513
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
513 points (97.8% liked)
Gaming
20010 readers
770 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The microtransactions are bad enough, but the fact that none of these were present in the build given to reviewers just makes it worse. I mean people would still be complaining about them, but I don't think the backlash would be as bad if Capcom had made it clear from the start that the game was going to be riddled with microtransactions.
Any reviews released in the first week of a game should be taken with a grain of salt and any reviews released on or before launch day should be completely discarded.
With all the 'day one' patches games have, reviewers should be playing the game from launch, on the same version as everyone else. If they have any integrity.
Haaahahahaha
Sorry, not laughing at you, the idea of game journalism having any integrity. That said, it's likely an issue with editors pandering to their CEO or other boss, but still.
Yup, I wait for user reviews cause the "journalists" all have some bias or sellout.
Appreciate you giving credit where credit is due. It is 100% corporate greed.
Kotaku’s editor-in-chief has resigned
I haven't followed the whole thing as I didn't have any desire to play the game, but assuming that's true that's a seriously shitty move and had to be intentional. Is there not some kind of bait and switch laws that would apply here?
Wouldn’t that mean the reviewers were starved for fast travel, and would have thus complained about it? That seems to be the narrative a lot of people are suggesting - that the DLC makes the game playable.
Unless I’m misunderstanding and reviewers got infinite fast travel.
From what I understand, fast travel isn't locked behind microtransactions, despite some claims I've seen. You can buy an item that you can place that lets you teleport back to that point, kind of like fast traveling to a map marker. These items are available in game along with fixed fast travel points between major cities. So the reviewers would have had access to fast travel they just wouldn't have been able to use real money buy them whenever they needed them.
Feels a bit like if they had DLC for ammo in a Resident Evil game. The design of those games is very clearly intended to be around partial ammo starvation, to get you to aim better, choose varying weapons, and sometimes run away. But, I can imagine a small team of publishers deciding "People want ammo? Let's let them buy it!" It'd be very easy for players to presume the base game has been made worse as a whole, and that opinion will become hard to quantify - unless very nuanced reviewers can just pretend the DLC doesn't exist.
Not only isn't it locked behind DLC, it's incredibly cheap, and unlike a lot of titles will take you to places you haven't even been yet. I'm talking about the ox carts, of course. Not only that, ferrystones are available for only 10k (money is relatively easy to come by). What exactly does the store have in it that is required, or even kinda necessary for convenience?
Capcom have been doing this for a while now. It's very sad. (Edit: weird autocorrects)