Who agrees? When it does work like it should, you can see a promising, proper, brilliantly-realized PC game underneath. But sorry, it doesn't have only "a few issues", and saying stuff like it's "maybe not perfect" like Ramm himself did is putting it VERY lightly. How can you take people that say stuff like "Remember <game x>? Yeah, it also released full of bugs!" seriously, when that's pretty much comparing RO2 to games that had busted releases instead of ones that were up to standard? That's not how you do it, that's acting on bad faith, it's being biased. It's trying to make the RO2 launch look reasonable when it's clearly not.
I don't regret my purchase, as I trust TWI's track record and drive to squash bugs. This game is pretty much their baby, after all, it's by far their most ambitious title. But damn, RO2 is NOT finished. It shouldn't be out of beta at all.
( By the way, how do you people think this game will do with the critics? They will probably not be as tolerant of the game's many issues as fans are. I'm predicting 6-8 scores across the board, with 7ish ones being the norm. )
---
I don't regret my purchase, as I trust TWI's track record and drive to squash bugs. This game is pretty much their baby, after all, it's by far their most ambitious title. But damn, RO2 is NOT finished. It shouldn't be out of beta at all.
( By the way, how do you people think this game will do with the critics? They will probably not be as tolerant of the game's many issues as fans are. I'm predicting 6-8 scores across the board, with 7ish ones being the norm. )
---
