Steam Review Bombing

[Noble Zarkon]

Whether you think it's worth the price is completely subjective.

And very personal - if that price represents an hours work or a weeks makes a huge difference.

 

[brainwashh]

I got a refund for the game but I can't bring myself to leave a negative review. I love this series and this game is definetly fun at its core. It will be great in a few months/years after player feedback is addressed.

But the state of the game at launch is simply pityful. It's embarassing.

 

[Big J Money]

Sorry, but you’re misunderstanding or misusing the term “review bombing” here. Review bombing doesn’t mean that a game is getting lots of negative reviews for just any reason. Review bombing means that a game is receiving negative reviews for reasons outside of the quality of the game itself, often related to social/political reasons or business practices (i.e. Denuvo, regional pricing, etc.).

That's not true. Review bombing is any time there is a large reactionary mob that gives lots of negative reviews and/or overreacts to positive reviews in large numbers. A mob of reactionary anti-fanboys essentially.

I agree that it's most noticeable when there is an outside-of-game reason. But any time a Steam mob becomes reactionary like that, it turns political, even if it wasn't before. Helldivers 2's somewhat recent poorly received balance change is an example of that. (They've since fixed that issue I believe.)

 

[AD1730]

That's not true. Review bombing is any time there is a large reactionary mob that gives lots of negative reviews and/or overreacts to positive reviews in large numbers. A mob of reactionary anti-fanboys essentially.

I agree that it's most noticeable when there is an outside-of-game reason. But any time a Steam mob becomes reactionary like that, it turns political, even if it wasn't before. Helldivers 2's somewhat recent poorly received balance change is an example of that. (They've since fixed that issue I believe.)

Your Helldivers 2 example supports my point, not yours. Helldivers 2 got review bombed for a business practice (PSN acount requirement).

 

[TheGrayFox]

That's not true. Review bombing is any time there is a large reactionary mob that gives lots of negative reviews and/or overreacts to positive reviews in large numbers. A mob of reactionary anti-fanboys essentially.

This isn't how most people use the word "review bombing" though. Who are you to define all the people rightfully criticizing and complaing about this game at launch as a "reactionary mob" or as "overreacting"? Is it really review bombing just because they give posts they disagree with or find silly clown awards?

The people rightfully complaining about the game's piss poor UI or changes to the well established gameplay formula they do not like are not "reactionaries" or "overreacting" , anymore than someone is a "fanboy" or "shill" for defending the game.

I agree that it's most noticeable when there is an outside-of-game reason. But any time a Steam mob becomes reactionary like that, it turns political, even if it wasn't before. Helldivers 2's somewhat recent poorly received balance change is an example of that. (They've since fixed that issue I believe.)

I'm sorry but if "review bombing" is just whenever lots of people rightfully criticize something, then it's just a silly and almost meaningless term and definition.

Helldivers 2 was "review bombed" because of PSN requirement which had nothing to do with its actual gameplay but even then all the people complaining about the balance changes and the forced move PSN after they had already purchased the game were completely right and had every right to complain as consumers in reviews because they were getting shafted and possibly would not be able to continue playing a game they had already purchased because of post-facto PSN requirements.

 

[Big J Money]

Your Helldivers 2 example supports my point, not yours. Helldivers 2 got review bombed for a business practice (PSN acount requirement).

Please read my post carefully. I'm not talking about the first time Helldivers 2 was review bombed due to the PSN account requirement. The history of Helldivers is:

1. It came out with rave reviews
2. They revealed the PSN requirement and it was review bombed
3. They got rid of the requirement and the review scores rebounded
4. They made a progressive set of balance changes to the game, ignoring player feedback on gameplay, the final of which pissed off the community so much that it got review bombed a second time
5. They finally admitted they need to listen to player feedback and rebalanced in a way that the community wanted
6. Review scores rebounded again

My post was referring to number 4. Both 2 and 4 resulted in review bombs. My point is that they both had the same result.

Who are you to define all the people rightfully criticizing and complaing about this game at launch as a "reactionary mob" or as "overreacting"? Is it really review bombing just because they give posts they disagree with or find silly clown awards?

The people rightfully complaining about the game's piss poor UI or changes to the well established gameplay formula they do not like are not "reactionaries" or "overreacting" , anymore than someone is a "fanboy" or "shill" for defending the game.

I'm sorry but if "review bombing" is just whenever lots of people rightfully criticize something, then it's just a silly and almost meaningless term and definition.

You're arguing a straw man. I never once said review bombing is "just whenever lots of people rightfully criticize something". I said that there is evidence required. The evidence in this case is that it is statistically abnormal for a positive review to have many likes, while also having an order of magnitude more clowns than other rewards. An order of magnitude is statistically significant in data.

I don't know why people fail to address my actual post.

Edit: You also seem to have a misunderstanding of what reactionary means. Reactionary is when people get upset over an idea, and then act out on their displeasure even without proving that the idea is a real problem. It does not simply mean that someone was not happy with their own time spent playing the game. It means they heard something about the game, or read a review, etc. and decided that now they're angry about the state of the game either without having played it, or they played it but did not actually witness many of the things they're reacting to. They just assume that because there were a few mechanics they don't like, that the rest of the game is trash. One concrete example I'm seeing is people believing that the game's UI is bad because of "consolization" simply because they see other people talking about that. Some of the negative reviews I've read indicate some of this kind of reactionism. Combine that with the unreasonable amount of clowning positive reviews, I believe it's fair to say there is review bombing going on.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Please read my post carefully. I'm not talking about the first time Helldivers 2 was review bombed due to the PSN account requirement. The history of Helldivers is:

1. It came out with rave reviews
2. They revealed the PSN requirement and it was review bombed
3. They got rid of the requirement and the review scores rebounded
4. They made a progressive set of balance changes to the game, ignoring player feedback on gameplay, the final of which pissed off the community so much that it got review bombed a second time
5. They finally admitted they need to listen to player feedback and rebalanced in a way that the community wanted
6. Review scores rebounded again

My post was referring to number 4. Both 2 and 4 resulted in review bombs. My point is that they both had the same result.

Again many, if not most, people wouldn't call what happened to Helldivers in regards to its balancing changes a genuine example of " review bombing." The devs made bad changes to their game and their playerbase responded to these bad gameplay changes accordingly by leaving negative feedback through any avenue they could including reviews. Feedback the devs eventually relented to literally saving their game from a freefall decline in their player numbers.. Why would we consider that process " review bombing" in the same vein as the cordinated, malicious, and purely politically motivated campaigns against others titles we've seen like Last of Us 2?

You're arguing a straw man. I never once said review bombing is "just whenever lots of people rightfully criticize something". I said that there is evidence required. The evidence in this case is that it is statistically abnormal for a positive review to have many likes, while also having an order of magnitude more clowns than other rewards. An order of magnitude is statistically significant in data.

I don't know why people fail to address my actual post.

I'm not arguing against a strawman, that's essentially what your definition boils down to. I don't know why you think people failed to address your point when I directly addressed your point about jesster awards. The steam platform and forum are cesspools of toxicity; both positve and negative. I could go look at almost any negative review for VII and see a handful of jester awards. Some negative reviews have nearly 20 of them... Are they being review bombed? Of course not, the people defending the game simply think the review is dumb and laughable; the same applies in reverse.

Now do many of the "not reccommended" reviews have way more positive awards than the positive reviews? Yes they do but to be honest, many of the positive reviews are remarkably low quality and effort in comparison to the tomes and essays written by the most rabid "not reccomended" reviews and many of those awards are being given by those sitting on the fence who do not like the direction Firaxis has taken the series.

Edit: You also seem to have a misunderstanding of what reactionary means. Reactionary is when people get upset over an idea, and then act out on their displeasure even without proving that the idea is a real problem. It does not simply mean that someone was not happy with their own time spent playing the game. It means they heard something about the game, or read a review, etc. and decided that now they're angry about the state of the game either without having played it, or they played it but did not actually witness many of the things they're reacting to. They just assume that because there were a few mechanics they don't like, that the rest of the game is trash. One concrete example I'm seeing is people believing that the game's UI is bad because of "consolization" simply because they see other people talking about that. Some of the negative reviews I've read indicate some of this kind of reactionism. Combine that with the unreasonable amount of clowning positive reviews, I believe it's fair to say there is review bombing going on.

No I know exactly what reactionary means. Again who are YOU to call those people reactionaries for not liking the direction the game has went or for not liking the product being sold at nearly $100 for early access?

Also there is literally no excuse for the UI we got which absolutely was effected by simutaneous devolopment for consoles. Look at that resolution, that wasn't for the people sitting in computer chairs looking at their monitor. I'm sorry but if you think people think the UI is bad just because other people are talking about it then its quite obvious that you just want to defend Firaxis from criticism they deserve.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Moderator Action: Closed for Moderator review