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.
GAMES MEDIA FACT: any time you read a gamer saying literally anything about "optimization" or synonyms for the same, you can safely just close the tab and walk away, they don't have a clue what they're talking about and there is nothing further interesting to read
(im being a bit snippy but also yeah basically everything the OP said, and it may or may not be related but i feel like decades of reducing games to a good/bad percentage "score" as though such a thing were even possible to objectively measure without discussing the themes and mechanics and the reviewer's subjective experience with them)