The problem here is cultural context. Scoring out of 10 or out of 100 makes it look like a grade. Fifteen years of schooling have conditioned me to see a 70%* as the absolute last stop before seventy degrees of hard failure, and I doubt I'm the only one. Whether your average is 68% or 8%, at the end of the year, you still can't claim course credit because your performance was unacceptable. When I see a review that scores the game 68%, I have to dismiss my immediate "failing grade" conditioned response and consider the context, because it isn't (necessarily) the same context as a teacher grading a test.

It's not always exclusively reader interpretation, though - many reviewers actually seem to intend their scores to be read this way**, and if they give the game a seven, it's because they really do consider it a borderline case. Not all score that way, of course, but then, when you go to Metacritic, you just get straight-across conversions to percentages anyway (with manipulative color-coding, to boot). Averaging scores together only makes sense if everyone uses the exact same metrics, but they don't.

I think that if you insist on giving a numerical score, then scoring by a different metric (say, out of five) helps people take the score in its own context and not read so much into it. Speaking for myself, it at least eliminates my gut reaction to percentiles; a score of 3/5 has a different meaning to me than a score of 60% or 6.0. Obviously, I would read the review and understand the reviewer's metrics before I tried to ascribe any meaning to the score - that's the difference between me and some knee-jerk fanboy who only considers the raw number, ignoring shades of context and interpretation, not to mention the actual text of the review - but my initial emotional reaction is different for each.

* Different school systems have different grading scales, but when I was in school, a 69 or below was a failing grade.
** Although score inflation and conflicts of interest do play a part as well.

Just humble opinions
I don't see trolls

Wishlisted...

I played the xbox 1 version and found the time to complete it. I would think it is a game that might be better on a console than on the PC or at least plays better with a gamepad. At the time I found it entertaining but I wouldn't say it was much more than that. The story is pretty generic and I don't think R.A. Salvatore spend too much time with it. One thing that might appeal to fans of Salvatore's work is that you get to play Drizzt at some point in the game.
Like Dragonshard, which I got the retail version for free with NWN2, I agree that 5.99 would have made the deal more attractive.

i think he means the text on one of the screenshots.

Trolls, you say? I've been getting into this "fantasy" thing you youngins are always yapping about, and my elven sorceress would love to fight some trolls.

An entertaining enough game, though pretty average and definitely too short.

I have played this game extensively for the PS2.

The game involves three characters, a warrior, a mage, and a thief. They each have a variety of combat moves, like any other combo based fighting game, that can be triggered by a set of button inputs. These are fairly simple and straightforwards for basic combat, but the combination of interruptable attacks and insanely long and complex button pushing means those like me with poor reflexes are not going to be able to perform well in the boss fights.

Equipment and character upgrading are NOT in the form of RPG elements. Equipment upgrades are purchased with gold, which in this game is more like a score for the level - you don't actually 'spend' the gold, it just limits what you can purchase for your character. That being said, as I recall there is not much reason to do anything but upgrade to the next level, so you do not choose gear so much as unlock better armor and weaponry. You can, however, choose which area of your character's gear you upgrade next, which is a nice feature.

The storyline is meager to the point of being inconsequential. The character development is mediocre - there is quite a bit of banter between the characters in cutscenes, but I cannot recall much at all in the actual game.

The three characters do not provide the ability to suit your own playstyle. You MUST become acquainted with all of them and use all of them. There are stealth sequences (pretty well realized) for the rogue, areas where ranged combat is essential (the mage's venue) and other areas where there are so many melee enemies you are almost forced to use the warrior.

I didn't post this information in the review section because I did NOT finish the game. I've had it for years and I've never played more than the first few levels, because it didn't interest me. However, this is a robust hack-and-slash combo based title that is far superior to the LOTR series.

On a final side note, I was playing the PS2 version. I can't see this game working well on PC unless it supports a gamepad, and you have one. Of course, they could have converted it to PC use, but that seems uncommon for ports.

weren't that great times when "troll" was just a troll?

Never played this one. Wishlisted for a future promo

Excel...I mean, I knew these games were dangerous! Is this what we're feeding to our kids?

This is a good game, though a bit on the short side (I finished it in a week-end). It's entertaining though difficult at times. It should be priced at 5.99$ IMHO, but is still a decent pick even at 9.99$ if you're into beat-em all games, a genre too rare on our PCs.

Stuck on my wishlist for now.

Better goblins in games than trolls in Trumps. Besides, the children are our future! You wouldn't have them ill prepared, would you? Or would you?