@Gruug It would still completely deserve a two, because they should not be absolved of releasing such a terrible game and only trying to fix it post-release, especially when they hyped it up so much beforehand and made it seem like it would be the next true sequel to the X series.
Re-reviewing a game after it improves months after release gives more incentive for developers to release half-assed games, because they know that they won't be permanently held to their original score no matter how bad it is, since they can fix it after-the-fact. In my opinion, a review not only judges the quality of the game but also, in cases like these where the game was all bark and no bite, the integrity of the developers. The 2.0 will make me far more cautious about the developer's future games because of their sloppiness here and that is well-deserved.
@Darkhacker1811 @Doomerang @jacquelineferre So you're damning microtransactions for simply existing, without giving it context (in this case, an alternative for people who don't want to wait even though the wait time is completely reasonable)? That's not logical in the slightest.
Not to mention damning microtransactions for the "psychological temptation" is no one's fault but your own. Just because YOU feel the temptation, does not even everyone else will.
@jacquelineferre Microtransactions for an element of the game that is easily obtainable without spending money, and thus is nowhere near important for anyone but those who are too impatient to gain those points.
If you're going to mention an element, make sure to actually give it context next time.
@banderweir @RobDev @JLCrogue Pfeh, this conspiracy is a bunch of hogwash. In my day, conspiracies would actually have people CONSPIRING. IN THE SNOW. WHILE WALKING ON A VOLCANO.
Kids today and their so-called conspiracies. Pfeh.
@amar1234 Except nearly 80 years ago, they developed and released a vaccine for influenza that drastically lowered its kill rate. 50 years ago the developed and released a cure for polio, and at various other points they released cures for diseases that are now extinct or controlled to the point where they are nowhere near as deadly as before. As I mentioned in another topic, AIDS/HIV medication has gotten to the point where you're not living on borrowed time anymore when you contract it, and that was within the last twenty years. All of these cures/vaccines and controls have been developed in the past century, not before it.
Companies benefit MASSIVELY from selling cures and vaccines to diseases (especially if you're the one that comes up with it first and patent it, meaning there's MORE incentive to develop cures, not less), so the logic that they refuse to sell them because of lack of profits is completely and utterly flawed.
@xeoneex66 If you want to preach about game standards, at least do it when the topic at hand is at least relevant. Just because this is involving EA does not mean that whining about whether the standards of games have become lower contributes to the actual discussion.
@Seymour47 Eh, maybe it was a PR stunt, but I agree with you: I prefer PR stunts that actually contribute to charity or society rather than just wasting money on some ineffective ad campaign.
Doomerang's comments