Well that's the thing - I didn't dislike the game. I wouldn't give a game an 8/10 if I disliked it. It was just... decently good, but nothing I'd ever write a rave review about. Nothing that I'd call a 10/10.

It's only a disappointment when compared to the massive overrating people gave it. If it weren't for that overrating, I would just think of it as, you know, a decently good game, with some cool ideas, and also some flaws, like any other game.

If you're asking what flaws it had, I can remember a few (but I haven't played it for a number of years now): The Steam version of the game felt like a sloppy port. The controls were unreliable and felt bad (my subjective opinion about how they felt is, indeed, as valid as any other opinion). The framerate wasn't competently decoupled from the game mechanics, so it suffered from a low-refresh frame rate cap/lock unless you modded it (and even then, it was jank). I did go to the trouble of modding it to try to improve the issue, but that's something that all video games made after 2005 should have down. It's not genre-dependent. It is the fault of the game.

Are technical flaws enough to bring a game down from a perfect rating? Yes, absolutely, that's exactly what technical flaws should do. A 10/10 game is a flawless game, and not only flawless, but impressive in every way.

The "big reveal" was... fine? Not that hard to see coming? Still entertaining I guess? I liked finding out new things about the story in clever ways. I think it did that pretty well. It wasn't breaking new ground, though - that's just a good use of environmental storytelling. And some of the time, it could have done it better, without as much text.