this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
12 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

4 readers
2 users here now

founded 2 years ago
 

Aaron Keller pledged to improve the game for "players who are playing now."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 36 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If real people hate your game because of the changes you made from the last one (that you took away from them), that's not a review bomb.

It's just a review.

[–] CraigeryTheKid@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the game/steam release definitely deserved bad reviews - but it'd be hard to deny that it wasn't also a bombing run.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

A review bomb is when people start jumping down the game's throat with negative reviews for shit unrelated/peripheral to the game. If they're triggered by the actual core design choices of the game it isn't a review bomb.

These reviews are because the game is a money grubbing downgrade from the game people bought and had taken away from them, and this is the first opportunity they had to publish a review on a storefront. The motivation being the actual game means it can't be a review bomb.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

If they're still playing the game anyway, I might call that a review bomb.

[–] hook@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

No, it's still a review because you're still actively dealing with whatever it is you're complaining about.

"Hey, I really like/liked the core game play loop of this game but I think that it's gotten significantly worse than it was previously. It'd be nice if they changed it back?

4/10."

[–] 520@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Plenty of people leave negative reviews for games they otherwise play. Especially where big changes are put into effect

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] crossmr@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So if General motors was using slave labour to build their cars and feeding said labour with baby kittens, would you consider it a review bomb for someone to say 'You shouldn't buy the latest vehicle from General motors because of the way it is made'?

What if general motors came out and said that they think a great start to the day is to wake up and punch a dutchman in the face?

A review is, ultimately, a recommendation of whether or not you think other people should buy this product. If you can't recommend it because of something the company who made it did, to me, it's still a review. Because recommending that product is recommending financial support of that company. Not recommending it, is not supporting them.

For me a real review bomb would occur generally only in a case where a site like 4chan might suddenly spin a wheel of mayhem and pick a random game to just go shit on or something like that.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

By definition, yes, that's a review bomb. It has no connection in any way to the quality of the product, which is what a review is.

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You're entirely disconnected to reality if you think Overwatch 2 deserves to be the worst-reviewed game on Steam.

[–] TwilightVulpine@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

On Steam being reviewed poorly is not a matter of rating from 1 to 10, but how many people would recommend it or not. It's completely valid that the vast majority of people would not recommend this game even if it's not a 0/10.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Based on what?

The negatives are extremely bad, and people are legitimately reviewing the game negatively because they legitimately think it's a pile of shit.

It is literally unconditionally impossible for it to be a review bomb if the reviews are motivated by the core design decisions of the game.

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Today's concurrent player peak is ~47k.

Why would 47k people choose to play the game when it's the worst game on Steam? Literally worse than a game like Bad Rats: the Rats' Revenge that fundamentally doesn't function correctly. For reference, its peak today was about 20 players.

Before you reply with something like "marketing", you seriously think that if Bad Rats launched today, and with the same marketing budget as OW2, that it would achieve anywhere close to 47k players peak 10 months after its release?

Like I said: you're disconnected from reality if you think OW2 is the worst game on Steam.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (31 children)

Did bad rats deliberately steal a game people liked to replace it with an addiction machine?

load more comments (31 replies)
[–] TwilightVulpine@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

You are really trying to downplay the power of marketing, but you seem to realize that gets people playing. Not only that but live service design is very effective at keeping people playing even when they are not having any fun whatsoever. Because they gotta grind the battle pass and such. Extrinsic rewards and habit-forming conditioning making up for a lack of intrinsic enjoyment.

Still, I would agree with you that it's not the worst game on Steam, but like I mentioned in the other comment, that's not what steam ratings mean. It means that the vast majority people would not recommend it, and that seems pretty reasonable.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] shiveyarbles@beehaw.org 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's not a review bomb, you guys aren't victims. That's gamers telling you to fuck off with lies, under delivering, treating your employees like shit, micro transactions and battle passes

load more comments (1 replies)

Ah yes "review bombing" also known as getting shit on for delivering shit when u promised gold...

[–] Kill_joy@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

Make stupid games win stupid prizes

[–] jon@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Evidently playing the game isn't a fun experience either, Aaron.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Playing the matches is fun, since it is just Overwatch. Literally the same gameplay as Overwatch, but with 5 per team instead of 6.

In between is an assault of micro transaction manipulation bullshit that ruins the experience. PvE is hidden behind a paywall, except for the free stuff that is a retread of the seasonal PvE from Overwatch. I know this because I gave it some hours to see if it was as bad as people were saying.

People hate it because it was supposed to be an improvement but instead it was just another attempt to bleed the players dry. It might be the only game I have reviewed negatively on steam because the monetization really is that bad that it ruins the whole game.

[–] MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

Yeah, this is why Jeff Kaplan left. My boy wasn’t gonna fall on this sword.

[–] HuddaBudda@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

"Aaron Keller gets that (people are upset). "That announcement was about an ambitious project that we ultimately couldn't deliver."

On one end, he could be lying, after all it's not like they didn't have working prototypes and cinematic for the new game mode that wasn't deliverable

Or.

He is telling the truth. Then making people return to the office impacted blizzard's bottom line more then they thought and was a stupid decision that they should end ASAP.

[–] Zellith@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Review bombs generally dont last the entire release of a game. Perhaps you just made a shit game.

[–] kingthrillgore@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Not having a PVP experience when you marketed it extensively kinda sucks.

load more comments
view more: next ›