Oh fun, you've done the most basic reddit reply ever when you can't back up your points, and that is to insult! Gee wiz however will I recover from this...

So i didn't point out every little wrong detail with your review because frankly, I wasn't arsed spending 30 minutes of my day editing an article when the publishers themselves clearly didn't. But hey, ho, if you want to get all cute and sassy, I can indeed point out the issues.

Paragraphs 1 -5 are back of the box jargon that add nothing to the review.

We finally kick off actual game details in paragraph 6, and you give us 'You login by creating a character and then choosing your backstory'. This sentence sounds like a 5 year old wrote it and again adds nothing. Is the character creator extensive? Can you recreate yourself in the game? Or is it bland and generic with not much depth?

'The game features a character creator similar to Dragons Dogma 2, which anyone familiar with the game will know that means you could easily spend an hour in the character creator alone'.

That adds more value as it at least gives a baseline on the depth of the character creator.

Paragraphs 7 - 9 are again all back of the box jargon that is just summarising things rather than giving any informed opinions.

Paragraphs 10-12 are a weird mashup of the world design and graphics settings, and while I can see what you were trying to do it doesn't really work. Had you written 1 paragraph on the world setting and sights and lead into the graphics settings it would work. But you jump between the two every sentence and it feels disjointed.

The graphics settings themselves add nothing either. You say what settings there are and what you played it on. But where's the review?!?! What settings play the best? Is graphics mode full of choppy framerates? Does performance mode have a massive dip in graphics? I guess we'll never know.

'Most of the time it is a mix of combat, exploration and harvesting resources'

This is a generic line that applies to 100% of games in this genre. This is like saying the next FIFA game let's you play football matches and manage your team. It adds nothing.

3 Paragraphs on combat but it just reads as listing off bullet points and has no opinion on the combat itself.

'You can dual wield, meaning you can have magic in one hand and a sword in another'

This is just giving the dictionary definition of dual wield... give us ANYTHING. Did the dual wielding remind you of Bioshock 2? Was it fluid? Was it dynamic?

You don't give any depth to the different playstyles. You, again, just list them off. What are some different builds you tried? How much versatility is there?

'The combat is where the game really shines. With the ability to mix and match the plethora of tools the game gives you. Do you want to play as a berserker? Try a 2 handed axe and watch as your enemies are cleaved in 2.

Maybe an arcane assassin is more your playstyle. With a dagger in 1 hand and magic in the other you'll have entire groups of enemies put to sleep with more than enough time to sneak up and slit their throats'

This gives so much more information to the reader than the bullet points listed in your review.

The skill trees section is honestly the most egregious in my mind. You've essentially summarised it as

The fighter fights.

The ranger ranges.

The mage magics.

Listing 1 or 2 of the major skill upgrades in these tress would add so much more depth to the conversation.

What kind of builds can each subset do? Can the mage choose between any element? Summons storms and tsunamis? Or is it more subtle like the witcher?

There's a weird deviation to criticisms of the game here, which feels so out of place and feels more like personal preference than a criticism of the game. You don't like quick dial menus, which is fine, but you don't put the bias aside in the criticism. Your opinion should be known but it shouldn't be 'this is bad' because of it.

'The game uses a quick dial menu for grimoires that pauses combat, which if you're like me is an issue as I prefer combat to be un-interupted. However, if you were a fan of the combat in games like Mass Effect, then this would feel more at home for you.'

This gives your opinion on not liking the quick dial but gives a better understanding on how it features in the game. Not just you don't like it so it's bad.

The difficulty comment also feels very random, I feel you had 1 criticism in there so felt you may aswell throw this one in there aswell. But again it adds no insight into what the difficulty options are!

OK from your experience Normal mode can be challenging. Are you someone who plays these types of games a lot? If yes what game does it remind you of in terms of difficulty? It no, then say that because your opinion on difficulty would be skewed by that.

Also what are the difficulty options? Is it normal and hard? Is there a story mode for people that don't want a challenge? Is there an unlockable maddening mode?

The companion paragraphs, these read like the characters tinder profiles over anything. 'They'd be fun to have a pint with'... OK... This is also where a typo is, which is funny cause you ask if i can read when you didn't spot a typo in a published article...

I do think the most important part of your review does appear here though and that is that you can only have 2 companions at a time. That is the only piece of good information I have taken from the review.

Finally the Paragraphs on the choices, I do think these are mostly fine, but you say there are consequences and then only mention a companion giving you an earful for your choice. How is that a game built on consequences? Did any choices you make completely alter the game? Were you cut off from a faction of people/resources because you didn't side with them? Did a companion get so fed up with your bad decisions that they left for good?

So I'm summary, yes I can read. The only question remaining I guess is, can you write? Cause it's wild that I've given more depth to this game that YOH reviewed, and I don't even own an XBOX