So basically all the negative reviews revolve around one thing...

[MaxNevralgiques]

"It's not Heroes of Hammerwatch 2".

From what I understand, many people played Heroes of Hammerwatch and never played the original game which was a "campaign RPG" you played through once and that's it.

People were expecting something to grind in multiple games using multiple characters, something comparable to a Diablo or a Grim Dawn experience.

Thing is, this was clearly never going to be that. The game was clearly labeled as a sequel to Hammerwatch and the demo showed exactly what it was going to be. A game you start with a group of friends, play through and finish with that same group of friends, and that's it.

I find it hilarious that most of the negative reviews aren't about the actual game and what it does, but rather about what it isn't and how it's not the "sequel to that rogue-lite spinoff I played".

I'm bummed about that, truly hope the devs aren't hitting themselves on the head too much. You guys did a fantastic job in providing a sequel to the first game.

Maybe people will be more receptive if HEROES OF HAMMERWATCH 2 releases one day.

[Typing Cat]

Well there's plenty of story driven campaign RPGs that separate between chracter progress and campaign progress.
Saying 'the game is not what you expected you dumbo' won't exactly helps anyone when it's kind of something many people expects in the games to have.

[Andy]

if the game isn't gear based, then MAYBE you are right, but in this game, it's a big NOPE

[Rando the Crit Clown]

Originally posted by Typing Cat:

Well there's plenty of story driven campaign RPGs that separate between chracter progress and campaign progress.

There's also plenty that don't (way more, in-fact).

Originally posted by Typing Cat:

Saying 'the game is not what you expected you dumbo' won't exactly helps anyone when it's kind of something many people expects in the games to have.

Saying "I hate this game, why can't I farm for 800 hours?!" is what's not going to do anything. Letting you know that this isn't the type of game you think it is is very helpful.

[Sleepy]

Originally posted by Andy:

if the game isn't gear based, then MAYBE you are right, but in this game, it's a big NOPE

100%, the item system turned me off to H2 pretty hard.

[Basilllisk]

Yeah I was a bit worried seeing "mixed" until I realized why.

People making this complaint clearly never played the first game; it's campaign based not character based.

Frankly I'm extremely happy we got Hammerwatch 2 and not HoH 2, and I am greatly amused at people being upset at a sequel for being similar to the original game.

[Typing Cat]

Originally posted by Rando the Crit Clown:

Originally posted by Typing Cat:

Well there's plenty of story driven campaign RPGs that separate between chracter progress and campaign progress.

There's also plenty that don't (way more, in-fact).

Originally posted by Typing Cat:

Saying 'the game is not what you expected you dumbo' won't exactly helps anyone when it's kind of something many people expects in the games to have.

Saying "I hate this game, why can't I farm for 800 hours?!" is what's not going to do anything. Letting you know that this isn't the type of game you think it is is very helpful.

What I meant is that when a lot of people expected certain feature in a game which is prevleant in similar genre, and the game doesn't delieved the same feature. There's no helping in recieving whole lots of negative review, it's what it is.
No matter how many people, who played the first game, says that it's exactly like the first one, when people expects it to be more of spin-off one.
You can defend it with various logics but in the end, it's not going to change a single person's mind to not leave a negative review.
And, yes, you're right about saying this to someone who hasn't already bought the game, because that will help them to not buy the game that doesn't work as they expected.
But for someone like me who already bought the game and played it well over refunding period, I wish someone told me this earlier.

You need to understand how to deliver your point without making obscene idiots (so called strawman)
No one wants to grinds the same boss 100 times, people just wants to play the game with friends who has bit irregular play hours, without pausing thier progress.

[Zerachan]

First game had local co-op..
Heroes didn't have local co-op as the new playerprofiles savesystem supposedly caused issues with that.
So why doesn't this sequel to first one have local co-op when it doesn't have the "problematic" profilesaves of the Heroes game?

[Zebbe]

Originally posted by Zerachan:

First game had local co-op..
Heroes didn't have local co-op as the new playerprofiles savesystem supposedly caused issues with that.
So why doesn't this sequel to first one have local co-op when it doesn't have the "problematic" profilesaves of the Heroes game?

Local co-op adds a lot of restrictions to what can be otherwise done in a game. It fits best with arcade style hack 'n' slash games that focuses almost solely on the action. Games with more focus on narrative, character customization and exploration don't work as well with local co-op. Hammerwatch II went in the latter direction, so that is why it doesn't have it.

[Buntkreuz]

Originally posted by Basilllisk:

Yeah I was a bit worried seeing "mixed" until I realized why.

People making this complaint clearly never played the first game; it's campaign based not character based.

Frankly I'm extremely happy we got Hammerwatch 2 and not HoH 2, and I am greatly amused at people being upset at a sequel for being similar to the original game.

I played the first and still think its a bad decision for HoH2.
So there goes your point and assumption.
The second game improved drastically and i think it had a perfect mix of features and mechanics going on.
What i expected from HoH2 was that formula in an open world with more story, but still the same concept.
And honestly, it wasnt and isnt clear that its not that, especially since the developers repeatedly gave the impression that it basically builds on the last game.
At least i got that impression every time i saw an announcement, trailer and the demo/playtest.


I still like the game, dont get me wrong.
But i also think they absolutely can get the best of both worlds working here, with some more work poured in.
Im not seeing an "either or" situation with a lot of the games shortcomings.

[Helelo]

Originally posted by Zebbe:

Originally posted by Zerachan:

First game had local co-op..
Heroes didn't have local co-op as the new playerprofiles savesystem supposedly caused issues with that.
So why doesn't this sequel to first one have local co-op when it doesn't have the "problematic" profilesaves of the Heroes game?

Local co-op adds a lot of restrictions to what can be otherwise done in a game. It fits best with arcade style hack 'n' slash games that focuses almost solely on the action. Games with more focus on narrative, character customization and exploration don't work as well with local co-op. Hammerwatch II went in the latter direction, so that is why it doesn't have it.

Bruh really saying this when BG3 just came out

[Soga]

Originally posted by Helelo:

Originally posted by Zebbe:

Local co-op adds a lot of restrictions to what can be otherwise done in a game. It fits best with arcade style hack 'n' slash games that focuses almost solely on the action. Games with more focus on narrative, character customization and exploration don't work as well with local co-op. Hammerwatch II went in the latter direction, so that is why it doesn't have it.

Bruh really saying this when BG3 just came out

BG3 has poor, buggy split screen coop. And it's also a complete pain in that game to keep up with the story and narration because you have to manually join your friend's conversations with NPCs. And sometimes, you even have to manually join to see a major story event happening; not all of them force everybody to watch it at the same time.

Not the best example to spin into a bruh moment.

[Helelo]

Originally posted by Soga:

Originally posted by Helelo:

Bruh really saying this when BG3 just came out

BG3 has poor, buggy split screen coop. And it's also a complete pain in that game to keep up with the story and narration because you have to manually join your friend's conversations with NPCs. And sometimes, you even have to manually join to see a major story event happening; not all of them force everybody to watch it at the same time.

Not the best example to spin into a bruh moment.

It's literally a design choice to let everybody do whatever they want. If the game forced you to watch your friend's cutscenes, I suppose you'd call it out for its lack of freedom
And still, the points you are bringing up are not tied to local coop, it's the same design in online multiplayer, so I don't see how it invalidates my point, but nice cope

[Mosvicious]

Maybe OP's statement was true 3 days ago but a majority of negative reviews are complaining that multiplayer sucks (rightfully so). Which is enough of a deterrent to get me to not buy the game and I was pretty excited for this game.

[Merudgark]

Most of negative reviews are complaining about the game being tedious in a lot of ways, issues in muliplayer saves management and the lack of essential QoL elements. i didn't find any bad review that mentions Heroes of Hammerwatch. They probably exist but definitely not the majority of them.

[Soga]

Originally posted by Helelo:

Originally posted by Soga:

BG3 has poor, buggy split screen coop. And it's also a complete pain in that game to keep up with the story and narration because you have to manually join your friend's conversations with NPCs. And sometimes, you even have to manually join to see a major story event happening; not all of them force everybody to watch it at the same time.

Not the best example to spin into a bruh moment.

It's literally a design choice to let everybody do whatever they want. If the game forced you to watch your friend's cutscenes, I suppose you'd call it out for its lack of freedom
And still, the points you are bringing up are not tied to local coop, it's the same design in online multiplayer, so I don't see how it invalidates my point, but nice cope

It also means you miss out on a lot of things because your friend is off doing her own thing and you want to experience the game as a shared, social experience. In other words, BG3 has the same problem that people are complaining about here - that HW2 is a game that requires a certain level of coordination with your friends to enjoy to the fullest.

The thing is, I've worked that coordination out with my friend and we are now happy, though it would have been nice if BG3 had an option to allow you to auto-join conversations.

But I'm not here to complain about BG3, I'm here to point out that what the dev pointed out holds pretty true, even to the example you cited as a counterpoint.