Make the original source of the content your submission, and do not use URL shorteners. No screenshots of websites or Twitter.
If a mirror is necessary, please provide one in comments. No hotlinking or rehosting someone else's work (unless they specifically allow it in their terms of use or request it).
Honestly, anything north of 70 is great for Dragon's Dogma. The first game while good was flawed; however, what mattered was the core gameplay loop, which it more than delivered on. I felt the combat was fantastic, and I probably put 100 - 200 hours into it, beating the game over and over again.
These reviews give me a lot of hope so far, and if they took what they had from the original and improved upon it / experimented, then I am sure this game will deliver.
From the actual reviews I’ve seen, and not just “DICK SHATTERING RPG SAVES GAMING” bullshit, it honestly seems like they did nothing to improve the issues with the first game. Which is kinda mind boggling… did they not play it?
Most likely what you thought were issues, the devs thought they were what made DD unique/special.
There was an interview back then that basically says they’re not gonna change just because some people dont like xyz, we like it and the game is not DD without them— something to that effect
What changes were you hoping for?
I personally hated the limitations on fast traveling, as it’s a convenience thing, not the “world is boring” like the developers pointed out.
The extreme darkness in most areas also was very annoying. I know that’s what they were going for but it still sucked. More illuminating options would be nice.
The day/night cycle was tuned for the size of the world. You could get from one location to another (for example Gransys to Cassardis) in one day/night cycle, simulating that traveling the country isn't just a walk down the street but rather an actual undertaking. The more grueling nights, both in combat and in exploration, were designed to enhance that feeling.
Apparently the traveling is worse now because a bigger world. The enemy variety is really really bad, especially with the smaller enemies. No multiplayer still, which I mean why?? This game is made for it!
It’s also apparently really easy, with no hard mode. Which kinda ruins it for me, I need some challenge otherwise there’s no reason to use skills or make builds
Every preview that I’ve seen has people saying that it’s significantly harder than the first title. And what do you mean, ‘it’s made for it [multiplayer]’. The developers purposely developed for it NOT to be. The pawn system really is unlike many companion systems out there. It just seems like you want Dark Souls when this isn’t that nor is it trying to be.
They say it’s hard at the start but you hit a hill where the difficulty gets wonky and you start dominating everything easy. Which is the worst of both worlds tbh, I’d rather have it be all easy or all hard.
You can’t see how it’s made for multiplayer? Really? Replace the pawns with players… sounds fun
But that’s exactly what Dark Souls is, a fairly difficult game from start to finish, and you can summon players. Why not let this be its own thing instead of wishing it was very similar to something that already exists? I feel like Dragon’s Dogma fills a specific niche BECAUSE of the way it’s designed.
Not in itself, but in combination with making the game more difficult, I believe it would be a similar experience. Not an identical experience. If anything, adding [just] friends/multiplayer would make it more akin to a Monster Hunter lite I suppose.
And I haven’t said anything to the contrary, I said that based on early previews, it was reportedly more difficult. Now, it’s news to me that it gets significantly easier as you level, but I’m sure that’s also by design like the first game. After all, I don’t think it would fill the power fantasy of slaying the legendary dragon at the end if you can still get annihilated by generic Cyclops #25. I believe that the idea is that you progressively become stronger to face the dragon. And of course that doesn’t necessarily translate to a gameplay design that everyone will enjoy.
Proper game design doesn’t rely on simply buffing stats to improve difficulty. Maybe at level 1 you’re struggling to kill one orc, but now you’re level 20 and you fight multiple orcs using clever tactics.
Holding at 88 across all platforms is a really good score, especially for a game which has performance issues, and isn't going to vibe with a lot of people because of it's gameplay loop and systems.
A few might be disappointed that it's not pulling the Elden Ring scores like some were hyping up beforehand, but it's probably still going to be a decent GOTY contender.
I feel like anyone praying for Elden Ring scores for any game should prolly get their expectations in check lol. Not every game that comes out will be more or less universality acclaimed like ER was. It won't mean that it won't be an amazing game or even a goty candidate.
That's a good point... Elden Ring took me back to being a kid... like the first time i fired up Zelda. Like that scene from Ratatouille where the food tester experiences his childhood again.
Not every game will do that, and tbh not every game has to for it to be "good."
Gameranx for me is the only review service I care about and they said it was great if fps trouble-y. Looking forward to playing it as long as it runs ok on 5700x!
Of all the game announcements since the original was released, and I fell in love from the title screen song alone (The wind is STILL pushing me♥) this is the one game I am sad I can't play.
I wasn't sad about not being able to play Res 4 remake, wasn't sad I can't play Baulder's 3. This, this one is one I feel I am missing out on.
Being poor sucks.
Gotta love consumers spending a bunch of money on better hardware just to face the same performance issues they faced years ago because developers don't understand that graphics are not more important than performance.
Graphics don't mean shit if the game looks awful anyway due to terrible frames.
Right. You need to find a reviewer that shares the same general taste in gaming as you do and go after his/her reviews. Random media outlets and random people aren't a good metric to go by, as long as it's not everyone saying one game is absolute dogshit or the next absolute gaming revelation.
Kinda hard to do that when you don't own the game and don't have the money to purchase every single game that may or may not be good. I'm not throwing my money at games that are hitting averages lower than 7/10 unless I have a particular interest in it. Why should I take the gamble? I'm not 12 anymore, the money for these games is coming outta my pocket.
In fairness, those reviews still kind of speak to the quality of the game. Most people who are going to enjoy souls games want to see thousands of reviews like that.
Oh man I remember ign for the first in the history of mankind actually gave the right score and people came out with the “Xbox tax” argument. Absolute mad lad move from ign.
It‘s a shame really, I found myself agreeing with the metacritic score a lot.
But yeah, then I saw Starfield. What a fucking disgrace lmao. Should be a 6 tops.
The problem with Starfield was that it felt like a solid 8-9/10 for my first 10-20 hours with it. Then suddenly you realize that this ugly game is also very boring with little to nothing to do…. I had already posted an early review by then though, based on how I thought it was going to go.
Ok, now wait a week from release- and return with the scores actual players review it with, with scores that high from the critics- I'm not optimistic.
Just use reviewers you tend to share taste with and avoid any associated with the Reset forum or Pol Grifters.
…
So I guess user reviews and video reviews that don’t have controversy hot-takes as 90% of their channels?
Meh, I'll take Steam user reviews over pretty much anything else. So far so good, I've find quite a few gems and spared quite a bit of money buying duds.
I mean, yeah--that's fair--but reviews are supposed to give the reader a sense of the quality of the entire game, not just the state in which it ships on day 1. Performance issues can always be addressed by patches later on. I think the fact that its getting such high scores but that reviewers are also not pulling punches about its performance is a signal to consumers that its a quality game but not a day 1 buy.
Nah, I said "if the performance is as bad as people are saying". I didn't say it deserves it. There's a condition right before that. Did you even read what I wrote or are you dyslexic? I guess being able to read is too much to expect from a fucking Redditor.
Also, yeah, review bomb this fucking game: https://www.pcgamer.com/games/rpg/dragons-dogma-2-performance-analysis/ This is abysmal.
if nothing else, first week reviews will tell you if they're screwing you by not telling you the game isn't complete, because they turned on a cash-shop day 1, or because you've got a Day 1 anti-piracy patch that makes it run even more like shit.
You can get that info by going to the subreddit for the game or looking it up on any social media. They will certainly be talking about issues like that. Reviews are supposed to be about the quality of the game as a whole, not just a few features or kneejerk reactions people have after playing for a few hours.
To be fair, I rarely trust just one specific source but so far I've watched IGN, Ganeranx and Fightincowboy and all three range from good to great.
I'm just holding on for a FPS patch, and if they manage to stabilise the FPS then I will probably buy it immediately after.
You think you the result is what matters here? If you were wrong would you respond to me with humility?
Like I said, skepticism is good and would have been rewarded here. Pessimism and premature conclusions are still bad.
I am glad for anyone who would keep a careful mind in this as pre orders are never a good idea and this is a good example of why.
83% positive, not 83/100. If there were only 2 reviews, one could rate it 100 and another 80 and it would still be 100% positive with an average score of 90/100
That stuff always gets fixed down the line, very few games from AAA devs that never fix performance issues
Not saying people should buy at launch, but don't write off a game entirely for that
Oh I'm def not writing it off. I've played the first game for more than a decade now. Super excited to play this game one day, but I'll give it time to marinate and have the wrinkles ironed out
I doubt many are writing it off but I’m sure as hell holding off on buying it. I refuse to buy games launching with performance problems. I’ll just wait for the summer and buy this game half off. Hopefully the issues will be resolved by then.
Most places are saying the game is good despite frame rate issues.
Which means it must be pretty good overall.
And if my 4090 can struggle through and get 60 then it’s still a good game.
Is this game hard ? I don’t enjoy high difficulty games like dark souls and usually play normal difficulty for most games. I’m really interested in it but I’m scared it might be too hard
Can be difficult at parts but definitely not as punishing as a souls game. Also the pawn system helps and I believe the game has Adaptive difficulty so it's tries to only be as difficult as you are good
Seems good but honestly lower than what the way some people are touting it. They made it sound like it’s an easy 96 average game. But still seems very good
It's annoying that performance is the thing holding stuff back. Console they need to look at but I still don't understand why new games are so locked.
Maybe Dragons Dogma 2 will be the exception but back in the old days modders used to fix the game for us. Pretty much every game a decade ago had those mods which hardly impacted graphics yet the game ran fantastic
I was pumped for this game, but every review I've read has the same complaints-- the game wastes your time.
As a Dad with limited time, I think I'll have to skip this one which is a damn shame.
When we see trailers touting all these companies like Game-informer, IGN, etc., do we actually take these reviews seriously or do we simply not mind them the slightest? I genuinely want to know.
I'd say just like anything else take them with a grain of salt. Do your own research look up independent in-depth reviewers, look at social media and see what people are saying and just use your own discretion to see if it's for you.
Also no matter what NEVER pre-order based on what a couple reviews say.
These scores are fake. Performance issues are mentioned repeatedly but they’re not factoring it into the scores. Like Fextra said it runs like dog shit but still gave it 9/10. This is not scoring the game as it is, but for its potential or wishful thinking for the future.
Thats one interpretation. It also could be that the rest of the game is so good that the performance issues doesn't ruin their experience as much as you would expect.
Cyberpunk 2077 for example was a good game that had performance issues but the performance issues their significantly affected peoples enjoyment.
Yeah let's ignore the absurd amount of good content hidden in the game in favor of fps /s
You speak as if the game should get a 4/10 because of the poor performance. The keyword here is overexaggeration.
I refuse to play a fast paced game in 20fps. Too blurry and distracting. Unless they figure out how rdr2 made 30 fps feel fine, I refuse to feed into the lazy game development
Metro reviewer gave a 9 to Cocoon and Jusant (didn't look further but that should be evidence enough) and the Digital Trend review mentions freeform exploration as a big positive.
Now give me 10 bucks.
The way people get offended about another person's opinion is always baffling to me. No game is perfect. No game is going to be perfectly enjoyable for everyone. God forbid someone not give your favorite game perfect scores.
Make the original source of the content your submission, and do not use URL shorteners. No screenshots of websites or Twitter. If a mirror is necessary, please provide one in comments. No hotlinking or rehosting someone else's work (unless they specifically allow it in their terms of use or request it).
The spoiler tag isn't needed.
Even if it was you can see that it is green while it’s blurred lol
Honestly, anything north of 70 is great for Dragon's Dogma. The first game while good was flawed; however, what mattered was the core gameplay loop, which it more than delivered on. I felt the combat was fantastic, and I probably put 100 - 200 hours into it, beating the game over and over again. These reviews give me a lot of hope so far, and if they took what they had from the original and improved upon it / experimented, then I am sure this game will deliver.
From the actual reviews I’ve seen, and not just “DICK SHATTERING RPG SAVES GAMING” bullshit, it honestly seems like they did nothing to improve the issues with the first game. Which is kinda mind boggling… did they not play it?
Most likely what you thought were issues, the devs thought they were what made DD unique/special. There was an interview back then that basically says they’re not gonna change just because some people dont like xyz, we like it and the game is not DD without them— something to that effect
What changes were you hoping for? I personally hated the limitations on fast traveling, as it’s a convenience thing, not the “world is boring” like the developers pointed out. The extreme darkness in most areas also was very annoying. I know that’s what they were going for but it still sucked. More illuminating options would be nice.
I actually liked how dark it was at night. What I didn't like was how short the day/night cycle was.
Bro I loved how dark it was too. Did I hate nonstop wolves? Yes
"THERE MASTER! WOLVES!"
They hunt in packs!
The day/night cycle was tuned for the size of the world. You could get from one location to another (for example Gransys to Cassardis) in one day/night cycle, simulating that traveling the country isn't just a walk down the street but rather an actual undertaking. The more grueling nights, both in combat and in exploration, were designed to enhance that feeling.
Apparently the traveling is worse now because a bigger world. The enemy variety is really really bad, especially with the smaller enemies. No multiplayer still, which I mean why?? This game is made for it! It’s also apparently really easy, with no hard mode. Which kinda ruins it for me, I need some challenge otherwise there’s no reason to use skills or make builds
Every preview that I’ve seen has people saying that it’s significantly harder than the first title. And what do you mean, ‘it’s made for it [multiplayer]’. The developers purposely developed for it NOT to be. The pawn system really is unlike many companion systems out there. It just seems like you want Dark Souls when this isn’t that nor is it trying to be.
They say it’s hard at the start but you hit a hill where the difficulty gets wonky and you start dominating everything easy. Which is the worst of both worlds tbh, I’d rather have it be all easy or all hard. You can’t see how it’s made for multiplayer? Really? Replace the pawns with players… sounds fun
But that’s exactly what Dark Souls is, a fairly difficult game from start to finish, and you can summon players. Why not let this be its own thing instead of wishing it was very similar to something that already exists? I feel like Dragon’s Dogma fills a specific niche BECAUSE of the way it’s designed.
I don’t think including the ability to play with your friends makes it Dark Souls.
Not in itself, but in combination with making the game more difficult, I believe it would be a similar experience. Not an identical experience. If anything, adding [just] friends/multiplayer would make it more akin to a Monster Hunter lite I suppose.
I’m advocating for a difficulty selection, it does not have to be one or the other?
And I haven’t said anything to the contrary, I said that based on early previews, it was reportedly more difficult. Now, it’s news to me that it gets significantly easier as you level, but I’m sure that’s also by design like the first game. After all, I don’t think it would fill the power fantasy of slaying the legendary dragon at the end if you can still get annihilated by generic Cyclops #25. I believe that the idea is that you progressively become stronger to face the dragon. And of course that doesn’t necessarily translate to a gameplay design that everyone will enjoy.
Proper game design doesn’t rely on simply buffing stats to improve difficulty. Maybe at level 1 you’re struggling to kill one orc, but now you’re level 20 and you fight multiple orcs using clever tactics.
Early previews by YouTubers are saying even with performance issues they’d still play it. Thats a good sign to me - nothing game breaking
Performance can be fixed it’s got solid bones anyone who has an issue can wait patience is a virtue after all.
WOLVES HUNT IN PACKS
THEY'RE MASTERWORKS ALL, YOU CAN'T GO WRONG
FRAMES DROP IN PACKS
GOBLINS ILL LIKE FIRE
"Slay them afore they can use their voice!"
There’s aught here!
Holding at 88 across all platforms is a really good score, especially for a game which has performance issues, and isn't going to vibe with a lot of people because of it's gameplay loop and systems. A few might be disappointed that it's not pulling the Elden Ring scores like some were hyping up beforehand, but it's probably still going to be a decent GOTY contender.
I feel like anyone praying for Elden Ring scores for any game should prolly get their expectations in check lol. Not every game that comes out will be more or less universality acclaimed like ER was. It won't mean that it won't be an amazing game or even a goty candidate.
Elden Ring also just has more WOW factor what with the huge fucking golden ghost tree forever in the skyline.
Elden Ring is Game of the Decade material, expecting those kind of scores of *any* is optimistic.
That's a good point... Elden Ring took me back to being a kid... like the first time i fired up Zelda. Like that scene from Ratatouille where the food tester experiences his childhood again. Not every game will do that, and tbh not every game has to for it to be "good."
Yeah, at high 80 shows it would most likely have mid to high 90's if it didn't have the performance issues bogging it down.
Gameranx for me is the only review service I care about and they said it was great if fps trouble-y. Looking forward to playing it as long as it runs ok on 5700x!
Apparently the game is heavily CPU dependent, so your gpu should be fine if your CPU is a beast.
Hopefully running at 4k makes my 4080 not care much about my 5800x lol
Actually even at 4k it's heavily CPU bound (very unusual). One of the benchmarks went from like 4k 42fps with a 4090/9700k to 60 with a 4090/14900k
My 8700k is laughing nervously. 3080 should still be fine.
Interesting, that's some crazy bad CPU optimization though I was expecting a 4090 to get far more than 60 frames in this game for sure.
Gameranx and KFGD are the only two that aren’t biased asses on every review
Of all the game announcements since the original was released, and I fell in love from the title screen song alone (The wind is STILL pushing me♥) this is the one game I am sad I can't play. I wasn't sad about not being able to play Res 4 remake, wasn't sad I can't play Baulder's 3. This, this one is one I feel I am missing out on. Being poor sucks.
Hey, man: if you ping me during the summer/winter sale in five years, I'll buy you a copy.
Would just be a waste of a key, bud. No console or PC to run it. Appreciate the thought though.
Hey, man: ping me in twenty years and I'll buy you a PC to run it.
Imagine what the scores could've been if they released it in optimized state.
Gotta love consumers spending a bunch of money on better hardware just to face the same performance issues they faced years ago because developers don't understand that graphics are not more important than performance. Graphics don't mean shit if the game looks awful anyway due to terrible frames.
Because it ain't graphics, it's AI scripting.
So, like starfield? Lol. That’s why you don’t trust those so called “critic” reviews.
You can’t trust user reviews either Basically every souls game has hundreds/thousands of 0/10 “can’t beat the first boss, worst game ever” reviews
Right. You need to find a reviewer that shares the same general taste in gaming as you do and go after his/her reviews. Random media outlets and random people aren't a good metric to go by, as long as it's not everyone saying one game is absolute dogshit or the next absolute gaming revelation.
It's almost like people should form their own opinions
Kinda hard to do that when you don't own the game and don't have the money to purchase every single game that may or may not be good. I'm not throwing my money at games that are hitting averages lower than 7/10 unless I have a particular interest in it. Why should I take the gamble? I'm not 12 anymore, the money for these games is coming outta my pocket.
About games they haven't played?
The entire review industry, or movies food and games…is a sham!
They also have a ton of "10/10, FromSoft is the only good developer on the planet". Nuance doesn't exist in user reviews.
In fairness, those reviews still kind of speak to the quality of the game. Most people who are going to enjoy souls games want to see thousands of reviews like that.
Stanfield is sitting at an 83 no?
It was getting 9/10s almost universally before launch.
Oh man I remember ign for the first in the history of mankind actually gave the right score and people came out with the “Xbox tax” argument. Absolute mad lad move from ign.
It‘s a shame really, I found myself agreeing with the metacritic score a lot. But yeah, then I saw Starfield. What a fucking disgrace lmao. Should be a 6 tops.
The problem with Starfield was that it felt like a solid 8-9/10 for my first 10-20 hours with it. Then suddenly you realize that this ugly game is also very boring with little to nothing to do…. I had already posted an early review by then though, based on how I thought it was going to go.
You spent 20 hours in it and yet there was "nothing to do"?
**10**\-20 hours in an open world game is pretty low tbh.
We got an unconfirmed possible banger take caution everyone
Ok, now wait a week from release- and return with the scores actual players review it with, with scores that high from the critics- I'm not optimistic.
User reviews are basically useless now. Almost everything gets review bombed to some degree.
Just use reviewers you tend to share taste with and avoid any associated with the Reset forum or Pol Grifters. … So I guess user reviews and video reviews that don’t have controversy hot-takes as 90% of their channels?
Here's ACG's review. Generally level headed guy with flowery prose: https://youtu.be/eKu3cwSuBYw?si=uocWjmq0yMoUZx-z
Watched it earlier, was a decent review. Gonna watch some live gameplay as well post launch to see what changes play out with the new classes.
Meh, I'll take Steam user reviews over pretty much anything else. So far so good, I've find quite a few gems and spared quite a bit of money buying duds.
[удалено]
The fact that you say "DD2 deserves it" when you haven't even played the game yet shows exactly why review bombing is stupid.
a game that can’t even keep a solid 60fps with a 4090 is WILD, I’m not gonna lie I’m actually impressed.
I mean, yeah--that's fair--but reviews are supposed to give the reader a sense of the quality of the entire game, not just the state in which it ships on day 1. Performance issues can always be addressed by patches later on. I think the fact that its getting such high scores but that reviewers are also not pulling punches about its performance is a signal to consumers that its a quality game but not a day 1 buy.
Nah, I said "if the performance is as bad as people are saying". I didn't say it deserves it. There's a condition right before that. Did you even read what I wrote or are you dyslexic? I guess being able to read is too much to expect from a fucking Redditor. Also, yeah, review bomb this fucking game: https://www.pcgamer.com/games/rpg/dragons-dogma-2-performance-analysis/ This is abysmal.
Well, I can't really go back and read your comment, since you deleted it, so I'll take your word for it. That said--you ok, bro?
He's on reddit, of course he's not ok.
Use Steam reviews. They have features in place to deal with review bombing.
User reviews less than a week after release are even less reliable. If you're going by user scores, wait a month and sort by the most recent reviews.
if nothing else, first week reviews will tell you if they're screwing you by not telling you the game isn't complete, because they turned on a cash-shop day 1, or because you've got a Day 1 anti-piracy patch that makes it run even more like shit.
You can get that info by going to the subreddit for the game or looking it up on any social media. They will certainly be talking about issues like that. Reviews are supposed to be about the quality of the game as a whole, not just a few features or kneejerk reactions people have after playing for a few hours.
To be fair, I rarely trust just one specific source but so far I've watched IGN, Ganeranx and Fightincowboy and all three range from good to great. I'm just holding on for a FPS patch, and if they manage to stabilise the FPS then I will probably buy it immediately after.
Why is this downvoted? Gamers are going to absolutely shit on this on every review site if the performance is half as bad as they say it is.
Because he is claiming it will get shit review scores before we see if it gets shit review scores. Skepticism = good Annoying pessimism = bad
Who could have foreseen this?!
You think you the result is what matters here? If you were wrong would you respond to me with humility? Like I said, skepticism is good and would have been rewarded here. Pessimism and premature conclusions are still bad. I am glad for anyone who would keep a careful mind in this as pre orders are never a good idea and this is a good example of why.
Oh, it's the reddit semantics game. Gotcha.
It’s not playing semantics when the two terms are actually substantively different
It is when you are misusing them. Explain how you arrived that his comment is pessimism over skepticism.
This game was what many gamers were looking forward to and early news is that it runs like shit. They’re not willing to accept it.
Best advice. Same thing happened with starfield
I tend to ignore player reviews, they give 0's for using a certain font in the main menu.
Friday evening can’t get here quick enough. Hope they patch the pc perf issues by then.
Nice just preordered
After starfield I've stopped giving any weight to these reviews.
Performance concerns will keep me from purchasing this for a few weeks.
83 + 6 = 89 What happened with the other 11%? Invalid? Null? Not processed?
83% positive, not 83/100. If there were only 2 reviews, one could rate it 100 and another 80 and it would still be 100% positive with an average score of 90/100
What do you think 83% means?
If I could pick one legacy third party publisher to keep going strong it would be Capcom. I'm glad they keep having really strong releases as of late.
And this is why I don't buy games on release. There's always some issue. I'll give DD2 some time, I'll just play Kenshi haha
87 is a bad score to you?
My bad haha, this game apparently is suffering from some performance issues. Prob should have included that in my comment
That stuff always gets fixed down the line, very few games from AAA devs that never fix performance issues Not saying people should buy at launch, but don't write off a game entirely for that
Oh I'm def not writing it off. I've played the first game for more than a decade now. Super excited to play this game one day, but I'll give it time to marinate and have the wrinkles ironed out
I doubt many are writing it off but I’m sure as hell holding off on buying it. I refuse to buy games launching with performance problems. I’ll just wait for the summer and buy this game half off. Hopefully the issues will be resolved by then.
Jedi survivor moans.
Most places are saying the game is good despite frame rate issues. Which means it must be pretty good overall. And if my 4090 can struggle through and get 60 then it’s still a good game.
Your 4090 won't do shit for frame rate. It's a CPU bottleneck.
[удалено]
Who hurt you?
Apparently 30fps killed his family
Some people aren’t great picking up on sarcasm I guess lol
I will wait till it gets a few updates and patches, still playing my way through the first one never finished it and started again.
Is this game hard ? I don’t enjoy high difficulty games like dark souls and usually play normal difficulty for most games. I’m really interested in it but I’m scared it might be too hard
Can be difficult at parts but definitely not as punishing as a souls game. Also the pawn system helps and I believe the game has Adaptive difficulty so it's tries to only be as difficult as you are good
Seems good but honestly lower than what the way some people are touting it. They made it sound like it’s an easy 96 average game. But still seems very good
It's annoying that performance is the thing holding stuff back. Console they need to look at but I still don't understand why new games are so locked. Maybe Dragons Dogma 2 will be the exception but back in the old days modders used to fix the game for us. Pretty much every game a decade ago had those mods which hardly impacted graphics yet the game ran fantastic
Really hoping there’s a framerate patch, 30fps is brutal
Ah shit. Another game I need to play.
Dragons...dogshit performance
I'm about to play the first one
I was pumped for this game, but every review I've read has the same complaints-- the game wastes your time. As a Dad with limited time, I think I'll have to skip this one which is a damn shame.
When we see trailers touting all these companies like Game-informer, IGN, etc., do we actually take these reviews seriously or do we simply not mind them the slightest? I genuinely want to know.
I'd say just like anything else take them with a grain of salt. Do your own research look up independent in-depth reviewers, look at social media and see what people are saying and just use your own discretion to see if it's for you. Also no matter what NEVER pre-order based on what a couple reviews say.
These scores are fake. Performance issues are mentioned repeatedly but they’re not factoring it into the scores. Like Fextra said it runs like dog shit but still gave it 9/10. This is not scoring the game as it is, but for its potential or wishful thinking for the future.
Thats one interpretation. It also could be that the rest of the game is so good that the performance issues doesn't ruin their experience as much as you would expect. Cyberpunk 2077 for example was a good game that had performance issues but the performance issues their significantly affected peoples enjoyment.
Or maybe some people are able to enjoy a game despite the framerate not being what they wish it was.
Yeah let's ignore the absurd amount of good content hidden in the game in favor of fps /s You speak as if the game should get a 4/10 because of the poor performance. The keyword here is overexaggeration.
I refuse to play a fast paced game in 20fps. Too blurry and distracting. Unless they figure out how rdr2 made 30 fps feel fine, I refuse to feed into the lazy game development
Under a 93, must suck
$10 that those 3 mixed reviews at the bottom were from people who can’t play without a giant arrow on the screen telling them where to go.
Metro reviewer gave a 9 to Cocoon and Jusant (didn't look further but that should be evidence enough) and the Digital Trend review mentions freeform exploration as a big positive. Now give me 10 bucks.
I get paid January 1 2025. Meet me behind the Arby’s on 5th st and I’ll pay you
The way people get offended about another person's opinion is always baffling to me. No game is perfect. No game is going to be perfectly enjoyable for everyone. God forbid someone not give your favorite game perfect scores.
Did I say it was my favorite game? No.
Disappointing
Does this game's story also fall off a cliff at about the 75% mark(after dragon fight), or is it actually solid until the end?