Don't even get me started with how far up his own ass the reviewer's (Nate Ahearn) head is. There is so much wrong, so many contradictions and idiotic statements in there, it is one of the most absymally bad reviews I've ever read.
The subtitle of this review is "This might even be too nerdy for nerds."...
What kind of review was that!?!?! That guy is a total idiot, it is pretty obvious that he doesn't want to spend the time to learn how to play the game. Why do they let people like this review these games? He is already getting angry comments on that site for his crappy review.
This game, like fighting games, is very subject to individual taste. These types of games can't be reviewed easily as much of the fun and enjoyment are only gained after a good amount of time and dedication are applied into truly learning the game.
That being the case I can personally tell youi that the game absolutely delivers the way it intends to: as an addictive, mentally challenging and focus-driven game. Yes, it has problems and oversights, many of which I'll be the first to decry, and it's a bit rough-around-the-edges, but the core of the game is incredibly well built.
Assuming 10 to be absolute perfection of the genre in terms of content and delivery, I'd say Saga is a solid 8, myself. It loses out most in the lack of a feature-rich and polished online system.
Highlights of review, as delivered by Adam Sessler (as aired on their Tuesday, February 5 show):
Score: Three out of Five
Quotes: "Basically the result of a one-night stand between Monopoly and Magic: The Gathering." "Primeval graphics with a worn-out story" "Geekiest board game this side of Magic: The Gathering"
Interestingly, the on-line version of the review appears to me to be a bit more positive than the one delivered vocally by Adam. Has anyone else seen the aired review, and if so, what did you think? (Note: A video version of the review is also available at the link above.)