- cross-posted to:
- games@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- games@sh.itjust.works
You must log in or register to comment.
“[…]these micotransactions grant more frequent access to features many gamers deem essential for any action RPG. This includes fast travel and character customisation.”
Wait, what? Seriously devs?
the key phrase there being ‘more frequent’. the fast travel and character customization are all in the game and have a more in-universe integration. the game systems are supposed to be more immersive than just click the map and fast travel. you typically either take a cart from town to town or warp using a stone that gets used up.
I like it the way it is, makes leaving town to quest and adventure have another layer of strategy. If someone wants to bypass that strategy layer with money then so be it. I certainly would prefer that it be a mod rather than a MTX, and will definitely not be buying any regardless.
We tried this already - getting ethics in game journalism.
It didn’t work so well.
Can’t tell if you’re joking or not, but gamergate was absolutely not about “ethics in game journalism.”
Not joking. It absolutely was about ethics, at first. The initial kickoff was the boyfriend accusing the girl (Zoë Quinn?) of sleeping with someone else for a better review. That’s ethics in a nutshell. I don’t think that anyone really cared about the game, or who was involved, but rather that the state of the industry was such that you could accuse a well known game reviewer of being unethical, and it was more believable than not.
The fact is, reviewers had already sold their souls and a AAA game get anything less than a 90%. Had reviewers had better ethics, probably no one would have believed the boyfriend, and the entire story would have been a nothing-burger.
Of course it went off the rails after that, the fact that the boyfriend was lying didn’t help, but for a brief moment it looked like there might actually be game news/review industry reform. It was a glorious 24 or so hours.
Spoilers: they won’t.
Spoilers: they shouldn’t. They actually reviewed the game and didn’t circlejerk about one completely optional feature.
I think the whole game should be reviewed and that includes the microtransactions. There’s a reason they add them after the reviews are in because they know people don’t like to be nickel and dimed in a game that costs 60 to 70 fucking dollars.
Hey wise guy. I have this amazing solution for that. It’s called not fucking buying them. People are losing their shit about this, yet helldivers 2 does the exact same thing and no one gives a shit.
Oh I’m sorry, I guess I should be grateful that a 70 dollar unoptimized game from a multi-million dollar company has microtransactions. I don’t care what mental gymnastics you come up with, they have no place in paid games.
Every time I see someone complain about an unoptimized game I’m reminded people still use dog-shit computers or ‘gaming’ laptops.
Why would somebody only review a portion of the game you’re playing?
It’s like reading a movie review where the author showed up 30 minutes late to the movie
It’s literally not. It’s like reading a positive review for a movie and then going to see it and being outraged the theater is charging $14 for popcorn. No one is forcing you to buy the popcorn, and not buying it in no way affects your movie experience.
Don’t you have more important things to be outraged about? Isn’t it exhausting hating everything all at once?
This is Lemmy though, you need to toss out common sense before opening the site.
