don't like opinions. :D

If that´s how they want to participate in a "discussion", their loss. :D

I like this there. Might be more useful than some of the so called reviews on the gamecards :D. As long as its reviews on games on GOG (bought here) ;)

That's an Obsidian game, so that might be why. ; )

On what scale?
7 out of 10? Pretty good.
7 out of 5? ( =P ) Phenomenal!
7 out of 100? [shudder]

That may be correct. :)

On a scale to 10. :)

Wot?
Unless you're using some strange ratings, usually:
4 = very insufficient
5 = insufficient
6 = sufficient

On a non-shitty 1-10 rating scale, 5 (not 7!) should mean "average". All the "professional" review sites that are afraid to give games lower than a 7, lest some publishers blacklist them, have skewed people's perceptions. Nobody should need six separate ratings reserved for different flavors of "below average".

Morrowind is a game of layers that you have to peel back carefully. What you see at the sprawling surface is not what you will find at its dense core. But I can understand if someone does not want to put endless hours into a game to finally discover what it actually is about. I feel the same about some other obviously great games.

It's just that people aren't very precise or coherent with these terms.
The "average" word is freely used to mean "mediocre"," nothing special", "just ok", "good but not great", and so ranges from like 5 to 7.
Noone thinks at it as the exact mathematical average.
Anyway, I prefer the sufficient\insufficient terms, because they're a little more precise.

Since a lot of rating systems use the numbers 1-5 (like Amazon), I usually apply them in this way:

5 - Excellent
4 - Good
3 - Ok
2 - Bad
1 - Crap

Therefore you will probably see less 5s from me than from most people.

Did I screw up the translation? I meant more "accurate".
Otherwise, I know that none of those terms are exact, but "average" seems really generic to me.

No, you're right, "precise" basically means "accurate". :)
What I meant was that "sufficient" and "insufficient" are no less subjective than "good" and "bad" -- these are all equally imprecise terms which rely heavily on understanding what the particular player or reviewer's personal tastes are.