Seriously, if Warcraft III Reforged is a 0/100 where does that put WWE 2K20?
-100/100 there
This review is the most accurate I have read, some of you are just obsessed with hating on blizzard…
2 Likes
Mainstream media is a joke nowadays.
2 Likes
But that’s also the point of a remake/remaster. It’s the original game, and that’s what people are buying, not just the ‘quality of the remaster’.
Keep in mind that Blizzard has removed the original WC3, so there’s no alternative but Reforged. This review has to be relevant to the person who has never played WC3 or Reforged, and what they should expect to be getting. It’s not a review for someone who watched the 2018 Announcement and expected revamped cutscenes and other things that failed to make it to the end of the game; that’s not what a game review is about, that would be better fit in a blog.
1 Like
2:30
How can trees look SO BAD. Like beginner modeler did them. Grass is OK ish but the bright colors…
This just in…
Critics have higher review standards than ‘users’ and will actually give a game a proper score based on what it brings to the table as a complete package, while also highlighting the negatives. They won’t just give a game a 0 because their game crashed, or some textures didn’t show up properly.
2 Likes
Even forgetting the 2018 promises this remaster is basically just a model and texture pack that also made the game otherwise worse than it was before. For that the asking price is really high and a recommendation strange.
1 Like
It’s an OK review. You toxic people are getting old.
2 Likes
I agree the price is high. I agree that this is just a very basic remaster too.
Just saying that the review did its job. It reviewed the game that came out, and gave it a score based on what came out. You are right that the game is worse than before, and that is why it has a worse score than the original too. I don’t think other factor really apply since you have to consider that this review is something that will stand a test of time, not just apply to the blankstorm that’s happening right now. Reviews are not blogposts. Corporate greed isn’t what Reforged should be judged on in a game review.
2 Likes
Maybe the game should get two scores. One for the players who missed out on Warcraft 3 originally and another for players who already played through the campaign before. Basically a complete game review and a remaster review. Because really the value proposition is completely different for those two groups.
1 Like
The value proposition always works like that for remakes though. It’s not a bad idea, but it shouldn’t be exclusive to this game if you were implying that.
The game does matter for demographics. For example if you are remaking an old C64 game it is quite unlikely that your demographic will have many veterans of that game. With a game like Warcraft 3 it wouldn’t surprise me if most of the potential Reforged players had played the original. But beyond that I don’t see why this would be special in any way compared to other remakes.
That implies that there is a difference in the audience, and implies that a bias exists with certain expectations.
I don’t think that should be a thing since we start going down a whole rabbithole of ‘who should a game review be for?’
Say someone was reviewing the latest Star Wars movie. Should we have 12 different reviews, each specific to a different demographic of Star Wars fan? What if you were a fan of the original trilogy and didn’t like the prequels? What if you liked the prequels but not the original trilogy? What if you only like the new trilogy and neither the original or prequels? A review should be broad enough to cover everyone, but not specific enough to target only one demographic.
I wouldn’t suggest having multiple reviews because it sends a mixed message. I mean, what about people like me who only play custom maps? This review is completely wrong since the custom maps should not be a 7/10! But that’s where common sense kicks in and… I would have to acknowledge that this review is for a broad audience, not any one targetted one (like the people who already played WC3, as you say).
And TBH the review did cover quite a bit of things we already know as people who played the original. And I think their 7/10; while completely disagreeable; is still understandable. It’s still a remake of a good game, and that good game still shines through despite all its pitfalls; especially where the gameplay is concerned. Like I said, we can disagree with the score made, but I don’t think it’s right to criticize the review for not meeting our personal expectations. Because that’s really the reason for low scores - failed expectations and disappointment over what was promised. That is beyond what should be in a game review, even for people who have already played WC3.
1 Like
Well they reviewed what was delivered, never compared it with what was promised.
The problem has always been disappointment.
1 Like
This doesn’t make much sense to me since they are clearly not remakes but rather just bad new movies. There is no reason to review the remake aspect of them but there is a reason to review the overall badness. With Warcraft 3 there is a remake aspect to review while a review of the original is worthless to people who already had the game.
Yes, Reforged is mired by a LOT of issues. Copyright/EULA changes; False advertisement; Overpricing; Bugs and compatability issues; complete removal of Classic BNET servers etc.
But none of that is really what a review is about. Those are external things. Those are issues to be tackled with more specified commentary on how Blizzard is releasing their games. That is generally blogpost material.
Same as if we were talking about Solo continuing to push Disney’s ‘feminist agenda’ and getting panned in the User reviews for it. Well, that’s not a real review of the movie. That should be part of a larger commentary on the state of inserted politics in media releases; and frankly we have plenty of sources for that as well.
For Reforged, check the daily news posted by the Quartering and Bellular. These are criticisms on Reforged and all that is wrong with it. That is what they are for, and that is what they do. But they do not provide reviews, and if we are talking about reviews, that is not what this is.
Reviewers do generally include serious bugs in their review. Also pricing is very relevant and should of course be mentioned in a review. You wouldn’t review hardware price agnostic and the same applies to software.
I’m not saying that they should be agreeing with and emphasizing all of the popular community complaints. The reviewer should of course make their own mind and report that. I’m just saying that reviewing the original game to an audience of older Warcraft 3 players is a waste of space. It only serves people who never played the game before.
I think the fact that it’s not a 9.3/10 like the original WC3 was reviewed is already indicative of not being a review of the original WC3.
It only serves people who never played the game before.
It doesn’t only serve people who never played the game before, it simply appeals in their favour.
When you use words like ‘only’, what I’m interpreting here is that you view yourself as someone who played WC3, and you don’t see anything in the review that reflects your personal opinion. But keep in mind, objectively speaking, you are not representative of all people who have played WC3 either.
The reviewer should of course make their own mind and report that. I’m just saying that reviewing the original game to an audience of older Warcraft 3 players is a waste of space.
How do you know that this reviewer isn’t making up their own mind? The tone of your argument is in the perspective of ‘they aren’t saying what I perceive as truth, therefore they must not be speaking the truth’, and I don’t think that’s a standard that you should be applying to professional game reviews. Reviews are always subjective, but they should not be done with any inherrent bias in mind. The way you have been responding though tells me that there is a lot of unspoken bias in wanting to see a review that exposes the game for all the bugs and pitfalls it has; which is unrealistic for any professional game review.
I mean look at the Diablo 3 reviews back in the day. The reviews didn’t just pan the game for having RMAH, or pan it for Error37 online-only problems, even if that was the biggest controversy surrounding the game. That is not the goal of a review.
1 Like
If they gave proper reviews, you wouldn’t spread them over the Internet and discuss them. This is all business, without any objectivity