And the non-stop slew of 0 reviews on their main point of sale was the bigger factor, as it was directly standing in the way of sales.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
The ethics of review bombing
- Thread starter SchroDingerzat
- Start date
What? You don't think the negative coverage and actual legitimate negative user reviews had more of an impact, especially when negative media coverage would reach a lot more people and have more of an impact?
I think that not everyone buying the game would have seen the news coverage.
But that EVERYONE buying it on steam would see the never ending slew of 0 reviews.
So yes, that was clearly the deciding factor to pull it as is was directly standing in the way of sales for them.
The person you're replying to has no concept of things maybe having multiple factors for why they occur
If you took that from my posts, again, you haven't paid attention.
OBVIOUSLY it had multiple factors.
The main point of sale being plastered with 0s was clearly the main reason it was pulled, though.
I mean, not sure how often I need to mention this until you actually get it: it got negative user reviews regardless of review bombing efforts. And it got a huge amount of user reviews regardless of review bombs because of how big of a release it was. And what effects Steam's algorithm isn't so much the amount of user reviews at that point, and more the general consensus of the reviews. Which even before it getting a larger influx of user reviews, was "mostly negative".
It was pulled because everyone had issues with the PC port, as well as of the negative media coverage, not just because of an effort to game Steam's review algorithm.
Agreed. I think having the yellow or red warning right there on the purchase page of the product is pretty powerful. Its the same reason that Appstore and Amazon vendors are so desperate for positive reviews.
What if you already bought the game, like when Ubisoft censored rainbow six because of the Chinese market?
I've played attention. You only care about the review bombing being the key factor, and have disregarded the relative importance of other arguments.
You keep saying it was the main/key/defining factor doesn't make it the case.
But it wouldn't be? The main thing would be people not even going near the steam page in the first place cus they've heard it's bad, a lot of people don't look at the user review scores either, I certainly don't. You have no way of telling if it had a bigger impact than the other ways. And honestly a legitimate negative review is more likely to put me off buying any product than a slew of 0's that I know can be put there because of others agenda.
Again:
Not everyone reads gaming media
EVERYONE buying the game saw the never ending slew of 0s.
If you don't think that was the key, then we'll agree to disagree.
After two days of sale, a huge AAA release had "mostly negative" in proximity to the buy button.
Ignore that if you want.
Review bombing is always from a bunch of Angry Gamers. It's absurd and shouldn't be labeled anything but.
I really don't like it, because I do think user reviews can be very helpful. Especially for a lot of smaller PC titles, as more mainstream games media just don't cover them (regardless of quality). Also as Steam requires you to actually own the game and shows playtime in the review, there's an algorithm that notices review bombing etc. I still find Steam user reviews largely useful, even though there are some titles that have been review bombed. Also I really don't think giving "not recommended" to a broken product like Arkham Knight can really be considered review bombing. Unless people made an cordinated effort to buy, review and refund it. Something like in example giving "not recommended" to older Metro games because Exodus didn't launch in Steam at first, is review bombing and absolutely fucking stupid. I'm not a fan of Epic timed exclusives, but it does nothing to hurt the actual game. So review the game on it's own merits and take your issues with EGS to Timmy.
I really also don't buy the claim that review bombing is the ONLY way for consumers/players to be heard. There's so many ways to give feedback and share information to fellow gamers, that sabotaging useful consumer tool like Steam reviews is not needed at all.
I really also don't buy the claim that review bombing is the ONLY way for consumers/players to be heard. There's so many ways to give feedback and share information to fellow gamers, that sabotaging useful consumer tool like Steam reviews is not needed at all.
The point of a review bomb is to alert other customers about an issue with the game and put pressure on the publisher and developer to address it. The reason that customers don't often vote with their wallet is that the overwhelming majority of them don't follow gaming discussions and are usually oblivious to any issues. Review bombing solves that problem by bringing any issues in front of the eyes of mainstream customers.
Last edited:
They had mostly negative without review bombing though so what did review bombing do that legitimate user reviews didn't?
No, it was mostly negative due to the slew of thumbs down outright "do not buy" type posts. Review bombs. I was literally there watching it happen trying to get the game to work...
Are you telling me people were leaving good reviews for a game they couldn't get working? Cus I have a hard time believing that the legitimate user reviews that weren't review bombing weren't also negative
This is always a crocodile tears subject. Review bombs are unfair and wrong until you agree with the thing that motivates them.
When a game is contrary to your worldview, review bombs "encourage awareness" about (1) the politics of the game / its developers, (2) the business practices of its publisher, or (3) game design "trends" that you think threaten the types of games you like to play.
When a game is contrary to your worldview, review bombs "encourage awareness" about (1) the politics of the game / its developers, (2) the business practices of its publisher, or (3) game design "trends" that you think threaten the types of games you like to play.
I can maybe see that argument for Steam games, even if I think most social media is pretty all-encompassing when it comes to highlighting issues for Steam users. I still think it ruins a good tool for when the reasons for bombing are stupid (the Metro games, for instance)
But on services like metacritic, people who aren't already interested in games and the discussion around them (and as such are probably aware of gaming sites and specific forums) are very, very unlikely to be going out if their way to check that site. There, it mostly just feels malicious and ridiculous. 0s for a game maybe not being as fun in same console multiplayer compared to its other modes, or for a PlayStation exclusive because it isn't on other platforms, for instance is a bit pathetic.
Review bombing is a way for those that feel voiceless to force people to listen to them, much in the same way that any disruptive political protest is. It forces people, whether they consent or not, to listen to you even if they otherwise would not and do not want to. And to do such a thing because of videogames is pretty lame. It doesn't even matter if you're protesting a videogame being literal nazi propaganda. It's a freaking videogame. Bring it to the attention to journalists, spread it to through social media, whatever. But don't force other people to pay attention to you. It's just videogames (or movies, or whatever).
I think when it comes to reviews sometimes the rules need to be broken. If a company or person has done something truly horrible it should be okay for reviews to reflect that. Gamers or consumers in general don't have many outlets for having their voices heard.
All I can tell you is what I observed. At the time people were rallying others to head to steam and leave a negative review because the game was so broken. It fits the definition of any other case of "review bombing" I have ever observed.
It seems arbitrary to exclude this when it is just like any other case I have ever seen.
I was there while AK was released. There were threads and posts all over gaming forums and social media rallying people to go to the steam page and tank the reviews. It was, absolutely, a case of review bombing as much as many of the other "legit" cases people would bring up here.
The thumbs down were constant and there was no end in sight, it clearly had momentum and people could clearly see their reviews were tanking the score.
The exclusion for AK not being review bombing would be almost entirely arbitrary.
Argue about what a "review bomb" is if you need to, the fact is the "mostly negative" marker in proximity to the buy button on their main point of sale was very clearly the main reason WB pulled the game, imo.
Warcraft 3 Reforged’s Worst-Ever Metacritic Score Shows The Problem With User Reviews
'Warcraft 3: Reforged' is a game with bad problems, but is it the worst game ever? It's lowest-ever user review metacritic score says it is.
www.forbes.com
Lol reminds me of this
When professional reviewers fail to point a relevant flaw on a game (like with Animal Crossing when playing with other people in the same console) then review bombing is the only way to call attention to that problem... Or do you think leaving a 7 user review would catch the media attention like all the 0s did?
We've seen examples of games that have had issues persistent for years despite people's protests/feedback on official forums and social media. Often, people try those avenues first and their frustration leads to things like review bombs.
It is sometimes symptomatic of communication issues.
I mean, again, that marker was there regardless of review bombing efforts. And going by what your said: people were encouraged to leave legitimate reviews of the product rather than send a specific message. It doesn't sound like there was much of a meaningful distinction between reviews that came from people actively trying to review bomb the game, and people just leaving their review on the game regardless of such a campaign's existence.
So, again, it being review bombed or not didn't actually change anything.
The review bombs directly led to the tanking of the score. At the time, there was a HUGE amount of push online for people to go leave a thumbs down. Were you there? I was, I watched it happen.
The tanked score in proximity to the buy button was the main reason the game was pulled from sale.
All it does for me is pretty much make user reviews irrelevant - or at least the overall meta score. It does suck for actual reasonable and measured opinions stuck floating around in the sea of crap, buts that's kind of the world we are in now.
I pretty much just stick to the pro reviews- or at least what their "meta" is. In the end, these aren't perfect, especially any one individual optionbut a much better tool overall than any user review section these days which is a mess for so many reasons.
But in the end, I know what I like, and make judgements on that. I often see pro reviews that like clockwork complain about certain aspects of products that I know won't bother me in the least. There's also things the "meta" likes that I think are god-awful, so I like to think my own personal metrics are best when considered among a mix of other opinions and most should be able to figure this out for themselves.
I pretty much just stick to the pro reviews- or at least what their "meta" is. In the end, these aren't perfect, especially any one individual optionbut a much better tool overall than any user review section these days which is a mess for so many reasons.
But in the end, I know what I like, and make judgements on that. I often see pro reviews that like clockwork complain about certain aspects of products that I know won't bother me in the least. There's also things the "meta" likes that I think are god-awful, so I like to think my own personal metrics are best when considered among a mix of other opinions and most should be able to figure this out for themselves.
We've discussed Steam before and it can definitely be a factor in that instance.
But on places like metacritic? I severely doubt that there's more impact doing it there than on social media. Most people I know who don't follow gaming don't even know what MC is, and the people who do don't care about it...
The point is that people do try avenues such as social media and official forums, and we have many examples of issues persisting despite concerns being raised via those avenues.
It doesn't always lead to review bombs of course, but it is clear they are often not effective ways for consumers to communicate.
In most cases paying customers have no other recourse but to leave a negative review on a product when a) the product was misleading. b) the product doesn't work or c) The product was changed after release without warning. In my eyes that makes "review bombing" totally valid as long as each review is from someone who owns the game, and there have been many cases where review bombing had a positive impact so I don't see why we shouldn't support the ability to leave user reviews.
We know that publishers have literally tied bonuses to MC review averages in the past, right?
I think they are clearly significant here, yes. MC has sway.
But metacritic user reviews? As I said, I severely doubt that has much impact.
"The ethics of review bombing".
LMAO. Is this thread for fucking real? I thought we were a forum made up largely of grown adults. This belongs on 4Chan not ResetEra.
LMAO. Is this thread for fucking real? I thought we were a forum made up largely of grown adults. This belongs on 4Chan not ResetEra.
there are horrible people out there who stream to large enough communities. They would tell their followers to review bomb random small indie games on steam for laughs and follow the most often solo devs social media accounts in the following weeks to laugh at their breakdown when they were financially ruined. Some sick people out there.
these were the same people that would raid LGBTQ twitch streams and tell them to kill themselves.
these were the same people that would raid LGBTQ twitch streams and tell them to kill themselves.
Also, we're a forum that tries to promote interaction with devs. I can't fucking believe this an open topic here right now.
I think it must factor in if they're looking at the MC critic reviews and see a birght red box next to it, yeh. How significant that is is obviously up for debate.
What about the "paid mods" issue with Skyrim that was a much decried anti-consumer move across the board.
Review bombs occurred then and helped lead Valve to reverse their decision. Were they not justified at all?
I think there is absolutely a conversation to have regarding consumer rights and their feeling that official channels of communication often don't lead to positive action, and that we can talk about these things and break down why they happen and see the reasoning of how it all fits together.
Sometimes, it's symptomatic of a large issue that needs to be addressed.
95 percent of the time it's childish gamers throwing a hissy fit that a game is not exactly to their liking or people engaging fanboy warring.
The few times it's "justified" does not make up for review bombing overwhelmingly being used by people just being absolute assholes.
It does, however, open up the conversation to discuss that "5%" and why those situations occur the way they do and how they are symptomatic of communication breakdown and legitimate consumer frustrations.
The times it's entitled idiots throwing hissy fits, or shitlords protesting social progress, etc... are clearly awful.
I'd argue that Twitter and YouTube are infinitely more effective than review bombing. And...actually ethical.
I do not think it is a particularly complex ethical issue. I think it floods the zone with noise and it's one of many issues with user scores in general. Society will survive without useful user scores. Some platforms can choose to actively combat review bombing if they think they can succeed. It's not like there is a useful public protest element there when you are posting junk on a private platform in a section with no real impact.
I am strongly against the weight put on score based reviews in general, or really anything that tries to obscure the subjectivity and nuance of real art criticism, and in particular the strong need for fans to see critic consensus. So an "inaccurate" user score is just irrelevant.
I am strongly against the weight put on score based reviews in general, or really anything that tries to obscure the subjectivity and nuance of real art criticism, and in particular the strong need for fans to see critic consensus. So an "inaccurate" user score is just irrelevant.