They use them as a potential research tool for better ressource management of their money to help them decide what they should purchase if they are on a budget.
No one actually decides their opinion based on the freaking ratings, lmao.
1 Like
Yeah and buying twitter bots isn’t real either right? Of course it’s being bombed. I would bet eventually the fever pitch uproar and toxicity will start mentioning fully open trade more as well. That is one of the things I like about LE. It is small enough player base to not attract the professional agitator and pixel mining crowd, but still has a bunch of really nice features. They also listen to legitimate feedback, but at the same time this type of clownshow would never be allowed on their forums, or on their reddit forum.
1 Like
Literally making repeated accounts and using automation to repeatedly vote over and over… yes that actually exists and what people said they were doing.
It’s what it means. You may not like the term, but that’s the term.
2 Likes
Because they are pathetic and need constant validation. I love a ton of things that people will downvote to oblivion. It’s perfectly fine, some people only get satisfaction when they are in a group that will think for them and then can become of something bigger then themselves either by blindly following a review or by reviewing themselves blindly.
It’s human nature of, “in group” / “out group”. All of the people just enjoying the game became the enemy to the “game is dead, without any reason group”. The blind leading the blind which is why the saying, “In the land of the blind, the one eye’d man is king”. The critical thinker can move beyond the noise.
Yeah the last patch wasn’t great, but the hyperbole people created around it made the position laughable. The loud cries of nonsense like “the game is dead” washed out a lot out of actual real criticism. I am glad the leads saw the real criticism and addressed it and talked about change which is great.
I digress, the main reason is human nature to a degree. People seek validation and groups to join. People find validation in stuff they may not even agree with which is why you see so many people saying they quit the game as they loaded up the game to play S1.
DDOS and dismissing player feedback are not even remotely the same thing. And you call me naive…
2 Likes
Still not review bombing. Trolling, perhaps, but not review bombing. You may not like reality, but it’s still reality.
2 Likes
https://www.metacritic.com/search/game/diablo%20iv/results
It is still there for me…at the bottom.
Still works for me. Direct link, and searching for it.
Since doing a quick wiki search is just too hard for ya. wikipedia .org/wiki/Review_bomb
Except it’s not
h ttps://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iv
LMAO… wiki… If you don’t want anyone to take you seriously, just say so.
As I said, it’s just a term created to dismiss player feedback that developers/publishers don’t like.
You seem to be personally offended that someone is calling this out. Perhaps you’re one of the devs? Or maybe a “games journalist”? That’s the only two types of people who would so vehemently defend this made up term.
3 Likes
All terms are created dude. Every single one is one that someone at one point created… like holy jeebus man
2 Likes
Wiki is not a credible source.
Ever.
That’s not what he said. Then again, you think wiki is a good source…
1 Like
Ok, so a Dictionary definition for ya there old man. dictionary .com/browse/review-bomb and merriam-webster .com/dictionary/review%20bombing
Wikipedia has been pretty reliable as a source of gathering common information for over 10 years. Saying Wikipedia isn’t reliable starting source is like saying that the internet is a fad.
The creator of wiki even says it isn’t credible.
The problem is that WC3 is still a great game at its core. D4 is just pure garbage.
1 Like
I said credible starting point which means for common use vernacular it’s perfectly fine. I wouldn’t trust it without review for something like a law, but I would use it to gather a starting source to find it.
Vast difference there between grabbing an article on a term and doing something like determining if the Trail of Tears caused deep seeded generational trauma on Native Americans displaced and abused during the trail.
You can make up and create mountains out of molehills all ya want though. One reason I went ahead and linked to a dictionary just for you there buddy.
Not an argument. You cannot provide a single scrap of counterargument to what I’ve said. A definition on a wiki or even on a merriam-webster page doesn’t mean jack when the actions expose the reality.
To illustrate that point, why do developers/publishers never call a flood of positive reviews “review bombing” even when there’s an overwhelming number that are just “game is good”? Because there’s no such thing as “review bombing” and the term is only pulled out when the player feedback is overwhelmingly negative. Look at the actions, not the definition.
1 Like
Think of it this way. There’s always, ALWAYS, a lot more artificiality (falsity, fakeness, phoniness), to the POSITIVE press/reviews that any large corporate project receives, than the NEGATIVE press/reviews that it receives. Always. You’re comparing normal people with corporate machines that have supercomputers that can generate hundreds of thousands of bot accounts and comments in a span of seconds. This has been happening for movies, TV, music, social media for decades now.
2 Likes