Games

16830 readers

901 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc..
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.

Comments.

No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

nanoUFO

506

Dragon's Dogma 2 launches to "Mostly Negative" review bombing after microtransactions reveal, and man, what a bummer (www.windowscentral.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/games

242 comments fedilink hide all child comments

What you need to know

As Dragon's Dogma 2 launched on PC Thursday evening, a previously hidden suite of microtransactions became available for purchase.
Things you can buy for the single player ARPG include fast travel points, Rift Crystals for hiring Pawns and buying special items, appearance change and revival consumables, a special camping kit that weighs less than normal ones, and a few others.
In response to the microtransactions, Dragon's Dogma 2 is being review bombed, with the game currently sitting at "Mostly Negative" on Steam.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 153 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, too many “journalists” chuck around the term review bombed to mean when a AAA game gets a load of (deserved) hate.

[–] [email protected] 60 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Good journalists go back, edit their original review to call out the bait and switch of hiding the microtransactions from reviewers, and adjust their score accordingly with microtransactions taken into accout.

And release a follow up "article" just letting people know what happened and that they've updated the review, so it doesn't fly under people's radar.

Seriously, reviewers need to stop softballing when this shit happens. It's one thing for review copies to maybe be missing the final coat of polish. It's something completely different to completely leave out a feature known to be contreversial in an attempt to pump up scores, then turn it on after the initial wave of buyers can no longer return their purchase. Not like they spontaneously developed this shit since review copies went out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Too many reviewers don't want to get kicked out of getting early releases and review codes so they can earn those yummy clicks.

[+] [email protected] -33 points 8 months ago (4 children)

It's still a form of review bombing. If the game is good (I have not played it nor seen any review so I don't actually know, but the article is making it sound like the only issues are the mtx) aside from the predatory mtx, does it deserve a mostly negative rating ?

I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but I can also see reasons to if one thinks that you are not getting a much worse experience by not paying for these micro transactions.

Also, it's fucking Capcom. They have good studios but they have always been greedy bastards. So I can't say I'm surprised by any of this.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If the game is good (I have not played it nor seen any review so I don’t actually know, but the article is making it sound like the only issues are the mtx) aside from the predatory mtx, does it deserve a mostly negative rating ?

Yes. Yes I think it does. Seems like many other people agree!

[–] [email protected] -4 points 8 months ago

Well I agree too but it's not a fucking law of physics, the journalist is allowed to have a different opinion on that

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago

The microtransactions are one issue among many. To be frank, putting microtransactions in a $70 USD title would still warrant negative reviews in and of itself, but the the game is also having catastrophic performance issues and crashing on PC for what seems to be the majority of players, to the point of many Youtube channels covering it that did not get press copies being all but unable to play at all.

It doesn't matter if a game has a lot of good elements, if it has bad ones and people cite those bad elements in negative reviews it's not review bombing, it's consumers giving an honest review of a product.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Imagine that you're having the best dinner of your life. Everything you like, jizz-in-your-pants delicious, served by beautiful people of your preferred sex. Then dessert comes, a massive cake, but while you're enjoying it, you notice a different flavor. And a smell. You look and in the middle of the cake, there is a half-consumed turd.

Would you still rate it "9/10 great except for the turd"? Or would you remember it as the restaurant that served you a turd?

(I stole this hyperbole from the Angry Joe Show's GOT review)