Videogame Review Bombing
@el-shmiablo The problem with that logic is that it relies on the person using it being the sole arbiter of what's a justified excuse for review bombing and what isn't. Personally I don't like the idea of saying "you're right to be upset but you aren't" which is why I think every opinion is at least worth listening to and trying to see the logic in, and why I think review bombs are inherently a good thing since even if it's for a stupid reason you can use them to see WHY the general masses are upset about the subject at hand. Now whether you agree with their assessment is another matter entirely but I mean if I worked at a marketing firm I'd at least think such free and easy data would be really useful in the long run.
Since you brought up TLOU2, I've personally seen multiple reasons people have had problems with Sony or Naughty Dog in the leadup to this game's release. If one group leaves 0's because they're simply upset about various aspects the game, another leaves 0's because of accusations of especially terrible crunch and other generally awful treatment of employees, a third group leaves 0's because of them DMCA-ing hundreds if not thousands of accounts on places like Twitter and Youtube (nevermind any other groups like the ones that are just upset about it conforming to their political/social beliefs, basic console fanboys/haters that would give any PS4 game a 0, or any number of other factors that I've forgotten at the moment) then it very quickly stops being an easy narrative of "all the review bombers are just sexist manbabies" and instead becomes a minefield of differing beliefs and reasons for why they dislike this critically acclaimed game.
DIPSET last edited by DIPSET
I hear what you’re both saying but I want to throw my proof of purchase hat back into the ring because I think we can have it both ways.
If you bought the game and have your genuine gripes with the story, or with the studios unethical work practices, or with the political topics the developers may or may not note in their game; then you invested in and are reviewing their product and if you want to give it that angry 0/10 then you’ve earned it because the purchase shows you care.
But what investment does somebody have when they haven’t played it, never will play it, and are generally unaffected by the existence of the game because they haven’t purchased or played it and therefore are essentially just booting and hollering.
Per the 0/10 given to unethical business practices, I’m not entirely sure that’s much of a dialogue. Especially considering we just listed a multitude of reasons why somebody can decide to review bomb. It also doesn’t help the developers hard work. Just because the greater company betrayed their trust in this crunch culture, doesn’t mean they don’t want to see the fruits of their labour paying off.
I can almost imagine how sad some of these people might feel after crunching all of this time only to find a vocal group of people with their pitchforks out calling this game a piece of crap when it’s so far from the truth. And that is an understatement.
I definitely think you should have some vested interest before having the ability to review. And I know you can pretty much review anything online anonymously, but the gaming sphere has so much investment in review scores and it also contributes to a lot of toxicity. It might be a necessary step in the future to try to combat this type of vitriol going around.
@dipset I don't think that's a bad idea so much as one that'd require all the companies to be on board. I'm sure Sony wouldn't have a problem letting you link an account to a metacritic one but I kinda get the vibe Nintendo might not be as willing. Nevermind that with PC games there's so many different platforms you'd have to include as well.
It'd probably work just fine for review systems the individual platforms had but on a condensed one like Metacritic (or especially any more niche websites that don't have its relevance to bank on to get everyone to work with them) I think the odds of it all coming together is just kinda dicey. But even then, Steam already does that with their user reviews and it hasn't really stopped people from complaining about review bombs whenever a controversial update happens that upsets the game's userbase.
Sazime last edited by
For me, I look at it as being an informed consumer. Of product, and feedback about the product.
I don't go to reviews for the 10s or 0s, I look at the 7s. I find the folk that bothered to tell me why. My favorite reviews, even unfavorable reviews of things I found I enjoyed, weren't the ones that said, "this is bad/good," without context, but the ones that said, "this isn't my thing, and here's why, but you might enjoy it if you're into that sort of thing. 5/10."
El Shmiablo last edited by
@hanabi I mean, yeah, I guess if I was trying to be hugely disingenuous regarding the whole situation and discounted, by far, the biggest reason that people are "angry" at the game, there would be a "minefield of differing beliefs" as to why it is getting review bombed.
@sazime I definitely think the reviews in the middle have more worth than the ones at the extremes as far as telling me why to buy or avoid a product. That said I honestly tend to check negative reviews first because I feel like if something leaves a negative impression it's important to know why. Though that's just a habit from trying not to get fleeced on sites like ebay and it just kinda followed into games reviews but I still think someone saying "this game sucks because X" is more important to someone on the fence than "this game's great because Y."
B-Cell last edited by
If game is not good. or falsely advertise. review bombing make sense.
Phbz last edited by
Review bombing is more of a butt hurt index than usually a real reflex on the quality of the product. Its a destructive way of (not) engaging in a conversation, because something hurt your feelings.
It's one of those ironic things in life. You as a consumer are given the privilege to make your voice heard and the way as it is used with "review bombing" it makes consumers voices irrelevant. As the reviewer is not actually reviewing the product, of which many don't even bother playing, they're "bombing" the process it self. They're silencing actual consumers.
In my case if I see a game with a 20% difference between meta and user scores I might want to know more about that difference. If I see something like what's happening now with TLoU2 at best I read some of those 1/10 reviews just to laugh about how stupid can someone sound.
Sheria last edited by
I can't say I ever really cared about something like that. It's just a bunch of people with too much time on their hands, same goes for all the uninformative 10/10 reviews I see posted for the same games.
As for fan bases or communities, I frequent a few other forums alongside Easy Allies, all of them quite different from one another when it comes to thier communities; how they act, how they talk to one another, thier general opinions on certain things and such. I embrace it all to be honest, everyone's different at the end of the day. I'd probably say I don't really click with the vast majority of people here, but that's alright.
JDINCINERATOR last edited by
@el-shmiablo The asinine bullshit is what I'm referring to largely because it's rampant and dumb.