What is "good" writing? Most people found the majority of the characters to be annoying special snowflakes that swear way too much.
"Most people"? It has a metascore of 82 and a user rating of 80 over at metacritic, a place not exactly known for hosting a lot of Obsidian fans. They don't get the AAA fanboy treatment in most media today, yet the game scored very well. The writing is one of the reasons it's getting praise, so saying that "most people found.. " is just plain inaccurate.
The best parts of the writing is in the lore, as I explicitly stated, as it's very fleshed out, with lots of information in almost every dialogue. Like I said in the review: I found it more fun to read about the world than to explore it.
What is good about lots of skill checks? It's an extremely cheap replacement for actual gameplay.
Hogwash, from someone who should probably be playing shooters or something. In actual RPGs, skill checks are great because they mean there's an emphasis on character development. Want to be a smooth talker? Great, but you need the proper skills to do so, and that means sacrificing something else. Want to be a big brute? Fine, but the same rules apply.
Choices and consequences are standard and Character progression even more so - how are these Pros? They should be a given and the game at hand is average in those at best, making it not special at all.
I assume you're just trolling, as you're simply coming across as someone who just doesn't understand RPGs. Yes, it should be standard, but it's not, which makes it a huge pro for those that have it. Proper C&C is rare in this day and age, especially when it comes to C&C so massive it actually affects which path you take through the game. The only one that comes to mind is The Witcher 2, where the entire 2nd chapter was different depending on path (in addition to quite a few scenarios beyond that).
Somewhat clunky combat. What is somewhat? Is it clunky or not? To most people it just felt incredibly boring for reasons.
Somewhat clunky means somewhat clunky. Clumsy. Awkward. Look it up. Like PST compared to IWD and BG. PST is in the exact same boat: The combat should be fine, the animations are good, but it's still not. It has a sluggish feel to it, and it's fairly clear that it simply wasn't a priority during development.
Limited scope of what? A story needs to focus on certain parts or otherwise it will be just boring.
The game has a limited scope. As in, it's not Baldur's Gate or Arcanum, which both have massive scopes. There are many more places to explore, people to talk to and things to do over the course of the game. All this was explained in the review though, as was everything else I've elaborated here.
Basically all you are saying is: "x is shit but I can't express how shit it is and think it's actually not that shit… maybe." How is t hat even a review?
The pros and cons are not the review. Otherwise I could simply say "Pros and Cons" as the main header and the entire review follows it. The pros and cons are just the result of the review. It's basically the sum at the end of an equation. If anyone struggles to understand what I mean by "Good writing", just look it up in the review. There are several paragraphs dedicated to the writing. And so on and so forth.
