GameSpot gave People of Note a 7/10 and still called out the exact reason it dies after Act 2

The review starts by declaring the game a lovable oddity, then spends the rest of the piece explaining in painful detail why its third act is a stamina tax dressed up as ambition. That's a reviewer’s equivalent of a lighthouse being reviewed by a moth: it recognizes the light, but only because it keeps colliding into it.

The core complaint is brutally clear: combat turns repetitive, patterns calcify, and by the end the experience drags like a marching band that forgot the beat and kept carrying the drums anyway. Yet the verdict stays at 7/10, which is not a score so much as a polite way of saying, "this was expensive to dislike." If this is your calibration curve, it’s tuned so generously that every midpoint becomes a middle finger wrapped in a compliment.

Mentioning optional auto-QTE and auto-win buttons without docking serious points is the same genre of criticism as calling a broken elevator "currently under optimization." The article diagnoses the stall, names the burnout loop, and then treats the workaround as ordinary player behavior. That is not critique; that's a how-to guide for surviving what should’ve been called out as structural failure.

And the structure of the review itself is the giveaway: warm praise blocks like they’re drywall, while the actual structural crack is quietly left behind for readers to trip over. You can almost see the editorial spreadsheet: worldbuilding + soundtrack + genre creativity = pass, anything with a sinkhole in Act 3 = still pass, but with a cautionary paragraph. We give this review a 2/10. It spotted the train wreck yet kept driving on with the hazard lights on. Sponsored by the truth.