The Dragon's Dogma 2 drama has been unyielding - whether it's outrage over misconceptions about its monetization strategy, anger at its "lazy developers only including one save file," or the Dragonsplague being a "game breaking mechanic" by players half-paying attention to tutorial prompts, every single thing I have heard about the game from The Discourse has been negative. Heated. Aghast that such a product would have the audacity to exist.
And yet playing the game I find it's more or less exactly what I expected - a poorly optimized but otherwise sprawling title that merges both Japanese and Western traditions of CRPGs with an engagingly deep combat system, lots of actual expressive space, a ton of work on its Pawn NPC system, and a lot of friction that pushes back against players in the best possible way. It's not without its flaws and frustrations (good lord, the framerate hit in Vernwroth. And if I have to hear about how my entire adventuring party is women one more time I'm gonna lose it). But, broadly speaking, I'm having a wonderful time with it. It's surprised and delighted me several times over the few hours I've explored its world.
Which is weird, right? The discourse is nothing but how much this game sucks, but it's all pretty thoroughly disconnected from whether the game is any good or not.
And stepping back I have to ask: Is this just what The Discourse is, now? Is social media so rotted by engagement metrics that the only thing people engage with is rage bait? Has the hollowing out of games publications by venture capital finally left only Outrage Merchants in charge of critical consensus? It's not that beautiful pieces engaging with Dragon's Dogma (and all other games!) aren't being written. There are essays and reviews abound, and there's sure to be more as time progresses and people finish the title and process their thoughts on it.
But the only thing the culture writ large seems interested in talking about anymore is a game's frustrating parts - either legitimate or not. There's no engagement with the text anymore; there's no discussions about themes and ideas nor are there discussions about formalist system design and the experiential side of engaging with the game's rules. Indeed, people look at intentional design decisions as "mistakes" or "problems" rather than considered choices (like Dragon'splague or the save file system). Instead, there is only discussion about whether it passes a Capitalism Purity Test that determines if it is Pro or Anti Consumer ("This DLC that I have no obligation to buy is objectionable!") or whether it is Optimized or Not Optimized ("I paid $70, I better get my sixty frames per second!") or whether the devs are Lazy Devs or Not Lazy Devs ("the only reason there's one save is that the developers were too lazy to program a save selection menu!"). This is what pop culture discourse around games is, now - celebration that some games pass these tests, and ire that some games fail them.
And it's hard not to feel like the "objective game reviews" dipshits have won, in some way. Popular games discourse is just these "consumer rights" oriented discussions with no room for looking at form or beauty or emotion. There's no attempt to consider the experience of playing the game or what it tries to do artistically and whether it succeeds at that. Instead games are covered by angry internet YouTubers and inflammatory TikToks whose brief contextless talking points get repeated by people who haven't even played the game, and that is what the discussion about a game just is to most people now.
And it's just exhausting.
Before y'all start: None of this is to defend the DLC. It's bad and dumb. I don't disagree that spending $2 to buy a character makeover or $3 for enough Rift currency to hire a badass Pawn without having to grind is bullshit. So I share your outrage! Games are too expensive to make! Predatory monetization is bad! I'm not disagreeing with any of this. But this is by no means the first game to do this sort of thing (freakin' Dead Space 3 did the whole "you can pay as a shortcut for getting in-game resources in a singleplayer title" thing 11 years ago!). It isn't good, but it also isn't new. It isn't even a particularly predatory form of microtransaction! And I am just so tired of having this same conversation instead of talking about the limits and triumphs of the pawn system, or how imsim emergence has really taken hold in a lot of Japanese games in the past ~8 years, or how the game's use of friction against players is distinct from the way Dark Souls does similar things. All of those sound like way more interesting conversations to be having instead of this tired ass debate that we keep having that produces tons of outrage at games but doesn't actually improve anything!