I think your take is outdated. Review bombs for non-gameplay, non-performance practices that do not affect the end user are commonplace today, and since the HD2 review bomb, have quintoupled in frequency. Racism and misogyny driving review bombings is also extremely old news, did you forget the general chatter surrounding the last of us? Nobody talked about the gameplay in a meaningful way, just the characters. Hundreds of medieval era games have been review bombed for “historical inaccuracy” and people complained night city (cp2077) had too many black NPCs. Hell, even ff15 had people losing their minds over the race variety of randomly generated townspeople.
I don’t need to provide evidence, you need to be aware of games discourse. These idiots are everywhere. It’s also worth noting that in a lot of cases, it’s beyond the capabilities of a developer to gauge how large a launch will be - and being impatient while they scale a service really isn’t “giving a review”, it’s complaining that you can’t play. Wayfinder is a solid recent example, they accepted help from Digital Extremes for their initial launch, then when those servers were far less powerful than they were led to believe, ditched their publisher and refocused the game from an MMO to a session-based co-op title (and it’s going great).
Tl;Dr: you are asking for evidence that is LITERALLY EVERYWHERE people talk about games online, from steam reviews to forum discourse. These have been awful places to learn about games for eons, and you come across as a reactionary that doesn’t actually play games when you give them undue credit
That was because of stupid account restrictions. Yes it’s not “gameplay,” but it’s something in the game that players didn’t like. The game worked fine w/o the PSN account, and then they made it mandatory. That’s a change of policy, and they 100% deserve the negative reviews.
That said, it sold extremely well, so the negative reviews don’t appear to have hurt the success of the game.
TLOU2 is closer to what you’re talking about, where people unhappy with the LGBT themes gave it a negative rating. But it was also a “hard-to-play” game due to being “emotionally raw” (dev’s words in quotes from this article), so I don’t think the “right-wing review-bombing” tells the whole story, I just think the game was not what fans of the original were expecting.
You absolutely do. I provided evidence for two of the games you mentioned (the first two), detailing how the “review bombing” wasn’t nearly the issue people (you included) claimed it to be. If you only follow things posted to gaming-enthusiast communities, you’ll get a very slanted view of how things actually work.
Yes, there are idiots everywhere, but the burden of proof is to show that those idiots actually meaningfully cause problems. Looking at sales figures and longer-term review stats, it seems they quickly get drowned out by the quiet majority.
You’re ignoring sales changes in favor of appearing to be right, and you asked for any evidence and found it yourself. In fact, you seem more concerned about being right than being correct - so I’m going to ignore you completely!
No, I’m more concerned about providing evidence so others can make their own opinion. I may absolutely be missing something, and I’m here to learn what I’m missing.
I don’t accept vague statements, I accept facts. I provided the ones I found, and they seem to show that these “review bombs” are overblown and didn’t significantly impact the actual sales of the games in question. In other words, they’re sensationalist clickbait to sell ads on game review sites.
I think your take is outdated. Review bombs for non-gameplay, non-performance practices that do not affect the end user are commonplace today, and since the HD2 review bomb, have quintoupled in frequency. Racism and misogyny driving review bombings is also extremely old news, did you forget the general chatter surrounding the last of us? Nobody talked about the gameplay in a meaningful way, just the characters. Hundreds of medieval era games have been review bombed for “historical inaccuracy” and people complained night city (cp2077) had too many black NPCs. Hell, even ff15 had people losing their minds over the race variety of randomly generated townspeople.
I don’t need to provide evidence, you need to be aware of games discourse. These idiots are everywhere. It’s also worth noting that in a lot of cases, it’s beyond the capabilities of a developer to gauge how large a launch will be - and being impatient while they scale a service really isn’t “giving a review”, it’s complaining that you can’t play. Wayfinder is a solid recent example, they accepted help from Digital Extremes for their initial launch, then when those servers were far less powerful than they were led to believe, ditched their publisher and refocused the game from an MMO to a session-based co-op title (and it’s going great).
Tl;Dr: you are asking for evidence that is LITERALLY EVERYWHERE people talk about games online, from steam reviews to forum discourse. These have been awful places to learn about games for eons, and you come across as a reactionary that doesn’t actually play games when you give them undue credit
That was because of stupid account restrictions. Yes it’s not “gameplay,” but it’s something in the game that players didn’t like. The game worked fine w/o the PSN account, and then they made it mandatory. That’s a change of policy, and they 100% deserve the negative reviews.
That said, it sold extremely well, so the negative reviews don’t appear to have hurt the success of the game.
The original was review-bombed because it was a crappy PC port.
TLOU2 is closer to what you’re talking about, where people unhappy with the LGBT themes gave it a negative rating. But it was also a “hard-to-play” game due to being “emotionally raw” (dev’s words in quotes from this article), so I don’t think the “right-wing review-bombing” tells the whole story, I just think the game was not what fans of the original were expecting.
Regardless, TLOU series has sold extremely well, including TLOU2.
You absolutely do. I provided evidence for two of the games you mentioned (the first two), detailing how the “review bombing” wasn’t nearly the issue people (you included) claimed it to be. If you only follow things posted to gaming-enthusiast communities, you’ll get a very slanted view of how things actually work.
Yes, there are idiots everywhere, but the burden of proof is to show that those idiots actually meaningfully cause problems. Looking at sales figures and longer-term review stats, it seems they quickly get drowned out by the quiet majority.
You’re ignoring sales changes in favor of appearing to be right, and you asked for any evidence and found it yourself. In fact, you seem more concerned about being right than being correct - so I’m going to ignore you completely!
No, I’m more concerned about providing evidence so others can make their own opinion. I may absolutely be missing something, and I’m here to learn what I’m missing.
I don’t accept vague statements, I accept facts. I provided the ones I found, and they seem to show that these “review bombs” are overblown and didn’t significantly impact the actual sales of the games in question. In other words, they’re sensationalist clickbait to sell ads on game review sites.