Is the game considered a failure?

[OldManShanty]

Compared to the first game, is this a failure? Will it stop receiving updates and DLC soon?

[pinky]

The game is 3 steps back with most of the mechanics from the first Darkest Dungeon and 2 steps forward with ONLY a few of them or with new ones.

I don't consider this game as a failure. More like a downgrade. If we pretend this game is the first Darkest Dungeon, I would rate it 8/10.

As for DLC and updates, the developers have just started releasing them. I highly doubt that they will cancel the game in the next 1,5 years. More DLC and updates are sure to come.

[Raki]

Like pinky, I think that for the next 2 years more DLC and updates will come. The Binding Blade did well and pulled in/back a lot of players. As long as they can repeat that, things should be fine.

In the long, I think run a lot will depend a lot on the modding support they promised to deliver this year. The modding community helped keep DD1 alive and fresh for almost a decade.

[goobie snoobert]

yes
it's a decent enough game on it's own. it doesn't have much longevity but it's fun to play while you still have stuff to do, despite all the shortcomings
but compared to the first game? it's a complete and utter failure. and no amount of apologists can change that

[Gal Kraft]

To answer OP, there are links in other recent threads to a Redhook interview where the 2024 plans are discussed. They are currently making regular updates related to hero balancing, but more to come.

I'll speak for myself when I say that I put more than twice as much time into DD2 than DD1, though admittedly I never played mods. And DD1 was one of my all time favorites.

So Goobie's opinion is just that.

[Sultryhag]

I like both games and I feel DD2 is sufficiently different for me to enjoy it as a game by itself without comparing it to DD1.

[No One]

Steam forum residents consider it a failure, yes.

The game was made by Red Hook, for the purposes of making Red Hook money.
Money was made. Money continues to be made, and no amount of forum salt will change that. Turns out 75% approval is high enough.

Steam thinks 75% approval is [failure], and this fact by itself explains why Red Hook does not normally read or consider these fora. They are correct, no matter how suboptimal their alternatives are.

It's clear many of the bad reviews are, shall we say, tactical. How could the anti-HWM patch lead to a wave of bad reviews? Only if folks who already owned the game added or changed their review. Really? 13 toons and it all hinges on specifically one HWM path? Is the game Darkest Dungeon or Darkest Dismas? No, clearly this is about trying to bully RH into changing the game.
How many of the bad reviews are 100+ hour players who put in a bad review to try to politically pressure RH? How many put in a bad review after losing a run and then simply forgot about it? 75% is not the real rate - though of course we don't know how far off it is.

[goobie snoobert]

Originally posted by No One:

Steam thinks 75% approval is [failure]

it is. that means roughly a quarter of people playing the game were bothered enough to feel the need to write a review. compare that to just 8% of the first game.
not to mention that to this day, the first game has roughly 3 times the amount of players at any given time. right now DD1 has 3k players, whilst DD2 has 1k. you have to reach extremely hard to not call that a failure
also, you're an ignorant fool for claiming RH is in the right for not listening to feedback. them not listening to players and hiding in an echo chamber is exactly how we got into this mess

[Sultryhag]

Why call people names? Does that improve your point?

[Raki]

Don't feed the troll. He's pulling a rhetorical sleight of hand, redefining failure by some personal measure, and then insults people to distract you from noticing.

[RopeDrink]

compare that to just 8% of the first game.

Fond memories of fickle DD1 reviews being flip-flopped over EGS and past issues back in the day. Wait, what's that? DD2 have an exclusive EA over on EGS? Whelp, time to stick it to Red Hook by changing a 6-year-old 'positive' review of DD1 into a negative because I don't like what they're doing with 'not-the-game-being-reviewed'.

the first game has roughly 3 times the amount of players at any given time.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people - myself included - were playing the game for two years before it even arrived on this platform, with no reason to buy it twice.

If you're going to refer to Steam charts, you will always be off the mark - not that it matters when discussing purely SP games, where it doesn't matter how many people are playing at any one time (unless you're one of those people who equate player-count as 'quality'), via numbers that frequently peak and dip based on content cycles, especially when they aren't 8-year-old 'complete' products with all the bells and whistles.

also, you're an ignorant fool for claiming RH is in the right for not listening to feedback.

He said steam reviews and this fora, not feedback in general. 99% of my responses to most of the complaint threads would boil down to linking the RH Discord channel, where they've been absorbing feedback since the very beginning, but that's a free ticket to being insulted within salt mines and echo chambers on an external media that is automatically less monitored by Red Hook and typically less constructive in general.

them not listening to players and hiding in an echo chamber is exactly how we got into this mess

This mess began long before DD2 even arrived. Steam groups and anti-EGS campaigns tarring anything related to that platform, the growing hate for Red Hook causing a temporary dent in even DD1's reviews when they heard about DD2's oncoming arrival, and an automatic bad first impression, which typically stick.

There's been nothing but bad raps since long before we had a playable version in our hands, and it's no surprise when a hefty chunk of people (with no prior knowledge of the franchise or the debacle) wonder what all this fuss is about while casually enjoying the game.

[Jaggid Edje]

I think the game is pretty fun, but suffers from a lack of any reason to keep playing once you 'finish it' and finishing it takes far too little time.

I'd still say it's a decent and fun game, but I wouldn't recommend anyone buy it unless it was on sale.

But if I rate it in direct comparison to DD1, I'd be less kind.

[Kargan]

Originally posted by OldManShanty:

Compared to the first game, is this a failure? Will it stop receiving updates and DLC soon?

A failure is an understatement. No Mods, no Hubs/Cities/Buildings, there is autohit, fewer classes, the story lasts less than half (smooth, without MODs). I would say a disaster.

[RopeDrink]

fewer classes

As of right now, DD2 only has -4 heroes in its first year (14) compared to (18) in the previous 8-year-old title. If you consider MUS is essentially just an ARB with a cosmetic overhaul and some barely noticeable tweaks to a tiny collection of specific class trinkets, then it's only -3.

DD1 had about 7 heroes introduced over time during EA and post-release patches - one of which is a plain reskin in 2018 at the end of its life - and that's an old 2D game which doesn't involve fully narrated backstories, playable lore chapters, more skills, paths, masteries, and all the bells and whistles that take up more time and development effort.

Despite that, DD2 has received infinitely more balance updates in one year than DD1 received in total (because each hero is much more variable in DD2 compared to DD1 by a country mile).

the story lasts less than half

It's the other way around.

Most of DD1 is made up of narrating optional bosses that you don't even need to kill, and the rest boils down to the start + final dungeons - with everything in between merely being a grind to get to the ending. Conversely, heroes get one line of introductory dialogue and a static comic as their backstory, and those are handled externally.

DD2 tells you the story in variable chunks at the beginning and end of every region, with descriptors in-between, and a full story for every single hero, so you won't hear it all in a single playthrough - with boss narrations being tied to each mountain encounter rather than loading screens. There are also underappreciated elements, like each hero having targeted lines of narration in combat, as opposed to DD1's more generic 'catch-all' approach.

Overall, DD2 has more to offer in terms of lore and backstory, albeit bite-sized and varied to compliment the replayable format - rather than a linear A-to-B like DD1.

No Mods

DD1 didn't start with mods either.

no Hubs/Cities/Buildings

Altar, travel nodes, inns, etc, are a retelling of that old formula. Rather than deal with features in one preset place before missions, you encounter them along the way, and you only need to build the Altar once per profile.

I would say a disaster.

It's one thing to dislike a game, and another to cite it as a failure based only on those dislikes. In actuality, DD2 is a perfectly serviceable game, (some would even say perfectly fine), and the majority seem to like it - but alas, it's not the style of Darkest Dungeon sequel some people wanted, and is mired in a pre-emptive hatred thanks to EGS and other elements.

For everything else, head to the DD Discord and provide feedback so you can help facilitate positive change, as needless vent threads and random citations of doom help nobody.

[TripSin]

Darkest Dungeon 1 is getting literally 3x the number of concurrent players.

Yeah, it's a failure. Red Hook should be ashamed of themselves.

[Jaggid Edje]

Originally posted by TripSin:

Darkest Dungeon 1 is getting literally 3x the number of concurrent players.

Yeah, it's a failure. Red Hook should be ashamed of themselves.

That's only Steam numbers. Given that this came out on EGS quite a bit before Steam, I imagine most players that are big fans of the series don't own it on Steam, at least not yet (workshop support would be the only thing I can think of that would lure people to buy it again).

Given that DD2 doesn't have any replayability, yet, I do imagine that DD1 still has more people playing it at any given time. But citing 'concurrent players' is certainly not the "evidence" of this that you seem to think that it is.