WTF? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I'm reading the bolded wrong.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
"The secrets of 'review-bombing': why do people write zero-star reviews?" (article subject replies)
- Thread starter oni-link
- Start date
WTF? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I'm reading the bolded wrong.
I think I'm seeing an assumption here that all review bombers are also sexist, racists. I don't think that's the case just that sexist, racists are also using review bombing because it's a very vocal/public tactic that they seem to thrive on. I don't think the act of review bombing Fallout 76 somehow makes them an incel or something. It's like because far right groups have protest rallies suddenly all protests rallies are connected to the far right.
I've only review bombed once. Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. I was annoyed when they updated the game they removed tracks where licensing had expired and deleted my saves. Yea I was pissed, in my mind if licensing was a problem they should have removed those tracks from future sales but removing aspects of a 15 year old game alone seemed like a precedent I didn't want to support.
I've only review bombed once. Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. I was annoyed when they updated the game they removed tracks where licensing had expired and deleted my saves. Yea I was pissed, in my mind if licensing was a problem they should have removed those tracks from future sales but removing aspects of a 15 year old game alone seemed like a precedent I didn't want to support.
Taking aside this one example, which is no way indicative of the the general trend, nor have I had the time to look into it, I'm making a general point.
If this was an isolated example of customers reacting to a change years later, that's not a big issue. However, the topic of the thread is review bombing in general. All the examples from the original article are a lot more indicative of what I'm talking about.
And once again, it feels like my point gets tossed to the wayside. There are a lot of genuine channels to express dissatisfaction that have both the eyes of both the press and developers.
Review bombing is very rarely originating from a sincere place. It almost never can be because the act itself is insincere. A 0 review of a game is based purely around an attempt to drag the average score down and influence other users. Therefore it is wildly open to malpractice. It loses it's legitimacy because it is an act of manipulation, although I am not trying to say label things legitimate or not, just laying out my issues with this trend.
And again I would argue that it contributes further to the negative atmosphere around gaming (disagree with me if you want on this, it doesn't really matter).
One example does not disprove my point and once again, there are plenty other avenues for complaint beyond decimating a review score.
They're saying the reviews can't be removed and that the reviews are negative because the assholes review bomb with "SJWS ruined muh titty game female because they covered her up!" Come on.
His reasons for review bombing FO76 seem reasonable. He's right that FO76 released in an unacceptable state, and even the critic reviews mostly agree. The 5.2MC isn't that far off a zero really; the average score for most games is about a 7 and anything below 5 is generally considered to be completely fucked and not worth anyone buying.
People who take time to review bomb anything, movies, games, anything at all...are pathetic. I pity them. Just because a game didn't live up to your expectations doesn't mean it is the same for every person considering purchasing that game. Sometimes people have fond memories with some of the worst games in existence. Sometimes people enjoy bad movies, or find a different meaning in them. To think "Oh I know, I'll save this poor soul who might buy X game the time because they'll see this stream of 0/10 reviews" is just as I said, pathetic.
I feel review bombing is justified when it is an act of desperation when people feel there are no other ways to have their voice heard or acknowledged. Industries have gotten very good at stonewalling people's protests and gaming companies can be quite sleazy. I don't think it's unfair to have at least one way of making them feel the consequences.
Misuse of that platform is concerning, of course, but I can't help but see review bombing as a symptom of a larger malaise.
Misuse of that platform is concerning, of course, but I can't help but see review bombing as a symptom of a larger malaise.
The 'they're trying to change games and we're going to stop them' part sure as fuck does.
0/10, 10/10 exist, they can't be used only in your fantasies. I don't die on hills.
I don't think the relative number of abuses to legitimate uses are anywhere near what you say but I agree with the fact that to make this system of feedback have value, its abuses have to curtailed. Fortunately, that's what Valve is doing - with the disadvantage of having shut out DRM complaints in the process.
We have a winner. I assume these are the same peeps (for the most part) that auto thumb down all content when given a chance.
No sane person is calling for a clamp down on consumer voices. Like no sane person should agree with review bombing. All review bombing does is show pubs, devs, etc that particular channel is just noise and can be ignored.
They can't be ignored if it impacts the appearance and visibility of their game like it can on Steam.
First you look to reviewers for a truthful assessment. Then you find out these guys are more about clicks and deals with publishers than truth, so you drop them. Critic aggregates are just aggregates of corruption.
Then you look to user aggregates. Surely those are closer to the truth. Then you hear about review bombing. So yeah user aggregates are not a source of truth either.
How about user comments? Then you have the internet factor and you just don't know who is talking it what their motives are. Too many times I have bought a game that forum posters were just gushing over as the greatest thing, only to be completely let down.
In the end the only factors I really consider now are my own eyes watching videos and developer track record. The internet ruined everything else.
Then you look to user aggregates. Surely those are closer to the truth. Then you hear about review bombing. So yeah user aggregates are not a source of truth either.
How about user comments? Then you have the internet factor and you just don't know who is talking it what their motives are. Too many times I have bought a game that forum posters were just gushing over as the greatest thing, only to be completely let down.
In the end the only factors I really consider now are my own eyes watching videos and developer track record. The internet ruined everything else.
except, they didn't - Square Enix already rolled back the DRM
Nobody seems to have a working "fix" for user reviews - they're either opting in, or they're abandoning them entirely.
I don't know, I didn't follow that controversy very closely, tbh. I'm assuming not well because the game still sits on "Mostly Positive" (as it should) and obviously I wouldn't say that bombing was justified. I guess you could say I'm "for" review-bombing as much as someone can be for a double-edged sword. I think something should be done to curb toxic bombings, but that we still need the sword to some extent. Steam's recent alteration could be productive in that way, but as Swenhir mentioned its exclusion of DRM as relevant is severely disadvantageous.
When Metro was announced for the Epic Game Story, folks went back and review bombed the previous games
because they're immature children who like to think they are making a difference or some whiteknight bullcrap they tell themselves.
they listen to a youtuber who doesn't like a game and collectively like a dumb cult they review-bomb a game for the pettiest of reasons without even playing the game - or they will for 20 mins, refund the game on steam just so they can rate it.
pathetic, seriously. go comb your hair, do something else.
they listen to a youtuber who doesn't like a game and collectively like a dumb cult they review-bomb a game for the pettiest of reasons without even playing the game - or they will for 20 mins, refund the game on steam just so they can rate it.
pathetic, seriously. go comb your hair, do something else.
I appreciate the freedom to review and I appreciate that they can be used as a way to warn others of a changes made to a game that harm the overall experience.
Does it get abused sometimes? Sure. But the positives far outweigh the few and far between negatives. On top of that I'm dead against the alternative which is having no voice. Or as some would love, paid influencers who would undoubtedly push anything for an easy buck.
Does it get abused sometimes? Sure. But the positives far outweigh the few and far between negatives. On top of that I'm dead against the alternative which is having no voice. Or as some would love, paid influencers who would undoubtedly push anything for an easy buck.
ِAbsolutely agree, that's a VERY valid point and a huge flaw on the tool, sometimes it works, others it pretty messed up.
I don't, but given how things are right now, I don't see 'Not Buying' a game helping that much, cause you are still not voicing your opinion on why you didn't buy it, was it the mechanics ?, the different direction it took ?, the exclusivity deal ?, or maybe the franchise is not longer relevant at all.
Still Review-Bombing also includes boycotting the game, unless someone would buy it and not refund it afterwards.
I have always thought I'd much prefer, as a consumer looking at a product I'm not already sure about, just a simple thumbs up/down with a list of category rating selections would be more helpful. 1-5 selections for "Look", "stability", "Sound" "business model" and the like. I never really read what Bob from Idaho had to say in his 6 sentences, I just see if the user reviews are bad so then I'll go google the game for videos or an article from somewhere I would trust.
User reviews as a platform to strike back always seemed like a silly thing. In my head those reviews are in the same boat with bad Yelp reviews from soccer moms that give awful reviews for an entire restaurant because the waitress wasn't bringing her water often enough. "This company is doing this awful thing!" ok, but whats the game like? That's what I care about.
User reviews as a platform to strike back always seemed like a silly thing. In my head those reviews are in the same boat with bad Yelp reviews from soccer moms that give awful reviews for an entire restaurant because the waitress wasn't bringing her water often enough. "This company is doing this awful thing!" ok, but whats the game like? That's what I care about.
I was meaning like: There have been review bombs for games because of sexist/homophobic reasons (like there have been games review bombed because the reviewers are sexist. an example that comes to mind would be the Avengers/ghostbuster movies, which often have been review bombed for the female-led movies.
Another example of bad review-bombing: Firewatch was review-bombed because they refused to let pewdiepie stream their game because he used racial slurs.
Another example of bad review-bombing: Total war being review-bombed because it had female generals.
I don't think these games should have been review-bombed.
(sorry, i wasn't clear, does this make more sense? )
Last edited:
While it can absolutely be done for the wrong reasons, public outrage, shaming, and other things to try and hurt an entities reputation can feel like the only thing that will get to them, a lot of the time. Voting with you wallet or signing petitions online doesn't seem to have that reach. This is true for a lot of things, not just games.
I don't consider leaving a 0 on a game you played and didn't like "review bombing". User reviews in general have always trended towards extremes on the scale. Review bombing is when people who haven't experienced something write reviews for it, brigade like-minded communities to write reviews, and use bots to spam more reviews. It's a tool used by a few people to misrepresent the opinions of the majority.
A perfect example of this is the Captain Marvel Rotten Tomatoes shit. The movie immediately was spammed by low scores when user reviews opened despite having decent audience reception by all other metrics (Box office retention, theater surveys, etc), and eventually the user score went up as actual reviews by people who watched the movie kept coming in. Does this mean that audiences first hated Captain Marvel and then started liking it? No.
A perfect example of this is the Captain Marvel Rotten Tomatoes shit. The movie immediately was spammed by low scores when user reviews opened despite having decent audience reception by all other metrics (Box office retention, theater surveys, etc), and eventually the user score went up as actual reviews by people who watched the movie kept coming in. Does this mean that audiences first hated Captain Marvel and then started liking it? No.
Last edited:
I get that. I still think that constructive criticism + voting with your wallet is better than keeping on buying the same shit every time and shitposting on a review site.
If people could just detach themselves from this hobby sometimes, realize that some things change, and that it´s not always the change you want and move on to the stuff that you actually will like.
Like, personally I think almost all AAA-games are hot trash. Completely devoid of anything fun or interesting. I´ve never bought a single piece of DLC in my life, because I think that almost all DLC is cookie-cutter, lying-on-the-cutting-room-floor, boring leftovers. If I had to review-bomb all this, I´d be sitting here all day shitposting on metacritic. And for what? I don´t gain anything out of it. Nothing is changing as people are buying it in bulk. Nah, I move on and support the stuff that matters to me. It´s fine to discuss what you like and dislike about games, but review-bombing and the more extreme version of it like harrassment and likes, just feel like a temper tantrum from people.
Again, I would say that both developers and press do absolutely look at online message boards. Reddit, ERA, Twitter. All of these can be effective. You could even send an mail directly to the company in question.
That avoids getting involved in this shady nonsense. My problem with review bombing is that, for a lot of these examples, the games are often just poor or mediocre (subjectively), there is no crime they are committing. These are entirely subjective value judgments and the hardcore few shouldn't be trying to make choices for everyone else.
So by skewing the review scores, you're attempting to deny someone else of a potentially positive experience. Plenty of people seem to be having a decent time with Fallout 76 for example. I personally have enjoyed Anthem. etc.
A lot of review bombing is based on some mis-guided "I'm doing this for the betterment of all games" and that feeds back into the negative atmosphere I keep banging on about. The few times it has found success not could easily have had the same result using other forms of communication. There's also very little proof that the review bombing resulted in the eventual result. Correlation doe not equal causation.
There is self importance baked into the "hardcore gamer" that only serves to perpetuate a lot of tired bullshit like review bombing but I'll not spend ages boring you with my personal thesis.
Top 10 Switch games of 2019 on Metacritic. Negative internet trolls are negative.
Was there a campaign to do this? How are they all so low?
Didn't know you could give a zero. Depending on company practices this could be a good way to get your point across when developers don't read forums or don't take it seriously. FFX is a good example (this was on Steam, however, and you need to own the game). On the other hand, giving F76 a solid 3 out of 10, which is what it actually deserves in my opinion, should be statement enough; or that 50 something metascore for Anthem. This is telling enough for BioWare something went horribly wrong. No need to kick under the waistline when they down anyways.
Then again, review aggregators are always hit and miss. I can't take Rotten Tomatoes seriously anymore after Gravity got 96% and Interstellar somewhere around 80. You will always find a discrepancy between critics, user reviews and your own opinion.
Then again, review aggregators are always hit and miss. I can't take Rotten Tomatoes seriously anymore after Gravity got 96% and Interstellar somewhere around 80. You will always find a discrepancy between critics, user reviews and your own opinion.
Trying to put all of them into one pot is stupid. Different people reviewbomb for different reasons, big shocker
lol
Last edited:
User reviews are mostly trash in my opinion. But they should exist, review bombing actually works sometimes.
Well put. Also I personally see review bombing as an attempt of manipulation and misguiding of other consumers. The idea isn't to review the game, the idea is to use other people as a tool to retaliate against the publisher or the dev for something you don't find acceptable. So I do think it's pretty ironic when it's done against "anticonsumer" practises.
And yeah, you're absolutely correct that correlation does not equal causation. But for some reason, people really strongly seem to believe it does. Atleast when it comes to review bombing. I think it was the SteamSpy guy who said that atleast for older games, review bombing haven't had any notable result in their sales. Hence review bombers haven't got their wanted results there. For new games it's much trickier to gauge of course, so I don't know about that.
Especially nowadays with social media, consumers have so many different means and venues to get their voice through and message heard. But I often see two claims when it comes to this, "only review bombing works" and "calm and constructive feedback isn't effective". I believe both are bullshit and just an excuse for petulant hissy fits too many gamers are known of. Or I guess since this reaches movies too, I'll say geek/nerd and online culture is known of.
In Steam I somewhat do, as there you usually atleast own the game when reviewing it. And it also shows the time played for the reviewer. But review bombing definitely hurts Steam user reviews for me as a consumer tool. Luckily Valve has been implementing ways for me to get around it, but that shouldn't be needed. It adds inconvenience for me as a consumer. But basically any other user score and review like at Metacritic, I really don't give a shit about. And it's of course more vulnerable for review bombings too. In Steam it's useful also because mainstream press straight up ignores so many PC games, even really great ones. So there aren't really other reviews available than user reviews. I guess there are some "influencers" but also they mainly focus on mainstream, AAA, console exclusives etc.
Last edited:
People need to understand that user reviews are largely consumer reviews and not critical ones. Someone giving a 0 doesn't mean that every aspect of the game is the worst thing ever created, it's just that the game wasn't worth their money at all due to it just not being remotely enjoyable for them, or maybe not working at all.
Yes there are people who just want to dunk on a game unfairly and get everyone to give a 0 review. It's why user reviews should be separate from critic reviews. If someone sees a low user score, it should give a person pause and have them read the reviews to get a sense of why it is so low. If they see a bunch of simple 'THIS SUCKS' stuff, it can be ignored for other user reviews that seem valid, and/or critic reviews.
And having user reviews for something not even released yet is just stupid. Unless you want to invite controversy to promote your product. Marketing is weird.
Yes there are people who just want to dunk on a game unfairly and get everyone to give a 0 review. It's why user reviews should be separate from critic reviews. If someone sees a low user score, it should give a person pause and have them read the reviews to get a sense of why it is so low. If they see a bunch of simple 'THIS SUCKS' stuff, it can be ignored for other user reviews that seem valid, and/or critic reviews.
And having user reviews for something not even released yet is just stupid. Unless you want to invite controversy to promote your product. Marketing is weird.
I will agree with him that giving a zero star is much more of a statement then just a average review, how effective that is is probably not much especially when most of the time its just fanboy nonsense
First of all, I enjoy a good discussion, you are not boring me, but forgive my late replays.
I didn't say they don't look at social media, but it can be easily ignored, cause all of it is just talk with no effect.
Again, I am not defending 'Review Bombing' in its current stance, but I can see how effective it is as a tool, the only one with a visible effect to the user. Yet on the other hand I don't think it is denying anyone anything, especially with filter buttons and the ability to detect review bombs quite easily, we are now defending the ignorance of some people, that they don't search or look around before making their purchase. There are plenty of professional reviews on yoututbe/websites, people just need to look. Also most review bombs are useless, you won't find anything to read, and those who write the reason of their review bombing detail their issues and problems, so again one can read the different reviews and focus on those criticizing the game for its mechanics, story telling, AI, .....etc