Gotta love how it’s review bombing and couldn’t possibly be legitimate reviews by people who dislike microtransactions and the recent trend of companies hiding shit like this until the very last second.
Yeah. Between putting basic game feature additional charges (you can still get them, but with money you get it faster) behind a paywall and the shit-tastic performance issues, I definitely expected it to get terrible reviews.
I call it review awareness with real people who aren’t scared of being blacklisted highlighting and informing normal people of aspects of the game paid reviewers ignore and don’t bother to go back and update their score out of fear.
Could it just be that review bombing as a term has come to mean people mobilising to negatively review a game and not necessarily being linked to it being a scummy practice? I’m not very familiar with too many instances of it happening, but can accept that in reading this review that the author does seem to agree with people doling out the negative reviews for the bait and switch on microtransactions.
So you think the ratings people are giving it reflect a balanced consideration of all the game’s aspects including story, gameplay, graphics, art direction, sound design, and the existence of microtransactions for things trivially earnable in normal gameplay?
I’m all for people sending a giant middle finger to publishers putting in unnecessary cash grabs into games by hitting them where it hurts in reviews (which do impact lifetime sales numbers).
But let’s not try to call this anything but what it is. Giving zero score reviews for something you don’t like existing in the game (whether gender options to microtransactions) irrespective of the quality of the game outside of those things existing is literally “review bombing.”
It’s ok to be that, and it serves an important protest function in the industry, but let’s call a spade a spade here.
The fact that there are microtransactions changes me from buying it to not buying it. Clearly a lot of people feel the same.
But yes, the addition of monetization I’m not OK with absolutely can turn a 10/10 game to a 0/10 game. Quality isn’t an average. It’s the end product. A single flaw can very easily make a masterpiece into a pile of shit.
It’s not possible for something that affects gameplay changing your review to be a review bomb under any circumstances.
If you have a marvelous feast laid out across the entire table, made of all your favorite foods, and right next to plate of pie is a bowl of cow shit - it doesn’t matter how good the pie is, you’re still going to smell the shit and it will ruin the experience.
Gotta love how it’s review bombing and couldn’t possibly be legitimate reviews by people who dislike microtransactions and the recent trend of companies hiding shit like this until the very last second.
Yeah. Between putting basic game feature additional charges (you can still get them, but with money you get it faster) behind a paywall and the shit-tastic performance issues, I definitely expected it to get terrible reviews.
I call it review awareness with real people who aren’t scared of being blacklisted highlighting and informing normal people of aspects of the game paid reviewers ignore and don’t bother to go back and update their score out of fear.
Could it just be that review bombing as a term has come to mean people mobilising to negatively review a game and not necessarily being linked to it being a scummy practice? I’m not very familiar with too many instances of it happening, but can accept that in reading this review that the author does seem to agree with people doling out the negative reviews for the bait and switch on microtransactions.
So you think the ratings people are giving it reflect a balanced consideration of all the game’s aspects including story, gameplay, graphics, art direction, sound design, and the existence of microtransactions for things trivially earnable in normal gameplay?
I’m all for people sending a giant middle finger to publishers putting in unnecessary cash grabs into games by hitting them where it hurts in reviews (which do impact lifetime sales numbers).
But let’s not try to call this anything but what it is. Giving zero score reviews for something you don’t like existing in the game (whether gender options to microtransactions) irrespective of the quality of the game outside of those things existing is literally “review bombing.”
It’s ok to be that, and it serves an important protest function in the industry, but let’s call a spade a spade here.
The fact that there are microtransactions changes me from buying it to not buying it. Clearly a lot of people feel the same.
But yes, the addition of monetization I’m not OK with absolutely can turn a 10/10 game to a 0/10 game. Quality isn’t an average. It’s the end product. A single flaw can very easily make a masterpiece into a pile of shit.
It’s not possible for something that affects gameplay changing your review to be a review bomb under any circumstances.
Think of it this way -
If you have a marvelous feast laid out across the entire table, made of all your favorite foods, and right next to plate of pie is a bowl of cow shit - it doesn’t matter how good the pie is, you’re still going to smell the shit and it will ruin the experience.