https://www.theguardian.com/games/2019/mar/25/review-bombing-zero-star-reviews
I think this is an interesting article. I don't leave 0/10 reviews, but that's mainly down to only buying games I'm sure I'll enjoy, and the chances are if a game is getting review bombed it's probably not going to be great or something I'm likely to want to play
It makes me wonder if Micheal actually played the game, or if review bombing is done regardless of that to try and get the message out to developers and publishers that they're unhappy with a game
Give my thread a 0/10 if old
Update: The subject of the article replies:
Michael is a Metacritic user: a 25-year-old Canadian student, gamer, and former oil and gas worker who caught my eye with a blindingly acidic review of last year's disappointing postapocalyptic video game, Fallout 76.
"Let's be honest," he begins. "If this didn't have the Fallout title on it, nobody would pay $60 for it. It's only because it's related to Fallout and [developer/publisher] Bethesda that some people even play it. Those of you who do are supporting terrible games, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. You are making the video game industry what it is today."
Michael's Metacritic user review history is largely negative. It's hundreds of reviewers such as Michael who are responsible for the disparity between Fallout 76's "official" Metacritic average and its user score. It took 43 professional critics to hobble Fallout 76 with a tepid 5.2. Michael and 5,037 other users halved that number with a barrage of zeroes.
It's easy to write off review bombers as entitled and bratty, and a 0/10 score comes across as so petulant it is hard to take seriously. But the way Michael describes it, the zero-star review isn't "score" at all; it's more of a category unto itself. Ten is great. One is abysmal. But zero is, in Michael's view, a direct line to the creators and distributors of the game that says: "This is unacceptable."
"I don't usually leave reviews unless I really don't like a product," Michael tells me over Skype. "I don't leave good reviews, unless [something] really left an impact on me. If you asked all the other people who left a zero-star review, they'd probably say the same thing. They're trying to get their voices heard. They're trying to tell these corporations that this is not OK. It's one thing to say, 'If you don't like it, don't talk about it'… But by doing that you're really telling these corporations they can make lower and lower quality products and that's fine."
Michael attributes this particularly vicious knee-jerk to his and other players' dissatisfaction with the way video games have been changing, under pressure to make more money to offset the rising cost of making them. "Years ago when a developer and a publisher put out a video game, they had a lot of soul. There seemed to be a lot of new ideas," he says. "The video game industry [was] about entertainment. But it seems like nowadays, games are more of a business idea than anything else … [Developers] don't even finish the game before releasing it, and then they make promises that they're going to finish it, make it better and do whatever they can to [appease] their customers."
"A game like Fallout 76 doesn't really deserve a zero-star review," he says. "But how else are you going to get your voice out? Metacritic and [PC games storefront] Steam are two perfect platforms. They don't censor people – people are allowed to say whatever they want.
"The [other] reason that I'm more likely to leave a zero than a 10 is the fact that I don't want to see people waste their money," he says. "Leaving a zero-star review tells people, even if you like this series, or if you like this style of game, don't buy it – your money is better spent on something else."
It's hard not to feel there's something unsporting in openly gaming a review aggregator's system to manufacture a disastrous score. But the reality may be that online review aggregators are the only places where dissatisfied fans feel impossible to ignore, where the aggrieved can fight back against marketing that can saturate the media with less-than-honest trailers, screenshots and interviews.
There may not be anything especially gallant about thousands of people angrily trashing other people's work, but a chain of red zeroes are warnings that something about it – whether a genuine quality problem, a social justice grievance, or another controversy – has left a die-hard contingent of fans badly wanting.
I think this is an interesting article. I don't leave 0/10 reviews, but that's mainly down to only buying games I'm sure I'll enjoy, and the chances are if a game is getting review bombed it's probably not going to be great or something I'm likely to want to play
It makes me wonder if Micheal actually played the game, or if review bombing is done regardless of that to try and get the message out to developers and publishers that they're unhappy with a game
Give my thread a 0/10 if old
Update: The subject of the article replies:
Hi everyone. I'm the fella who was interviewed in the article mentioned by the OP. I must say, I'm surprised there's been this much discussion on the topic. I was a little hesitant to post here, however I feel like the topic is turning a little toxic and believe I can provide some context for the reason I agreed to be interviewed.
For years I've felt as if video game developing has been kind of culled (if you will). It's seemed as if over the years quality seems to be going lower and lower on the priority list, and money-making (yes I know how important this is) is making it's way near the top of the priority list. Whereas in the past, it seemed as if money-making was secondary to making a product which was meant to entertain.
It's true, some of my response was emotional. Who isn't driven by emotion? I feel as if video game development companies can do better. I'm not happy with the culture it's derived. I'm not happy with every game I play having microtransactions. I understand it's purpose, and I never give in and buy unless the game is free and deserves support. I'm not against games like Path of Exile which use microtransactions for in-game bonuses such as larger stashes. That game cost me zero to initially play, and has provided me with much entertainment. So I feel obligated to purchase something they offer to support that game.
In the case of Fallout 76 - the game that the article was written around – I felt as if the game was inherently broken. I spent nearly three days after purchasing it on Bathesda's website trying to get the game to even start. It installed perfectly, but I was stuck with CTD's that had no explanation. Then, finally after trying so hard to get the game going, I reinstalled my copy of Windows and tried the game again after a fresh installation, and it worked. I was very excited to play it as I have followed the series for years. After the first hour I had to walk away. It felt like an empty shell. Kind of like a template to an even larger game. It felt as if I was playing the demo of something greater. It was bad enough that there was no NPCs to talk to, but even worse I ran into quests I couldn't complete and random CTD's that caused me to have to reconnect and start a quest over from scratch.
I could go into more detail, but the point is I was not happy. I vented my frustration as many others did. That's our right as consumers. Thankfully, we have platforms that allow us to do this. Let me emphasize that I'm not sexist or racist, nor do I feel entitled or as if I'm owed something. I payed money for a product for the sole purpose of providing entertainment. That product failed to deliver said entertainment, and I was denied a refund, so I felt as if I was ripped off. I was able to receive a refund at a later date, so at this point I'm at peace with that situation.
During the interview with Rich, I explained to him my philosophy on the subject. I explained that my purpose for writing zero-star reviews (with many other products as well) was solely to stir enough attention to the issue of quality in video games, that developers were forced to at least take a step back and look at the product they are creating. It was not meant as a spiteful act to kill sales (as if negative reviews actually make that much of a difference) or to discount anyone else's value on the product. Yes, you could say "that's not true! You clearly said 'if you support games like this you are the reason the video game industry is the way it is today'" and I would agree. That was emotional (as one person here has said).
However, I do feel as if the new generations of gamers have less and less of a standard of quality. Don't get me wrong, there are some series of games being released – such as The Witcher – that deserve plenty of praise, but, there are equally as many games being released that are clearly thrown together, that did not have any hard work put into them, and were created only to be monetized. That's the reason I'm mad – that's the reason I give zero-star reviews.
I hope to keep this conversation rolling. This isn't something that consumes my life (I do have lots of assignments to get done and finals to prepare for), but I'm hoping to make people aware that they don't have to bend over and be okay with companies like EA and Bethesda releasing low quality entertainment products. We are consumers of these products, and like many here are saying, we can decide with our wallets who succeeds and who doesn't.
Last edited:
