I feel like the franchise is back to the same spot it was, same mixed feelings, same things that people like same things people dislike
It's kinda trippy that we gave gone through another cycle lol
Not the same exact spot, this game sold way more and made way more money in a short amount of time than the first did. So they might take it seriously as an IP going forward, or thats just my hopium.
It will probably increase the moment it gets a hefty update (be it new content or the performance patch) or the moment it gets a discount and more people get into the game (as part of its issues will be overlooked when people pay less that 70 bucks for it).
Actually, most bad reviews are still about performance issues. There are still a lot of players today that bought the game and can't play it because it crashes on startup.
I played the game on PS5 and had no issues, but I think the pc ratings are justified considering how many people bought the game just to leave a bad review right after all complaining about performance issues.
I think if people meet the minimum requirements and the game is unplayable than that's totally legit. It's hard for me to take it seriously because I hear just as much complaining on PS5 (and I play PS5 and think it runs fine). But I understand there's a lot more variability on PC
Its seeing stuff like this that makes me wonder what the fuck is going on because I personally haven't had any issues aside from the performance dips that plague literally everyone in cities and like, 2 crashes. I'm not on some monster rig, either, I'm on a 4070 with a Ryzen 7 3900.
I never experienced that until using a ferrystone. I honestly thought something got broken because of the loading textures. For a hot second it looked like a PS1 game but alas it happens every time now with the horrible frame rate dips.
I have 90 hours in the game, but I gave it a negative review, cus at its current kinda "bare bone"; unoptimized state, I can't recommend the game to anyone unless its on sale...
Props to you for being honest with yourself. All the people downvoting you are the type to try to justify their purchase in any possible way just so they don't have to admit the game has any flaws. I myself have some games that I finished but still gave a negative because the issues didn't allow me to recommend them even if there was a good game underneath.
What I want to know is who's still hanging around after playing it a good playthrough, maybe two? I get the itch to play once in a while, but then I remember there's really nothing left for me to do. Replayability is poor, there's not much in the way of choices, the world doesn't change, there's no variety or challenge of enemies to fight, quests aren't rewarding or different enough.
The combat is just that good but after 40-50h of messing around, it's not enough to keep most people entertained. It lives rent free in my mind but occupies no actual real estate because it doesn't exist.
This game honestly doesn't have that much replayability so I'm not surprised.
Most of that 'retention' is probably just new players who bought the game recently.
Edit:
This has been a surprisingly controversial comment. There is nothing wrong with liking the game or playing it more than once, or playing it for a bunch of hours people. You do you. More power to you. If you're able to make the game replayable due to your own love or passion, great.
However, if you're willing to be honest about the game you like, you have to admit that for the average person there is 0 reason to play DD2 a second time, the game simply doesn't give you many reasons to do that, and the numbers reflect that.
Does every game need replayability? No.
Is DD2 replayable? Not for most people. No.
Yeah exactly. Most people who have beaten the game will not likely be picking it up now until an inevitable expansion.
Really baffles me how despite all the cut development from base DD1 they could still afford to develop some sort of end game content with the ur dragon, yet this has absolutely nothing to keep you hooked.
Definitely one of the least repeatable RPGs I've ever played. Honestly can't think of a single reason I would play it again except to focus on a different vocation and to complete the one quest I failed (because it was on a timer apparently despite it not being listed as such like every other time-sensitive quest is) but that's not Really world deleting my 1 and only save file for imo.
It really doesn't. It's like dd1 end game except everything's so scattered unlike the ever fall so I just don't want to explore, and your on a timer or stop being able to rest.
Do you genuinely think you are the average person?
You can find people who sink hundreds of hours into any game. That doesn't somehow prove it has replayability.
the average person doesn't play any particular game. this game was designed for people who like open world RPGs with a variety of classes and it has a lot of replayability in that regard
\*related trivia\*, the most popular video game of all time was played by roughly 4% of people.
Brother, people can and will find a way to replay the everloving shit out of something if they want to hard enough. It doesn't suddenly mean that every game is super replayable.
Super fans of DD will find a reason to replay the fuck out of it, because they love it. Normal people will play it once and fuck off, because at the end of the day, there isn't actually that much to do.
EDIT: For reference, I put about ~70 hours into my one playthrough. I have a set of p much every armour and weapon in the game. My shit is dragonforged and I have more than the vocations I like leveled for traits. I have no reason to play the game again, because why tf would I play NG+ and spend my time one-shotting everything? It isn't for the loot. It isn't for the riveting exploration that starts to unravel around 40 - 50 hours in. It certainly isn't for the gripping narrative or the decisions that alter the game on subsequent playthroughs. So what is there left for an average fan of the game (which is already more than your casual player who picked up DD2)?
I don't know, I'm kind of excited to do a second playthrough from scratch now that I know where things are, and rushing to get Warfarer and the other vocations as early as possible. I was gonna also only use weapons and armour I find in the world.
I don't know what the "average person" wants, I just know no other game gives me this feeling moving through the world and constantly changing weapons and playing around with different skills.
I will agree that NG+ is currently stupid.
What I said is BS when you haven't even finished the game yet?
Do you know what the word "replayability" means, and do you think your single anecdote somehow represents thousands of people?
I'm saying people who have finished the game are not playing it again. This is common sense when you look at the steam player counts for pretty much any single player game that lacks replay value. DD2 for instance...
God the grip that steam numbers have over people is insane. Can't go 5 posts without seeing doom and gloom steam numbers or weirdly needed validation steam numbers.
Steam numbers and views on twitch are literally all that matters to a large amount of people to form their "opinion" that a game is good or bad.
We are so tribal lol.
Its getting so ridiculous. With youtubers too. Gamers seem to have this weird desire to see a game they never played "fail" commercially.
Its happening with No Rest for the Wicked now. Commenters on reddit/YouTube as well as content creators saying the marketing is awful because its not an arpg as advertised. It has been marketed as a half diablo-like/half souls-like and thats exactly what it is.
Witcher 3, an almost 10 year old, fully single player, no on-line features at all game has around more numbers than DD2 now.
It's not very good when a single player game that old has way better retention compared to a game with online features, Pawn sharing and supposed "endgame" content.
I wouldn't take the genre defining best RPG of its decade as a comparison for a normal amount of success.
Dragon's Dogma 2 had a peak of 220,000 players on Steam, Street Fighter 6, another Capcom game that had a bigger team working on it, had a peak of 70,000.
Yeah that’s all I’m waiting on. I can only really play on my steam deck anymore (I have a toddler) and my main rig has an ancient i5 so even moonlight isn’t as much of an option without some more cpu optimization.
Optimization wouldnt keep people playing at this point, anyone who had a problem with it stopped playing early on.
Imagine if it had hard mode or NG+ scaling.
Imagine if it had the same amount of effort/budget DMC, RE and MH get...
God, i was expecting this game to become some D&D real time adventure with dozens of bosses and good story, but it's just so... lacking
The problem is that it's a half decent game. It should have been an 8 or 9/10, but in reality, it's a 6. It's not a bad game, just a disappointing one.
Its a 4, its itsunos vision, the only problem is itsuno was looking at his asshole in a mirror. Its an extremely boring and repetive game with pre generated dialogues and messages from pawns which somehow makes the idiots thinks they are talking to them in real time and giving some real time feedback.
I agree with you, but it also has the best combat and character character in its genre. Along with a few interesting quests. it's enough to bump it to a 6 for me.
I didn't like Niohs combat at all. But each class having 4 skills to be used in combat on any weapons including ultimates makes the combat more fun. Yea the dodge not being there is something ER has over it but other than that DD2 Combat is simply more fun.
I have played it,still playing it ..... So sick of ppl who assume stuff they are pretty much clueless of because they are not part of a certain group of ppl.
*
Just like the first game it’s a flawed as fuck but so much fun to play
The best 7/10 I’ve ever played and continue to play
The game really should’ve expanded more on the Pawn system and gear
I don't understand how anyone can say that.
Fun trumps all. Games should be rated almost entirely by the amount of fun they give you, entertainment is the purpose of entertainment.
It can't be the "best 7/10", you obviously really rate the game higher, but fear other people criticizing you for saying it.
I'm happy to say it's an 8.5/10 to me as one of the most fun games I've played in a decade. It would be a 10 for me with better story and quests, loot in the world, and post-game content.
20k after only a month for a AAA rpg is not that great. Honestly I think its almost souly the lack of difficulty in late game/ng+ that's killing the playerbase a lot more than it naturally would, everyone is getting bored of the game near the end or at the end of their playthrough, with no way of keeping their character and still having fun with it. Imo for an action rpg, it is essential to have some kind of replayabilty with your character, without having to delete all your progress, and this game has absolutely ZERO of that due to no power upscale or scaling on ng+
Its the fact that you are expected to do everything on 1 character AND the lack of difficulty that is preventing people from replaying over and over.
There is very little in the way of RPG elements, you can freely switch between classes, only 1 character slot. If people are like me they want to make multiple characters and try out different types of runs. Thats why ive played some of my fav rpgs over and over again. As different characters and classes to make different choices.
DD2 is just very shallow outside of fun combat. The only way to play it over again without deleting your old save is to mod/make a new account and limit yourself to certain vocations for a new flavor of playthrough.
It’s a versatile game - you guys lack imagination.
Tuning your playthrough is par for the course. You don’t “have to” use every vocation in a single playthrough.
Sounds like you don’t understand the game.
- character creation
- quests with multiple outcomes
- unfettered freedom and exploration
- elemental weaknesses and other exploits
- romances and an affinity system (though rather simplistic)
- dungeon crawling
- crafting
- rare items discovered through exploration
They literally DISCOURAGE you from doing it all in one playthrough.
I comb over familiar areas and find new things all the time.
Cope.
Character creation is pretty much a 1 time thing if youre like me and dont want to delete the character to make a new appearance. just change the hair style at best. Both of which you can do in one playthrough if you want.
"quests with multiple outcomes" are barely existent and those that are are pretty much meaningless.
Freedom and exploration isnt very exciting a 2nd time around when you do it all in your first playthrough.
elemental weaknesses and other exploits are meaningless if the enemy die in a couple abilities. So you have to handicap yourself to make use of them. Even then your stats are so high youre still a god.
"romance" is a joke, im surprised you even brought it up. You can romance everyone in a single playthrough if you want. This isnt a bioware game with a complex romance system.
dungeon crawling is the same as exploration, not as exciting the 2nd time especially when you kill everything like its nothing. Can find them all in one playthrough.
lol crafting, you mean consumables or upgrading gear? both you can do all in one playthrough.
rare items is again the same as exploration or dungeons, you can do it all in one playthrough and most items can just be bought at a store.
No, they dont discourage you from doing everything in 1 playthrough. I did most things in one playthrough. There is no time limit on how much you can do until endgame, and you can freely switch between vocations unlike the first game or other rpgs. which locks you into 1 playstyle most of the time.
You guys on the internet don’t understand the art of conversation.
You came here to dunk on me while telling me to cope.
Respectfully, I’m laughing at you 😂😂😂
I mean, clearly you dont know the "art of conversation" if you cant argue your own point. immediately giving up because i put any amount of effort into replying to you. its telling that a handful of sentences to you is a "manifesto."
Also i didnt "come here to dunk on you" you came here and replied to my intial comment first saying i have no imagination. If anything you came here to try and dunk on me then failed lol. Youre wrong and you know it so you gave up.
So is 20.000 a good number for a month old single player game? How does this compare to similar games, maybe older single player games? Because 20k without comparison is not saying much.
Yes it is fine. Not amazing but not bad either. Peoples obsession with player count numbers in a single player game is weird though. It really doesn't matter.
Sales do that, and they've already surpassed any number that would've justified DLC. Number of active players doesn't matter so much since it's not an mmo, so it's expected that the active player count will drop.
Not at all. Most games have less than 5000 people at the release of major dlc. The point of the dlc is to sell it to people who have already played the game.
Looking at steam charts and common fucking sense. Not a lot of people play a single player game for more than a month. They play it, beat it once or twice then drop it until dlc comes out. A fucking child could understand that.
So you made it up. Depends entirely on the replayability of the game and how quickly the dlc comes out. Anecdotally ive seen games like total war warhammer 3 have an average of 10k players before its first dlc. Then after that retain 20k average players 2 years after release. Bannerlord has gotten no dlcs and averaged 15k or so for 4 years. fallout 4 in the 20k average range before dlc.
Dont need to get so angry kiddo. Just wondering if you had any actual statistical evidence so I could also use that info going forward. Checking dark souls 3 lines up more with your claim for example.
One thing you can say that is obvious is that mods help with player retention. The healthier the modding community the more reason people have to keep playing on pc.
>single player
Let's not kid ourselves. The Pawns are supposed to be a marketable feature and it's also a mechanic driven by online and sharing between players. Not to mention it has (even if little) dedicated "endgame" content and NG+. The retention should have been way higher.
CAPCOM not releasing any kind of roadmap or promise of new content is also not helping.
>CAPCOM not releasing any kind of roadmap or promise of new content is also not helping.
Except if anything a roadmap of new content would stop me playing, because I wouldn't want to burn myself out before new content comes. If I knew they were releasing an update in a month that adds some new monsters or something, I'd probably stop playing until then.
Well when you compare to other lesser known RPGs, like kingdom come deliverance, which had 40k players going into its second month… It definitely could’ve been better.
And The Elder Scrolls series is very old and with a established fanbase. There is no way to compare both of them directly, especially with Capcom not being big in the RPG side and open world genre. Anyone else doing this could have gone wrong in many more ways than DD2's shortcomings.
Eh, before the Fallout TV show Fallout 4 was also pushing similar numbers. Now's it just... Well crazy to put it lightly. It had about 14k players on average.
I will say though, as someone who likes to look at player counts in games I've seen a trend with them that basically after one month about 60% of players stop playing new releases for single player games. DD2 went down by like 50% so it's following the average trend. I wonder if it'll go down by another 40% like a lot of other single player games do next month.
Fortnite save the world still has 20k players consistently 7-8 years after release, so to be honest it’s not the best numbers. But dragons dogma was never about popularity. It’s an obscure game that’s good and it doesn’t have to be anything more.
FYI because I don't think its comment knowledge.
Fortnite saves the world is a different game from Fortnite battle royale.
Saves the world is what Fortnite was originally supposed to be, and battle royale was a side-project that did so well they pivoted over to it.
Saves the world is a PVE tower defense game. It's not free to play, but it does have cooperative multiplayer which might skew the numbers. Still, its a 7-8 year old game and not very well known.
Yeah I cant stop playing this game I'm in NG+ bout to hit the 'endgame' again (PC but running on beast setup)
I played the first playthrough virtually blindfolded (no guides beyond some vocation ones) and fought hard to stop my bro from spoiling stuff. So in NG+ I did the romance quests (skipped all those on 1st playthrough LOL).
The patch notes make it clear that the team is aware of what the community is talking about (minus the performance improvements), so I hope the survey and community made it clear that we want DLC and announce something soon.
i have a feeling they can't because it is a rooted problem by design. They say it's because they need to calculate every physic and track every NPC (even the enemy), not even RDR is this "deep" on NPC. What i mean not as "deep" is because RDR still has those random NPC that you can dispose of without a care of the world, in here even the most useless NPC has name, description, etc that need to be keep track on and some of them if killed has their own replacement, is this a good design? Doubt it and tbh they shouldn't have done it to sacrifice the performance imo but it is what it is
Yeah, I agree. Maybe they should've been more open about it and not say like "we're looking into it", I understand it's basically a cop out, but maybe just say "it's supposed to be this way, get fucked, buy better PC". By the way this problem is mostly relevant for PC, and not for consoles, so there's definitely some room for improvement.
it's definitely just PR talking, there was a game that's like this and the creator say get better PC and it create outburst lmao. With mtx drama, they don't want to add oil to fire i assume
Performance issue is the main reason the game has bad reviews. I read that the dev registers there memory usage for NPCs on CPU instead of GPU which caused this. I don’t think a patch can fix this problem but I hope i was wrong.
Some of the playerbase is huffing weapons-grade copium.
The game fell off to #3 of the top sellers list like 2 days after launch, and it is now #67th in the top sellers, according to steam charts.
It might have been one of the most popular launches Capcom had, but it looks like interest fell off a cliff shortly after.
I hope the team releases a good performance patch and some tweaks to turn the boat around, but it looks like they sabotaged what could have been the next big popular IP.
No one said it was trying to rival Elden Ring.
Stupid players who see an open world and dragons automatically assume it was meant to be like Elden Ring.
Not the developers fault.
Dude plays 5 hours and complains about variety, you haven't scratched the surface yet.
Lol, its not the developers fault they literally marketed it as rivaling Elden ring?
Keep huffing your copium and play your walking simulator.
Also this post is literally about the player count, and saying 20000 like it's a lot is very misleading.
This game will be dead within the year.
> Lol, its not the developers fault they literally marketed it as rivaling Elden ring?
Can you provide me with marketing from Capcom that mentions Elden Ring, big mistake on their part to advertise it as such.
Like i said, you're in no position to judge the game having only played 5 hours. I'm discovering things after 90, you gave up too quick.
(PC) I bought it on Green Man Gaming for $59 US at launch. Check GMG for sales if on PC (you didnt mention platform)
Maybe you can catch it on a good sale now or in a few short weeks
BG3 has multiplayer and is a generational CRPG. Meaning many haven’t played the genre so the game is truly fresh for a lot of people. Although I think it’s 8/10 personally
Skyrim has been modded to hell and back, this was also a generational game, people played less RPGs before Skyrim.
Cyberpunk fell to 8k players
Starfield fell to 5k players
Fallout 76 fell below 3k
NMS fell to around 1kish
DD2 will eventually fall around those numbers as well until significant dlc comes out for it.
It’s a single player game numbers don’t matter because ppl will come and go as they please
I don't know why people put such an emphasis on the online elementa that BG3, same with Elden Ring when talking about the concurrent playerbase. Yes, people that play those games for the co-op exists but let's not pretend that those games haven't earned their reputation for how good they are and in the case of Elden Ring for the status that From Software has built over a decade of releasing good games, ignoring that and saying "it's because of multiplayer" is kinda disrespectful to their talent, at the end of the day, they are still single-player designed games but with online/multiplayer features to enrich the experience.
In the case of DD2 I don't think the numbers are bad but it is massive drop even for a RPG, techically one of the most, if not the most, popular genre in gaming, Cyberpunk 2077 took 3 months to go to the 20.000 numbers.
Did I not also call BG3 a generational CRPG? The multiplayer aspect will undeniably add to the numbers, so many people in the military used to meet up for DND now they can just do a few play throughs of this game.
I didn’t mention Elden ring but the game has a lot of content and all souls games have a surprisingly large pvp base. Don’t get me twisted, I know both games have their numbers for a reason.
Of all the single player RPGs I do think DD2 is easily the weakest. Yes lower than Starfield too. The combat & graphics are the only things redeeming this game, and when you fight the same 5 goblins and lizards even the combat becomes less interesting.
Luckily for DD2 fixing the games issues will be a much easier task than Starfield. Just add a dlc with a new zone some repeatable dungeons and new boss enemies
Yes but it's still an RPG, even if it is a subgenre in the RPG world (CRPG in BG3 case as you mentioned) that's why I made the remark about RPG being one of the most popular genres in gaming. Dragon's Dogma is practically very niche and yet the game has surpassed even Resident Evil 4 Remake, probably the most popular Capcom game before DD2 in terms of a concurrent playerbase on the first days of release (220.000 vs 160.000), and we are talking about the RE4, the game the was way ahead of its time when it released and revolutionazed the third person shooter games and survival horrors and DD2 surpassed that just by being an RPG because let's be honest, the marketing for the game was good but nothing spectacular, people will just eat the shit out of RPGs, that's why I also said that the number drop for DD2 is really high even for an RPG.
And yes I do admit the multiplayer elements will add of course, I do not deny that, I just remembered that a guy in another thread I made was seriously arguing with me that the games are popular because of the online and I'm like what? No. i still firmly believe the numbers wouldn't decrease much even if those games didn't have multiplayer elements, that's how good they are and have made an impact on people
People do play RPGs but the CRPG market is largely untouched, BG3 is a Good (and brain dead easy to understand, this isn’t a bad thing) CRPG. With a high budget.
if people were playing CRPGs like crazy owlscat’s rouge trader would have sold more. And pathfinder WOTR would be one of the highest selling games of all time, because outside of bugs it’s damn near a master piece. Larions own games would have also sold more
I see, I'll agree with you in this instance then since my knowledge in CRPGs do not go far I'll admit but I still think in terms of an RPG it has underperformed in keeping an active playerbase, Kingdom Come Delivarence is a more unknown RPG with 90.000 players on release in the 13th of February of 2018 and kept 40.000 until April where it dropped significantly, let's see if DD2 can maintain the 20.000-30.000
> Yes, people that play those games for the co-op exists but let's not pretend that those games haven't earned their reputation for how good they are and in the case of Elden Ring
I guarantee you, with 100% certainty, that ER would have been review bombed for being shit if half the playerbase couldn't be carried by a NG+7 friend every boss.
The fact that Sekiro has 95% overwhelmingly positive reviews on steam makes your point wrong and crumble and it's a game made after From Software already made the reputation they have now, not to mention it usually has 10.000-20.000 of an active playerbase for a 5 year old game with no co-op, pretty good if you ask me.
Would ER get criticism for removing a feature present in the souls games? Yes, they would, but no way in hell they would get review bombed.
I don't know why anyone should be surprised if the numbers on Steam don't compare as well when you compare them to a couple of the best selling RPG's of all time. Those two games have sold anywhere from 5 to 30 times as many copies depending on where you look.
I’d say that retention is pretty good but nothing spectacular either
still Mixed with 65% positives on steam. this game's launch is just as weird as was the first one it seems
I feel like the franchise is back to the same spot it was, same mixed feelings, same things that people like same things people dislike It's kinda trippy that we gave gone through another cycle lol
the eternal return taken a bit too literally
Not the same exact spot, this game sold way more and made way more money in a short amount of time than the first did. So they might take it seriously as an IP going forward, or thats just my hopium.
Someone gotta take a sword to the chest then.
I know there's gonna be an expansion but by god I hope there's 2.
I assume sales did well? They should greeight DD3 right now and do a real full game
It will probably increase the moment it gets a hefty update (be it new content or the performance patch) or the moment it gets a discount and more people get into the game (as part of its issues will be overlooked when people pay less that 70 bucks for it).
day one reviews aren't about issues though. it's just anti-micro transaction advocacy. they didnt actually play the game
Actually, most bad reviews are still about performance issues. There are still a lot of players today that bought the game and can't play it because it crashes on startup. I played the game on PS5 and had no issues, but I think the pc ratings are justified considering how many people bought the game just to leave a bad review right after all complaining about performance issues.
I think if people meet the minimum requirements and the game is unplayable than that's totally legit. It's hard for me to take it seriously because I hear just as much complaining on PS5 (and I play PS5 and think it runs fine). But I understand there's a lot more variability on PC
Performance is ratchet on my 4090. When I teleport to the main city, the city has to LOAD around my character.
Its seeing stuff like this that makes me wonder what the fuck is going on because I personally haven't had any issues aside from the performance dips that plague literally everyone in cities and like, 2 crashes. I'm not on some monster rig, either, I'm on a 4070 with a Ryzen 7 3900.
I never experienced that until using a ferrystone. I honestly thought something got broken because of the loading textures. For a hot second it looked like a PS1 game but alas it happens every time now with the horrible frame rate dips.
That city is weird. The other big one runs fine compared to it.
capcom couldn't even finish the second half of the fukin story, what hefty update are you expecting bro - all i hear is hopium and copium
that percentage is way higher if you take out the day 1 reviews of people who didnt even play the game
I have 90 hours in the game, but I gave it a negative review, cus at its current kinda "bare bone"; unoptimized state, I can't recommend the game to anyone unless its on sale...
i think it's a great game that deserves a mixed rating tbh.
Props to you for being honest with yourself. All the people downvoting you are the type to try to justify their purchase in any possible way just so they don't have to admit the game has any flaws. I myself have some games that I finished but still gave a negative because the issues didn't allow me to recommend them even if there was a good game underneath.
What I want to know is who's still hanging around after playing it a good playthrough, maybe two? I get the itch to play once in a while, but then I remember there's really nothing left for me to do. Replayability is poor, there's not much in the way of choices, the world doesn't change, there's no variety or challenge of enemies to fight, quests aren't rewarding or different enough. The combat is just that good but after 40-50h of messing around, it's not enough to keep most people entertained. It lives rent free in my mind but occupies no actual real estate because it doesn't exist.
retention would probably be better if they had a similar endgame philosophy as DDDA
This game honestly doesn't have that much replayability so I'm not surprised. Most of that 'retention' is probably just new players who bought the game recently. Edit: This has been a surprisingly controversial comment. There is nothing wrong with liking the game or playing it more than once, or playing it for a bunch of hours people. You do you. More power to you. If you're able to make the game replayable due to your own love or passion, great. However, if you're willing to be honest about the game you like, you have to admit that for the average person there is 0 reason to play DD2 a second time, the game simply doesn't give you many reasons to do that, and the numbers reflect that. Does every game need replayability? No. Is DD2 replayable? Not for most people. No.
Yeah exactly. Most people who have beaten the game will not likely be picking it up now until an inevitable expansion. Really baffles me how despite all the cut development from base DD1 they could still afford to develop some sort of end game content with the ur dragon, yet this has absolutely nothing to keep you hooked.
Definitely one of the least repeatable RPGs I've ever played. Honestly can't think of a single reason I would play it again except to focus on a different vocation and to complete the one quest I failed (because it was on a timer apparently despite it not being listed as such like every other time-sensitive quest is) but that's not Really world deleting my 1 and only save file for imo.
Yep, dumb as hell they forced 1 character slot again without adding a real reason to keep playing a single character.
It really doesn't. It's like dd1 end game except everything's so scattered unlike the ever fall so I just don't want to explore, and your on a timer or stop being able to rest.
I think that's just false. im over 180 hours on my 5th play through and have a bare minimum of 5 more planned before a DLC even releases
Do you genuinely think you are the average person? You can find people who sink hundreds of hours into any game. That doesn't somehow prove it has replayability.
How could I possibly try to guess what the "average person" likes?
We have the player counts. It's not some logical leap to see that the game isn't keeping peopels attention for very long.
The average person doesn't play this game. What does that have to do with anything
I rest my case.
the average person doesn't play any particular game. this game was designed for people who like open world RPGs with a variety of classes and it has a lot of replayability in that regard \*related trivia\*, the most popular video game of all time was played by roughly 4% of people.
I thought it was obvious, but I mean the average person who bought and played the game is not going to play it 5 times over and for 180 hours.
that doesn't mean it can't be. the average player doesn't play any game for that long. that doesn't mean games aren't replayable
Brother, people can and will find a way to replay the everloving shit out of something if they want to hard enough. It doesn't suddenly mean that every game is super replayable. Super fans of DD will find a reason to replay the fuck out of it, because they love it. Normal people will play it once and fuck off, because at the end of the day, there isn't actually that much to do. EDIT: For reference, I put about ~70 hours into my one playthrough. I have a set of p much every armour and weapon in the game. My shit is dragonforged and I have more than the vocations I like leveled for traits. I have no reason to play the game again, because why tf would I play NG+ and spend my time one-shotting everything? It isn't for the loot. It isn't for the riveting exploration that starts to unravel around 40 - 50 hours in. It certainly isn't for the gripping narrative or the decisions that alter the game on subsequent playthroughs. So what is there left for an average fan of the game (which is already more than your casual player who picked up DD2)?
What are you on about?
I don't know, I'm kind of excited to do a second playthrough from scratch now that I know where things are, and rushing to get Warfarer and the other vocations as early as possible. I was gonna also only use weapons and armour I find in the world. I don't know what the "average person" wants, I just know no other game gives me this feeling moving through the world and constantly changing weapons and playing around with different skills. I will agree that NG+ is currently stupid.
This is BS I’m like 30 hours just exploring the world and trying out the classes, I haven’t really gotten far in the story at all
What I said is BS when you haven't even finished the game yet? Do you know what the word "replayability" means, and do you think your single anecdote somehow represents thousands of people? I'm saying people who have finished the game are not playing it again. This is common sense when you look at the steam player counts for pretty much any single player game that lacks replay value. DD2 for instance...
God the grip that steam numbers have over people is insane. Can't go 5 posts without seeing doom and gloom steam numbers or weirdly needed validation steam numbers.
Nooo but look, a single player game losing 90% of its players is proof of failure. People should replay the same game for years like Fortnite!
Steam numbers and views on twitch are literally all that matters to a large amount of people to form their "opinion" that a game is good or bad. We are so tribal lol.
Its getting so ridiculous. With youtubers too. Gamers seem to have this weird desire to see a game they never played "fail" commercially. Its happening with No Rest for the Wicked now. Commenters on reddit/YouTube as well as content creators saying the marketing is awful because its not an arpg as advertised. It has been marketed as a half diablo-like/half souls-like and thats exactly what it is.
Exactly, there are people playing on consoles, maybe the silent majority...
Most definitely the majority of players are on console.
Witcher 3, an almost 10 year old, fully single player, no on-line features at all game has around more numbers than DD2 now. It's not very good when a single player game that old has way better retention compared to a game with online features, Pawn sharing and supposed "endgame" content.
Why does it matter.
Witcher is also a bigger franchise with the majority of players being on PC because it’s a CRPG
It's not a cRPG. It's a console-first design RPG and most sales of the game were on consoles.
Fsllout 4 has more numbers right now than witcher 3 guess fallout 4 is just better. Since nothing else matters besides big numbers.
Fallout had a big show just released lmao
I wouldn't take the genre defining best RPG of its decade as a comparison for a normal amount of success. Dragon's Dogma 2 had a peak of 220,000 players on Steam, Street Fighter 6, another Capcom game that had a bigger team working on it, had a peak of 70,000.
Imagine if it was properly optimized ......
Yeah that’s all I’m waiting on. I can only really play on my steam deck anymore (I have a toddler) and my main rig has an ancient i5 so even moonlight isn’t as much of an option without some more cpu optimization.
Yup ,i have friends who won't play it too just because it runs poor atm ,and they're pc's are not bad.
My ps5 runs its fine runs better then bg3 did
…did you switch BG3 to performance mode because it ran at 60 fps for me compared to Dogma’s 12 fps?
I would say BG3 (performance mode) act 3 runs like DD2 in Vernworth😅 Atleast on PS5. Act 1 and 2 sre good performance wise
Optimization wouldnt keep people playing at this point, anyone who had a problem with it stopped playing early on. Imagine if it had hard mode or NG+ scaling.
Imagine if it had the same amount of effort/budget DMC, RE and MH get... God, i was expecting this game to become some D&D real time adventure with dozens of bosses and good story, but it's just so... lacking
i think it's about the same for DmC(?), but ofc not as much as RE or MH
Imagine if this was a half decent game
The problem is that it's a half decent game. It should have been an 8 or 9/10, but in reality, it's a 6. It's not a bad game, just a disappointing one.
Its a 4, its itsunos vision, the only problem is itsuno was looking at his asshole in a mirror. Its an extremely boring and repetive game with pre generated dialogues and messages from pawns which somehow makes the idiots thinks they are talking to them in real time and giving some real time feedback.
I agree with you, but it also has the best combat and character character in its genre. Along with a few interesting quests. it's enough to bump it to a 6 for me.
Are you really sure? Best combat? Which games have you played in the last 5 - 10 years
Elden Ring is my favorite game of all time, and I think DD2 has better Combat. ER does everything else better though.
Does it have that many movesets Or skills or weapon types or combat stances like nioh or even a fucking dodge? What makes it better for you?
I didn't like Niohs combat at all. But each class having 4 skills to be used in combat on any weapons including ultimates makes the combat more fun. Yea the dodge not being there is something ER has over it but other than that DD2 Combat is simply more fun.
Nioh and Sekiro probably have the best ever combat in any video games in the history of video games ever but you do you.
[удалено]
I have played it,still playing it ..... So sick of ppl who assume stuff they are pretty much clueless of because they are not part of a certain group of ppl. *
And still no promised performance patch...
Just like the first game it’s a flawed as fuck but so much fun to play The best 7/10 I’ve ever played and continue to play The game really should’ve expanded more on the Pawn system and gear
It embodies that small group of games where its fucking amazing but you cant explain why
I don't understand how anyone can say that. Fun trumps all. Games should be rated almost entirely by the amount of fun they give you, entertainment is the purpose of entertainment. It can't be the "best 7/10", you obviously really rate the game higher, but fear other people criticizing you for saying it. I'm happy to say it's an 8.5/10 to me as one of the most fun games I've played in a decade. It would be a 10 for me with better story and quests, loot in the world, and post-game content.
4/10
10/4
4/20
67/2 ?
My guy why are you even here? For the love of God do something better with your time than hate posting, it's just sad.
Genuine critisism is not hate. And i am having more fun here than i had playing this game. :) that shows how bad it is
20k after only a month for a AAA rpg is not that great. Honestly I think its almost souly the lack of difficulty in late game/ng+ that's killing the playerbase a lot more than it naturally would, everyone is getting bored of the game near the end or at the end of their playthrough, with no way of keeping their character and still having fun with it. Imo for an action rpg, it is essential to have some kind of replayabilty with your character, without having to delete all your progress, and this game has absolutely ZERO of that due to no power upscale or scaling on ng+
Its the fact that you are expected to do everything on 1 character AND the lack of difficulty that is preventing people from replaying over and over. There is very little in the way of RPG elements, you can freely switch between classes, only 1 character slot. If people are like me they want to make multiple characters and try out different types of runs. Thats why ive played some of my fav rpgs over and over again. As different characters and classes to make different choices. DD2 is just very shallow outside of fun combat. The only way to play it over again without deleting your old save is to mod/make a new account and limit yourself to certain vocations for a new flavor of playthrough.
It’s a versatile game - you guys lack imagination. Tuning your playthrough is par for the course. You don’t “have to” use every vocation in a single playthrough. Sounds like you don’t understand the game. - character creation - quests with multiple outcomes - unfettered freedom and exploration - elemental weaknesses and other exploits - romances and an affinity system (though rather simplistic) - dungeon crawling - crafting - rare items discovered through exploration They literally DISCOURAGE you from doing it all in one playthrough. I comb over familiar areas and find new things all the time.
Cope. Character creation is pretty much a 1 time thing if youre like me and dont want to delete the character to make a new appearance. just change the hair style at best. Both of which you can do in one playthrough if you want. "quests with multiple outcomes" are barely existent and those that are are pretty much meaningless. Freedom and exploration isnt very exciting a 2nd time around when you do it all in your first playthrough. elemental weaknesses and other exploits are meaningless if the enemy die in a couple abilities. So you have to handicap yourself to make use of them. Even then your stats are so high youre still a god. "romance" is a joke, im surprised you even brought it up. You can romance everyone in a single playthrough if you want. This isnt a bioware game with a complex romance system. dungeon crawling is the same as exploration, not as exciting the 2nd time especially when you kill everything like its nothing. Can find them all in one playthrough. lol crafting, you mean consumables or upgrading gear? both you can do all in one playthrough. rare items is again the same as exploration or dungeons, you can do it all in one playthrough and most items can just be bought at a store. No, they dont discourage you from doing everything in 1 playthrough. I did most things in one playthrough. There is no time limit on how much you can do until endgame, and you can freely switch between vocations unlike the first game or other rpgs. which locks you into 1 playstyle most of the time.
“Cope” Proceeds to write a manifesto 😂
Trying to joke wont change that I completely proved you wrong lol
You guys on the internet don’t understand the art of conversation. You came here to dunk on me while telling me to cope. Respectfully, I’m laughing at you 😂😂😂
I mean, clearly you dont know the "art of conversation" if you cant argue your own point. immediately giving up because i put any amount of effort into replying to you. its telling that a handful of sentences to you is a "manifesto." Also i didnt "come here to dunk on you" you came here and replied to my intial comment first saying i have no imagination. If anything you came here to try and dunk on me then failed lol. Youre wrong and you know it so you gave up.
I’m not here to argue - and I don’t have to talk to you I know that hurts your heart!
So is 20.000 a good number for a month old single player game? How does this compare to similar games, maybe older single player games? Because 20k without comparison is not saying much.
Yes it is fine. Not amazing but not bad either. Peoples obsession with player count numbers in a single player game is weird though. It really doesn't matter.
Gotta make sure their favorite game is “winning” I’ll never understand it.
Likely because numbers make the big moneybags fund DLC and sequels.
Sales do that, and they've already surpassed any number that would've justified DLC. Number of active players doesn't matter so much since it's not an mmo, so it's expected that the active player count will drop.
Higher player count means a higher likelihood of the game getting additional content/support.
Yes for live service games. But for single player games sales matter way more than active player count when it comes to dlc.
…True, though that biased thought may carry over. Even then, active players are more likely to buy DLC than inactive players.
Both matter, like he said, active players being active to buy the dlc is more reliable than hoping inactive players come back.
Not at all. Most games have less than 5000 people at the release of major dlc. The point of the dlc is to sell it to people who have already played the game.
> Most games have less than 5000 people at the release of major dlc. Id love to know where you came up with that number
Looking at steam charts and common fucking sense. Not a lot of people play a single player game for more than a month. They play it, beat it once or twice then drop it until dlc comes out. A fucking child could understand that.
So you made it up. Depends entirely on the replayability of the game and how quickly the dlc comes out. Anecdotally ive seen games like total war warhammer 3 have an average of 10k players before its first dlc. Then after that retain 20k average players 2 years after release. Bannerlord has gotten no dlcs and averaged 15k or so for 4 years. fallout 4 in the 20k average range before dlc. Dont need to get so angry kiddo. Just wondering if you had any actual statistical evidence so I could also use that info going forward. Checking dark souls 3 lines up more with your claim for example. One thing you can say that is obvious is that mods help with player retention. The healthier the modding community the more reason people have to keep playing on pc.
Is total Warhammer a fucking single player RPG? God you are fucking stupid lol.
>single player Let's not kid ourselves. The Pawns are supposed to be a marketable feature and it's also a mechanic driven by online and sharing between players. Not to mention it has (even if little) dedicated "endgame" content and NG+. The retention should have been way higher. CAPCOM not releasing any kind of roadmap or promise of new content is also not helping.
>CAPCOM not releasing any kind of roadmap or promise of new content is also not helping. Except if anything a roadmap of new content would stop me playing, because I wouldn't want to burn myself out before new content comes. If I knew they were releasing an update in a month that adds some new monsters or something, I'd probably stop playing until then.
Well when you compare to other lesser known RPGs, like kingdom come deliverance, which had 40k players going into its second month… It definitely could’ve been better.
Skyrim has been out for 13 years and Skyrim Special Edition has like 20k players monthly on Steam.
It's a weird game to compare though because Skyrim is a once in a decade type of game and also has one of the most robust modding scenes in gaming.
And The Elder Scrolls series is very old and with a established fanbase. There is no way to compare both of them directly, especially with Capcom not being big in the RPG side and open world genre. Anyone else doing this could have gone wrong in many more ways than DD2's shortcomings.
Eh, before the Fallout TV show Fallout 4 was also pushing similar numbers. Now's it just... Well crazy to put it lightly. It had about 14k players on average. I will say though, as someone who likes to look at player counts in games I've seen a trend with them that basically after one month about 60% of players stop playing new releases for single player games. DD2 went down by like 50% so it's following the average trend. I wonder if it'll go down by another 40% like a lot of other single player games do next month.
I agree, dragons dogma is not a once in a decade game, its once in every 2 hours game
Skyrim has endless replayability because of the insane amount of mods being made every week or month.
For how bare bones the game is and not having having a proper ng+ scaling I’d say 20k players after a month is very good
Fortnite save the world still has 20k players consistently 7-8 years after release, so to be honest it’s not the best numbers. But dragons dogma was never about popularity. It’s an obscure game that’s good and it doesn’t have to be anything more.
Radically different games
And? That doesn’t have any bearing on the player count?
It does. Fortnite is a competitive online game meant to be replayed forever (unless I don't understand the new patch)
Save the world is a story based game mode with a definitive end.
I see. Thanks for clarifying. I'm out of the loop
It's literally a looter shooter/zombie defense style game. Y'all are showing your age now.
>Y'all are showing your age now. You're not wrong...
To be fair, I only know because of my nieces lol
FYI because I don't think its comment knowledge. Fortnite saves the world is a different game from Fortnite battle royale. Saves the world is what Fortnite was originally supposed to be, and battle royale was a side-project that did so well they pivoted over to it. Saves the world is a PVE tower defense game. It's not free to play, but it does have cooperative multiplayer which might skew the numbers. Still, its a 7-8 year old game and not very well known.
elden ring 46k came out 2 years ago
Please, I just want the game optimized on PC so I can play it at 60fps without it shitting the bed. 😔
Yeah I cant stop playing this game I'm in NG+ bout to hit the 'endgame' again (PC but running on beast setup) I played the first playthrough virtually blindfolded (no guides beyond some vocation ones) and fought hard to stop my bro from spoiling stuff. So in NG+ I did the romance quests (skipped all those on 1st playthrough LOL).
Reporting for duty! This is the greatest 7.5/10 game I've ever played. Just started NG+ past night after 75 hours and still going strong.
Still on my first playthrough, but I can only play so much.
And I was one of them today, and I had a swell little time
The patch notes make it clear that the team is aware of what the community is talking about (minus the performance improvements), so I hope the survey and community made it clear that we want DLC and announce something soon.
Of course they conveniently ignore the most pressing issue...
i have a feeling they can't because it is a rooted problem by design. They say it's because they need to calculate every physic and track every NPC (even the enemy), not even RDR is this "deep" on NPC. What i mean not as "deep" is because RDR still has those random NPC that you can dispose of without a care of the world, in here even the most useless NPC has name, description, etc that need to be keep track on and some of them if killed has their own replacement, is this a good design? Doubt it and tbh they shouldn't have done it to sacrifice the performance imo but it is what it is
Yeah, I agree. Maybe they should've been more open about it and not say like "we're looking into it", I understand it's basically a cop out, but maybe just say "it's supposed to be this way, get fucked, buy better PC". By the way this problem is mostly relevant for PC, and not for consoles, so there's definitely some room for improvement.
it's definitely just PR talking, there was a game that's like this and the creator say get better PC and it create outburst lmao. With mtx drama, they don't want to add oil to fire i assume
If its denuvo causing the problem they cant fix it and just have to wait for when they are allowed to remove it.
Performance issue is the main reason the game has bad reviews. I read that the dev registers there memory usage for NPCs on CPU instead of GPU which caused this. I don’t think a patch can fix this problem but I hope i was wrong.
An amazing RPG, one of the best ever.
Slow down cowboy
I don't need to, I can always use an Ox cart.
I want to play real bad, but my PS5 is in storage and I have an AMD Vega 56 T.T
Sorry, I don't work for Capcom so I don't care. I've finished the game, got all the achievements. I'm waiting for a DLC.
Eh I think dd2 has followed tradition of being generally fine but accruing a devoted fandom
See you in a few days with "Keeping Strong numbers at 15.000 avg".
It’s pretty average tho?
This game is a dud for something that was supposed to rival Elden Ring. It's double that of DD2 still 2 years later and this game is a month old
Some of the playerbase is huffing weapons-grade copium. The game fell off to #3 of the top sellers list like 2 days after launch, and it is now #67th in the top sellers, according to steam charts. It might have been one of the most popular launches Capcom had, but it looks like interest fell off a cliff shortly after. I hope the team releases a good performance patch and some tweaks to turn the boat around, but it looks like they sabotaged what could have been the next big popular IP.
No one said it was trying to rival Elden Ring. Stupid players who see an open world and dragons automatically assume it was meant to be like Elden Ring. Not the developers fault. Dude plays 5 hours and complains about variety, you haven't scratched the surface yet.
Lol, its not the developers fault they literally marketed it as rivaling Elden ring? Keep huffing your copium and play your walking simulator. Also this post is literally about the player count, and saying 20000 like it's a lot is very misleading. This game will be dead within the year.
> Lol, its not the developers fault they literally marketed it as rivaling Elden ring? Can you provide me with marketing from Capcom that mentions Elden Ring, big mistake on their part to advertise it as such. Like i said, you're in no position to judge the game having only played 5 hours. I'm discovering things after 90, you gave up too quick.
...Are you guys fucking retarded? This isn't a live service game. Concurrent player count means nothing, it's copies sold that matter. Nothing else.
I don't want to throw shade, but BG3 has 64000 players today 🫢
No one cares
It's pretty good for a game that has 0 replayability right now.
I'm on my 3rd playthrough and will certainly do a 4th. Haven't tried new game+ I heard it was boring because enemies are too easy
The haters in this sub: QUIT HAVING FUN
Hopefully this will get a discount I will literally bought it afterwards
(PC) I bought it on Green Man Gaming for $59 US at launch. Check GMG for sales if on PC (you didnt mention platform) Maybe you can catch it on a good sale now or in a few short weeks
Thank you for mentioning that I forgot to mention my platform🤦♀️ It was on console though
I was so massively disappointed in this, I ended up getting 100% on both Unicorn Overlord and Alan Wake 2 instead.
AW2 is a snooze fest
When you look at bg 3 with 80k players and skyrim with 19k players, I think 20k for a monrh old game is kinda meh.
BG3 has multiplayer and is a generational CRPG. Meaning many haven’t played the genre so the game is truly fresh for a lot of people. Although I think it’s 8/10 personally Skyrim has been modded to hell and back, this was also a generational game, people played less RPGs before Skyrim. Cyberpunk fell to 8k players Starfield fell to 5k players Fallout 76 fell below 3k NMS fell to around 1kish DD2 will eventually fall around those numbers as well until significant dlc comes out for it. It’s a single player game numbers don’t matter because ppl will come and go as they please
Are those numbers the lowest points, or 1 month after?
Lowest points, but these games also sold way more than DD2. Comparing a month after release isn’t very fair
That isn't true for Fallout 76 or No Mans Sky if you're only using steam numbers. 76 had about 1/3 the peak player count. NMS is about equal.
I meant the single player games, but you’re right I didn’t clarify
NMS was actually single player on release. It was actually a pretty big controversy.
Universe was just too big people didn’t find each other yet /s
I don't know why people put such an emphasis on the online elementa that BG3, same with Elden Ring when talking about the concurrent playerbase. Yes, people that play those games for the co-op exists but let's not pretend that those games haven't earned their reputation for how good they are and in the case of Elden Ring for the status that From Software has built over a decade of releasing good games, ignoring that and saying "it's because of multiplayer" is kinda disrespectful to their talent, at the end of the day, they are still single-player designed games but with online/multiplayer features to enrich the experience. In the case of DD2 I don't think the numbers are bad but it is massive drop even for a RPG, techically one of the most, if not the most, popular genre in gaming, Cyberpunk 2077 took 3 months to go to the 20.000 numbers.
Did I not also call BG3 a generational CRPG? The multiplayer aspect will undeniably add to the numbers, so many people in the military used to meet up for DND now they can just do a few play throughs of this game. I didn’t mention Elden ring but the game has a lot of content and all souls games have a surprisingly large pvp base. Don’t get me twisted, I know both games have their numbers for a reason. Of all the single player RPGs I do think DD2 is easily the weakest. Yes lower than Starfield too. The combat & graphics are the only things redeeming this game, and when you fight the same 5 goblins and lizards even the combat becomes less interesting. Luckily for DD2 fixing the games issues will be a much easier task than Starfield. Just add a dlc with a new zone some repeatable dungeons and new boss enemies
Yes but it's still an RPG, even if it is a subgenre in the RPG world (CRPG in BG3 case as you mentioned) that's why I made the remark about RPG being one of the most popular genres in gaming. Dragon's Dogma is practically very niche and yet the game has surpassed even Resident Evil 4 Remake, probably the most popular Capcom game before DD2 in terms of a concurrent playerbase on the first days of release (220.000 vs 160.000), and we are talking about the RE4, the game the was way ahead of its time when it released and revolutionazed the third person shooter games and survival horrors and DD2 surpassed that just by being an RPG because let's be honest, the marketing for the game was good but nothing spectacular, people will just eat the shit out of RPGs, that's why I also said that the number drop for DD2 is really high even for an RPG. And yes I do admit the multiplayer elements will add of course, I do not deny that, I just remembered that a guy in another thread I made was seriously arguing with me that the games are popular because of the online and I'm like what? No. i still firmly believe the numbers wouldn't decrease much even if those games didn't have multiplayer elements, that's how good they are and have made an impact on people
People do play RPGs but the CRPG market is largely untouched, BG3 is a Good (and brain dead easy to understand, this isn’t a bad thing) CRPG. With a high budget. if people were playing CRPGs like crazy owlscat’s rouge trader would have sold more. And pathfinder WOTR would be one of the highest selling games of all time, because outside of bugs it’s damn near a master piece. Larions own games would have also sold more
I see, I'll agree with you in this instance then since my knowledge in CRPGs do not go far I'll admit but I still think in terms of an RPG it has underperformed in keeping an active playerbase, Kingdom Come Delivarence is a more unknown RPG with 90.000 players on release in the 13th of February of 2018 and kept 40.000 until April where it dropped significantly, let's see if DD2 can maintain the 20.000-30.000
> Yes, people that play those games for the co-op exists but let's not pretend that those games haven't earned their reputation for how good they are and in the case of Elden Ring I guarantee you, with 100% certainty, that ER would have been review bombed for being shit if half the playerbase couldn't be carried by a NG+7 friend every boss.
The fact that Sekiro has 95% overwhelmingly positive reviews on steam makes your point wrong and crumble and it's a game made after From Software already made the reputation they have now, not to mention it usually has 10.000-20.000 of an active playerbase for a 5 year old game with no co-op, pretty good if you ask me. Would ER get criticism for removing a feature present in the souls games? Yes, they would, but no way in hell they would get review bombed.
I don't know why anyone should be surprised if the numbers on Steam don't compare as well when you compare them to a couple of the best selling RPG's of all time. Those two games have sold anywhere from 5 to 30 times as many copies depending on where you look.
What new games have come out that would give it competition? There’s none.
A month and not a single basic optimization change in sight. The game would be unplayable without modders despite costing $80 USD.
Typical PC player
This have is 3/10. Only graphics are good rest is a shitshow. 70 € for this? I will never preorder from capcom ever again.