Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
OPINION: Warcraft 3: Reforged was Review Bombed and That’s Just Fine - MMORPG.com
System
Member UncommonPosts: 12,599
OPINION: Warcraft 3: Reforged was Review Bombed and That’s Just Fine - MMORPG.com
Warcraft 3: Reforged is officially the lowest-rated AAA game on Metacritic. Is it warranted? Chris thinks so. Let us know what you think in the comments below!
Comments
However, I think this may be one of those cases where it is valid. No, WC3 Reforged is not a 0.4/10 game. It's hard to imagine any game being worthy of a sub-1 score. But it is a bad remaster of a great game and does deserve as much negative press as it can garner for (and this is the important bit) reasons entirely related to the shoddy quality of the game.
When it's a game you don't like - review bombing is a way for our voices of discontent to be heard
I'm glad Reforged is like this. It exposes a lot of people as hypocrites.
Yeah, I pretty much live under a rock when it comes to games I've little interest in.
Still not sure I can support review bombing but no real issue for me as I generally view the opinions of the masses as holding little value.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Sad to see though that the aggregate critic score is still over 60 for something that deserves to be in the red not just because of the half-assed "reforging" but because it actually also broke parts of the game for those still playing the original.
Critics need to dare to use the full score range for games from so-called AAA studios and not reserve the red zone for just weird ass games from scummy asset flippers and the like. That certainly doesn't help the disconnect between critics and users.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Weird.
(But Kyle, it was a Blizzard game, it just has to be good)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
FO 76 getting a 7 out of 10 as one example off the top of my head.
What they did to the original W3 with this is like amateur hour.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Clearly it suffered from some review bombing as the user score was 2.7 which I can't agree with.
Trouble is, they have improved it quite a bit, certainly up to 6.5 or maybe 7 but anyone looking will find the poor player rating and likely never give it a go.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You have to either be incompetent or a troll to mess this up. And it turns out that Blizzard is one or both of these.
For what it should have been and what was shown/promised it lives up to little of that so 20% seems fine relatively. Is the game itself still that bad to merit that low of a score.
I agree with the response of the community and the score is deserved in that sense. . just strictly removing all other things and reviewing the game as is might lend to a higher score?
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
and haven't been for quite some time, most just didn't see it but the decline has been steady since Cataclysm.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
We should consider that:
a) Critic reviews are too often too soft on the game they're reviewing; I'm not going to suggest they're paid, but there's a reason for IGN's (among many others) reputation;
b) A large number of users will give 10/10 - either because they're involved (friends, family, diehard fans, etc.) or just to 'balance out the negative reviews'.
And thus in the end it becomes a simple statistic: with sufficient number of user reviews, you stop looking at the individual scores, and just let the 0/10 and 10/10 battle it out.
In such cases, the review effectively changes from a score-based system to the like/dislike (upvote / downvote) one.
As long as the number of votes is sufficiently large, reviewing with 0/10s and 10/10s is just as good an indicator of a game's quality as any other system.
On the other hand, they're also bringing great games to people who never had the chance to play the originals, and are typically the only legitimate way consumers can get those games now, and for that reason I also feel like it's totally fine to review them in a vacuum without taking the original into account.
In the case of WC3, most media reviews begin along the lines of "this is one of the best RTS games ever made and it still plays great and this version looks better than the original", and then go on to score the game poorly because they're jilted fans just like all the users bombing Metacritic. And there are people who will ignore this chance to play WC3 for the first time because of that, and I think that kinda sucks.
So, "the chance" to play WC3 never really went away. It just got a whole lot worse.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Who considers Warcraft 3 great? Blizzard?
You clueless. people still defending blizzard-activision. Its one thing. there's no Blizzard and Activision. it's one. they merged. the seperation is impossible. When they make mistakes it's: activision-blizzard. when they win it's: activision-blizzard. It's crazy to me that they blame activision for all of this when all you should blame was blizzard in the first place to why they merged with such a company years ago. So yeah... it's impossible to be seperate. it's way different than bungie and activision-blizzard.