There’s no such thing as “review bombing”. The term was invented because a developer was mad that their product was crap and the community didn’t like it and they spoke up. Look at the pattern of what’s labeled as “review bombing”. It’s ALWAYS a reaction to the developer either making a crap game or as a result of something the developer did that’s unacceptable. Calling something “review bombing” is just an attempt to dismiss player feedback.
1 Like
Because it is a bunch of bots.
Nothing to see here.
LMAO now it is review bombing right? In the topic yesterday people denied that reviewbombing is a thing just told by people that can’t accept the game is bad.
Crazy how the viewpoint can change depending on the narrative.
I think it was Immortal with 0.1
But it doesnt really matter. Unfortunately these guys still make money like crazy even with uninspiring games.
Haha for real? HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAA
I can shed some light on that. Programmatic advertising tags you with a pixel tracker (cookie) and retargets you based on the sites/content you view. So if you go to the Battlenet or Blizzard site, they tag you and serve a relevant ad.
Source: I work for a pharma ad company in this exact field.
This wasnt review bombing
This wasnt a coordinated attack on the game, everyone was pissed with the last patch and a tiny fractoin of them decided to show it on a review
2 Likes
Oh I totally agree, the campaign was more-or-less good and the core mechanical issues don’t become obvious until WT3-4 (unless you play a lot of ARPGs), if it was just act 1 I’d probably give it a good score too. If you play through everything the score quickly drops and becomes like a 4-5/10 though.
Agreed, they made a lot of really weird design decisions and are now having to issue weird mega nerf patches to combat it.
Good example? The damage nerfs. Wouldn’t be needed if they didn’t have 2 multiplicative damage stats…that leads to exponential damage increases. At most, you can only have 1 multiplicative damage stat. That’s literally grade school math. I refuse to believe that programmers can’t do basic math lol.
That’s what a lot of people don’t understand.
People are far more likely to leave a negative review then take the time away from something they either enjoy or simply don’t care enough about to post a positive review.
So for every 100 angry players, there is 100,000 players who are either enjoying themselves or simply don’t care enough to voice their opinion.
hmm are u sure about that
Diablo 4
PC 2.3
PS5 1.9
XSX 3.6
Great, I think that at this rate, it would soon reach 1. Damage control they call it, I can’t stop laughing 
That’s not how sampling works.
And well received games don’t have bad aggregate scores.
it’s sad how this game still gets an 86 overall rating with all the payed fake bs reviews from critics. however, i don’t see user reviews disabled. i just tested and was able to add mine.
1 Like
Critic scores are basically toilet paper because the companies induce good reviews (and punish bad ones) with access. i.e. they have financial/professional conflicts of interest. Users generally don’t have financial conflicts of interest when they rate things.
1 Like
No he’s dumb as a box of rocks
Yeah, that’s why every game from a big publisher gets an 80 or above.
Oh wait, that’s not true at all:
https ://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-76
https ://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/battlefield-2042
https ://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-5/call-of-duty-vanguard
https ://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/anthem
https ://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/warcraft-iii-reforged
https ://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/star-wars-battlefront-ii
Blizzard just did a bud light lvl marketing.
They are already on damage control, they gave armor on session jewels to off-set there 1.1 patch with there quote
“we lower defence overall, so that you have to work far harder to get the content”.
2 Likes
Tin foil hat time? hmmm?