Review bombing makes it clear as day that the manufacturers have pissed off their customers big time. It is the only way for the consumers to be heard these days. Is it pretty? Is it mature? No. But if a mass shouting is what it takes for them to hear us, I’ll join the shouting because they forget who needs who to exist.
1 Like
This game was not review bombed. Just because a game has a historically bad score doesn’t mean it isn’t historically bad. When adding in what Refunded did to Classic WC3, it might actually be deserving the title of most disappointing release ever, a .5 is a justified rating.
2 Likes
Blizzard stock prices plummeting tells me the “review bombing” isn’t just but hurt nerdragers.
2 Likes
It can’t be that they feel the product is complete garbage?
What about if people rate a game 10? They are clearly just trying to boost it’s rating up because they have an agenda, right?
EDIT: Apparently, if you have an edit going and forget about it, when you respond to a different post in a different tab, it’ll just append it to the post you were editing but forgot about.
1 Like
Then that is still review bombing since they are not reviewing reforged, they are missing classic. Nothing to do with buying reforged even.
And who would you be to tell others what the game’s score should be and to judge other’s attitudes towards a scam?
Get lost please. People will voice their personal opinion no matter how much others like you try to impose their view as absolute. Thank you for contributing to a lower score, by the way.
1 Like
Complete garbage or not, the point is how metacritic aggregate user scores ultimately are not reflective of fair reviews. They are treated as impressions and feedback instead, with 0/10 being that feedback.
If chosen to give 0/10 that informs others of more than just disappointment, it is an equivalent rating used to bomb reviews this associates itself as review bomb.
If we have 6400 0/10 reviews, how many would you consider legitimate and how many are outrage reactions? Would you be able to even separate the two? Would you go in and read the reviews? As a general metacritic user, one would more likely dismiss the lot as intentional bombing, because that is what 0/10 is normally associated with.
There cam be legitimate reasons to give a 0/10, but it will always be considered bombing as a result. Apply this logic to any movie or game you have a passing interest in, like Solo Star Wars movie. Would you give 0/10 ratings legitimacy?
Saying, “it’s just review bombing” is like saying “It’s just business.”
3 Likes
I didn’t tell anyone what the score should be. Read my posts.
I said if you are adding a 0/10 to a huge collective of 0/10, then you are adding to a large pile of review bombs, and the blizzard execs would likely dismiss the lot as outrage rather than feedback. They are not going to go in and read every 0/10 review as though it is legitimate feedback. Highly unlikely any normal person would either.
If you have high quality oil that you use to start a fire, then people might notice how it burns vetter and hotter than regular flame. It stands out.
Add your high quality oil to a blazing wildfire, and people will only see flames. A wildfire is not something to admire, its something to avoid.
Whats the difference 
1 Like
There really isn’t. They’re both cover ups to hide greed or generate damage control.
1 Like
Which is exactly how corporations work. Are we going to believe they want to do anything but make lots of money and exploit their properties and consumers?
Which is why I think a 0/10 on metacritic is a losing battle. Metacritic user score isn’t a place for meaningful, directed feedback. It is being used as a medium of outrage. And applying any 0/10 to legitimate feedback is basically tagging itself as ‘review bomb’ or ‘product of outrage’ by association.
I concur. Indie developers all the way.
This is just ridiculous, yes it is 100000% justified to give something THAT BREAKS ANOTHER PRODUCT a 0/10.
If people didn’t buy or want the new product but are still FORCED to deal with its broken aspects that ruin a game they paid for years ago, they are 100% justified in giving it a 0, there is no REDEEMING VALUE in a product YOU DIDN’T EVEN FKN BUY that still somehow breaks the one you did.
There is no argument of any kind against this, “but muh good graphics” I DIDN’T BUY REFORGED, SO I DON’T EVEN GET THAT, in fact I get LESS because they took out shadows and locked them behind a paywall (which i’m pretty sure is legitimately ILLEGAL)
0/10’s are justified, call everyone toxic, entitled manbaby trolls all you’d like, all that is corporate defense lingo, nothing more.
3 Likes
I dunno, the Battlefront II debacle seems like an absolute win for me. Two years after the mass bombing it turned into a way better game. Arkham Knight outrage resulted in the port getting delisted and updated to playable. No Man’s Sky? Also quite a telling tale.
But I’ll humor you: what is the winning battle then?
2 Likes
But I’ll humor you: what is the winning battle then?
You came to the forums expecting to win? Silly boy.
Your lack of actual answer has been noted.
1 Like
Uh… what? yeah, people do, what a silly reductionist comment this is. Not everyone is you, mate.
2 Likes
I dunno, the Battlefront II debacle seems like an absolute win for me. Two years after the mass bombing it turned into a way better game.
this.
plus the fact 0/10 is totally reasonable cuz this remaster has negative value.
so it is review bombing, yes but a 0/10 is justified.
and review bombing and sh1tsotrms are good things and make products better.
Yes.
There is no solution. This is not a 2-way conversation with Blizzard execs who made the decision to put a deadline on a game at announcement, to cut the jobs that were needed to support the development process and provide communication to the people, and the ones who greenlight the budget for this remake.
If it were Blizzard of pre-2000’s, then their ambitions would be realized with time and effort. They had a creed of ‘when it’s done’. Do you see that with Reforged? Would anything change now to rectify this mess? Would the Execs ever consider this process because of bad reviews?
This is a no-win situation. So pretending feedback on metacritic is sending a message/making a difference is meaningless. That’s not the language they speak, and the execs will do what EA did with Star Wars - lose faith in Battlefront and redouble efforts on a different type of game - Singleplayer Fallen Order. The result is that this bodes poorly for Battlefront fans in the future.
Which is what I see happening here. They would get WC3 functional, but otherwise leave it in maintenance mode now and just bank on microtransactions for the overseas market. Similar to how D3 and HOTS were treated; the execs did not redouble efforts to improve those games, they instead cut development and let the games ‘just be’.
Is that a better answer for you?