Warcraft 3 Reforged's Worst-Ever Metacritic Score Shows The Problem With User Reviews - Dave Thier

[Crossing Eden]

Ok, so why call out a review bomber who was angry about their game being ruined? Like, what other outlet do people have? If this was just a bad remaster then yea, gamer outrage, everyone chill, etc. In this case though, everyone who owned classic WC3 and had their game deleted has every right to be mad.

Click to shrink...

I was using that review as an example of why user review scores tend to not actually matter. Like, it at best just satisfies a dopamine trigger where you managed to "hurt" a likely anthropomorphized idea of a studio by angrily typing out a review score that no one is gonna read BUT people who are doing the exact same thing.

I'd consider sharing the articles written about it to be a much more effective outlet as gaming journalism actually matter to these companies and by my knowledge game journos aren't defending the game. Hell, even dev bonuses are sometimes dependent on metacritic scores from official websites.

I'm actually more curious now about why they thought it was a good idea to overwrite classic WC3 even for people who didn't purchase the remaster.

 

[Legacy]

The best user review system is on steam tho, metacritic is rather shite.

Click to shrink...

Yeah true

 

[Dalik]

I was using that review as an example of why user review scores tend to not actually matter. I'm actually more curious now about why they thought it was a good idea to overwrite classic WC3 even for people who didn't purchase the remaster.

Click to shrink...

Cause they can more easily enforce the new TOS like that maybe?

 

[Eumi]

I absolutely understand the reasons people are angry, I'm not defending the game at all, or even Blizzard. I just don't agree that review bombing is an effective way of sending a message. Which is what the article is about, about review bombing in and of itself.


Like I said, a very valid reason to be angry.

Click to shrink...

What is your alternative suggestion for sending the message, and why would that method be either mutually exclusive with low user score ratings or be made less effective by them?

Because it's fine if you think it's a bad way to get what you want, but without explaining why it's hard for people to understand what your issue is.

 

[Trace]

I honestly think this is the only example of where a 0 is actually acceptable. Because not only did they fuck up the new version, they retroactively fucked up the old version *even if you didn't buy the new version*

 

[Crossing Eden]

What is your alternative suggestion for sending the message, and why would that method be either mutually exclusive with low user score ratings or be made less effective by them?

Click to shrink...

I just made a post explaining.

 

[Eumi]

I just made a post explaining.

Click to shrink...

But you didn't. You gave a method you personally believe to be more effective, but to that I'd just say we can do both of these things.

Your only point approaching a reason not to do this is that it can affect the pay of the devs, but I've personally never once heard of an example where the user score has had this effect, and if a case where that had happened did actually exist, the issue is with that stupid restriction than the user scores themselves.

 

[Mobu]

NOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CANT JUST GIVE A ZERO TO THIS CORPORATE PRODUCT

 

[Disclaimer]

A zero is a perfectly valid user score for a release that actively worsens the 18-year-old game it's based on. Normally, if a remaster was disliked, people would be perfectly capable of simple returning to the untarnished original; Blizzard removed that option here.

In the other thread, I pushed back against the notion that Reforged was "the worst act committed by a major publisher against consumers," and I stand by that because said sentiment is IMO hyperbolic. But Reforged is still extremely bad -- from the meager additions, to the host of negative changes, to the false advertising campaign within even their very launcher touting greater additions than were done.

I will also always deny the idea that one must purchase a game to review it; after all, most critics get their copies for free. And neither does one need to personally play a game to be well-informed of its contents or how it affects people.

This situation is utterly incomparable to review bombings where MRA idiots rage about the inclusion of women, or when alt right shitheads bemoan minority representation. Stop defending cynical corporations against valid criticism. They are not your friend. And if for some reason the developers are punished for the game's negative scoring, then further hold the corporation and management accountable for that, and for cutting the project's budget and forcing the developers to release a product in this state.

 

[Crossing Eden]

t you didn't. You gave a method you personally believe to be more effective, but to that I'd just say we can do both of these things.

Click to shrink...

I mean one is a much healthier way of expressing discontent through social media but that's just me.

Your only point approaching a reason not to do this is that it can affect the pay of the devs

Click to shrink...

Dev pay is not affected by user scores so I have no idea how you took that from what I assume to be, this specific part of my post.

Hell, even dev bonuses are sometimes dependent on metacritic scores from official websites.

Click to shrink...

 

[Eumi]

I mean one is a much healthier way of expressing discontent through social media but that's just me.

Dev pay is not affected by user scores so I have no idea how you took that from what I assume to be, this specific part of my post.

Click to shrink...

But how is it unhealthy? You're just saying it without giving any follow up at all.

Why is rating a game a 0 out of 10 unhealthy? Is it rating a game at all that's unhealthy, or is it the extremity of the opinion. In that case, can you say the same for cases in which people give games 10/10 scores? And what about Systems which only allow the user to give a recommended/ not recommended note and no score at all. At which point in that case does a review become unhealthy?

It's just an incredibly bold claim to make with zero back up.

 

[XR.]

Like, I hate games like Agony and Hatred, that doesn't mean I left a 0/10 review score on metacritic.

Click to shrink...

That's not really an accurate analogy though, is it?

These people are clearly passionate about the franchise and surely have a desire to appreciate the game, but are ultimately disappointed. It's not like they've decided to hate on a random game out of the blue; these are people who have the highest desire to see this succeed, but are simply frustrated with how badly this has been treated.

Again, that's not to say it warrants any toxicity, but it can justify a low score.

 

[Kittens McMittens]

I was using that review as an example of why user review scores tend to not actually matter. Like, it at best just satisfies a dopamine trigger where you managed to "hurt" a likely anthropomorphized idea of a studio by angrily typing out a review score that no one is gonna read BUT people who are doing the exact same thing.

I'd consider sharing the articles written about it to be a much more effective outlet as gaming journalism actually matter to these companies and by my knowledge game journos aren't defending the game. Hell, even dev bonuses are sometimes dependent on metacritic scores from official websites.

I'm actually more curious now about why they thought it was a good idea to overwrite classic WC3 even for people who didn't purchase the remaster.

Click to shrink...

I think review bombing is fair in this circumstance though, as it's driving the conversation. Like, I don't review bomb, but I know about what's going on with the MC community score because there are articles about it. So, it's keeping WC3:R in the news cycle.

As for why overwrite the old client, my guess would be they wanted to decommission old WC3 battle.net. They knew if people could just get classic WC3 a lot of people would just migrate to private battle.net emulator communities. They probably had the decom timeline lined up with the launch of reforged with the intention of feature parity, but then couldn't extend the life of WC3 battle.net when it was clear that reforged was coming in hot.

So, a combination of hubris and beancounting is basically what I think.

 

[Mentalist]

There is genuinely no proof that these are genuine stories and not just people pretending to have bought the game for the sake of shitting on blizzard and yes people can be that petty and immature. Like, remember the history major who had studied WW2 since he was five years old who felt that calling him uneducated was the LAST straw and how many people took that at face value because fuck the company in question for having a woman in their WW2 game trailer.

Click to shrink...

You realize that people don't NEED to have bought Reforged to be affected by this, right?

simultaneously to releasing Reforged, Blizzard updated Classic WarCraft III to use Reforged launch client. Effectively crippling Classic- a game that some people bought and have played for 18 years.
This isn't "turning off servers"- this is "putting a single-player game ON servers EIGHTEEN YEARS LATER" when no one asked for it. Breaking ladders, clans, graphics options (!!!!) custom games and ability to save campaign progress offline in the process- REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU WANTED TO BUY REFORGED OR NOT.

Obviously, people who didn't buy Reforged feel they should comment- they are the ones who are hurt the most by this.

 

[Software Update]

Users don't like the game. Dismissing it as "review bombing" is ridiculous. If anything, reviewers are too generous. The audience disliking a game is a better measure of its quality than a handful of reviewers.

 

[Crossing Eden]

That's not really an accurate analogy though, is it?

These people are clearly passionate about the franchise and surely have a desire to appreciate the game, but are ultimately disappointed. It's not like they've decided to hate on a random game out of the blue; these are people who have the highest desire to see this succeed, but are simply frustrated with how badly this has been treated.

Again, that's not to say it warrants any toxicity, but it can justify a low score.

Click to shrink...

I'm not comparing the content of WC3R to Hatred and Agony.

You realize that people don't NEED to have bought Reforged to be affected by this, right?

Click to shrink...

Yes.

 

[Deleted member 2840]

"Forbes Contributor" strikes again. Are they the new "Florida Man"?

 

[XR.]

I'm not comparing the content of WC3R to Hatred and Agony.

Click to shrink...

I'm not saying that.

I'm saying you (presumably) don't have the passion or interest for either of those games or their ilk, like these people have for Warcraft.

 

[Wamb0wneD]

I'd consider sharing the articles written about it to be a much more effective outlet as gaming journalism actually matter to these companies and by my knowledge game journos aren't defending the game. Hell, even dev bonuses are sometimes dependent on metacritic scores from official websites.

I'm actually more curious now about why they thought it was a good idea to overwrite classic WC3 even for people who didn't purchase the remaster.

Click to shrink...

But a lot of these articles, like the article in question, are nothing but corporate bootlicking pieces. Most game journalists aren't actually journalists but an extended marketing arm of publishers. Even youtubers who are being negative for klicks way too often are more reliable than those people. Just look at some of the reviews this travesty got. And I honesty doubt that an opinion piece on forbes turns more heads at these companies than record breaking low user scores.
These folks give out bonuses on 85+ MC games, you think they won't pay attention to this?

 

[Dr. Ludwig]

But a lot of these articles, like the article in question, are nothing but corporate bootlicking pieces. Most game journalists aren't actually journalists but an extended marketing arm of publishers. Even youtubers who are being negative for klicks way too often are more reliable than those people. Just look at some of the reviews this travesty got. And I honesty doubt that an opinion piece on forbes turns more heads at these companies than record breaking low user scores.
These folks give out bonuses on 85+ MC games, you think they won't pay attention to this?

Click to shrink...

I mean for Christ sake, Anthem's development was affected directly by all the Mass Effect Andromeda memes and gifs that were posted on Social media by vastly putting extra pressure on the animation team to make it "unmemeable" or some shit.

To suggest that all those execs and managers don't pay attention to when a mass of users are deriding your product on the internet is naive.

 

[jukeboxhero2396]

User reviews are important. Are they flawed? Sure, but so is every other system as well.
The best user review system is on steam tho, metacritic is rather shite.

Click to shrink...

Postal 2 - overwhelming positive

Yeah really is the best.

/s

 

[Eumi]

Postal 2 - overwhelming positive

Yeah really is the best.

/s

Click to shrink...

User reviews are supposed to be a measure of the general reception of a game and how people feel about it, not an objective measure of quality.

Pointing at a bad game with good reviews only makes a point if you have some reason to think that most of the people reviewing the game didn't actually like it.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I'm not saying that.

I'm saying you (presumably) don't have the passion or interest for either of those games or their ilk, like these people have for Warcraft.

Click to shrink...

Ok a fair point.

But a lot of these articles, like the article in question, are nothing but corporate bootlicking pieces.

Click to shrink...

The game has a 63 on metacritic. Like, just because the articles and such aren't in the vein of gamer outrage rhetoric like "THEY RUINED MY CHILDHOOD AND THE COMPANY IS DEAD" does not mean that they're corporate bootlicking.

Even youtubers who are being negative for klicks way too often are more reliable than those people.

Click to shrink...

Just look at some of the reviews this travesty got.

Click to shrink...

And again, the game has a 63 on metacritic in a field where most people considering anything below 7-10 to be not worth their time.

 

[Chettlar]

I'm sorry but what a pathetic article.

This game is not just being rated on how good or bad it is, but also has context around it. Yes there was a previously lowest rated game but also, no one cared about that game in the first place. It is far more negative for most people for a good game to be absolutely massacred.

These reviews are about how horrible not only this remaster was, but also how it has retroactively hurt the original game. That is insane. This is so bad that it wasn't just bad on it's own, it's also ....maybe the first remaster where the original was objectively broken? (disregarding MMOs and that kind of thing).

That is totally fair to be upset about. This is absolutely not a trend people want to see going forward.

Reviewing a game is not just about the game itself, but the context that surrounds it and the effect it has on the gaming universe. This remaster, itself, has nothing good on its own that it didn't take from the original, so what is the point of saying well hey it's still a good game at least? Like, they get points for making some new models. That's it. Give it a 1/10 and be done with it.

What a bad, myopic article.

I don't even have any history with warcraft at all. But this is not hard to see at all.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Not necessarily. You could have a great game on your hands, which is widely praised by critics, but, for example, post a political outburst on Twitter which is picked up by the usual people, who then escalate within their communities and continue to Metacritic to spam your game with 0 star "reviews".

That's what I would consider review-bombing, I guess. But it's hard to define, yeah.

Click to shrink...

I think core to the notion of "review bombing" is that it's not actually about the quality of the game, but some outside factor. If people just dislike the game that much en-masse, that's more like what's happening here.

 

[Meia]

For people that don't understand, if you release a remaster of a game and it's not good, a common complaint about people who complain is "Well, the original is still there, just go play that then."


But then this situation happened, where releasing the remake *literally* ruins/makes the experience of the original game worse. In a case like this, giving it a review score of 0 is perfectly justified anyway even if you didn't buy it because it actively makes your experience worse simply by existing. It takes a special kind of fuckery for that to happen.

 

[Moist_Owlet]

corporate shill is mad people aren't buying product

 

[ZeoVGM]

I generally would agree with the idea that user reviews are trash and are often abused by whiny internet trolls (Captain Marvel, The Last Jedi, etc.) but it doesn't apply in this case.

Right, the game is not literally a 0.5 title. But this is a rare incredibly egregious case of a game publisher lying about a game and taking advantage of its fan base. That point isn't even up for debate. The anger is absolutely justified.

(As far as the user score goes. The developers shouldn't be harassed.)

 

[Wamb0wneD]

Ok a fair point.

The game has a 63 on metacritic. Like, just because the articles and such aren't in the vein of gamer outrage rhetoric like "THEY RUINED MY CHILDHOOD AND THE COMPANY IS DEAD" does not mean that they're corporate bootlicking.

And again, the game has a 63 on metacritic in a field where most people considering anything below 7-10 to be not worth their time.

Click to shrink...

What is "Outrage gamer rethoric" for you, is a simple truth for others. You have the lead dev from Ori in another thread saying how WC3 was what made him become a dev, and that he is utterly disappointed not only in the game, but Blizzard too. This shitshow has shown quite a few people that Blizzard is indeed dead.
It's ok you don't feel the same about this game as the people who are legit angry at this mess, but your lack of compassion doesn't make these people toxic or gam3rz.

I don't know your metrics but for me everything about 60 is a fine experience that can find its audience. For me, this shit should sit at a flat 40 at the maximum.

 

[Crossing Eden]

What is "Outrage gamer rethoric" for you

Click to shrink...

'This game quite literally ruined my childhood and the company in question is dead."

I don't know your metrics but for me everything about 60 is a fine experience that can find its audience.

Click to shrink...

I mean your perception of what a 60 means doesn't really matter here, neither does mine, the common consensus is that anything below 7=worthless for the majority of people. Hell, and that's being kind and not acknowledging the 8-10 review scale.

 

[unicornKnight]

The distinction I make for review bombing is something has already been out for awhile, something happened and it prompts a bunch of people to leave negative reviews, that's how I view review bombing. This is more of a situation where a remaster came out that is bad (like it doesn't change almost anything from the original and somehow messes up the original game/client.) This is just a terrible release and is being judged accordingly.

Click to shrink...

Review bombing also involves reviews of people that didn't play the game. The article has a point, W3R situation is shit but this doesn't justify me giving the game a user score of 0.0 since I haven't played it

 

[Disclaimer]

Review bombing also involves reviews of people that didn't play the game. The article has a point, W3R situation is shit but this doesn't justify me giving the game a user score of 0.0 since I haven't played it

Click to shrink...

You don't have to have played/purchased it to have been affected by Reforged's changes, because it retroactively changed the classic version of the game.

What part of this do people not understand?

 

[ThreepQuest64]

It depends on what do you personally want from user reviews. It's great in pointing out shitty practices but it's easily to look through. If you want to know if the gameplay is generally bad (or anything else in the game) there are still ways to learn that.

 

[Wamb0wneD]

'This game quite literally ruined my childhood and the company in question is dead."

I mean your perception of what a 60 means doesn't really matter here, neither does mine, the common consensus is that anything below 7=worthless for the majority of people. Hell, and that's being kind and not acknowledging the 8-10 review scale.

Click to shrink...

Most people don't say "quite literally". These people see this game as part of their childhood, and that part is something Blizzard took a massive dump on.
It matters as much as your perception or the ones of the people complaining about this. You thinking 63 is adequate isn't somehow of more weight than bumblefuck69's take on this, even if it means they gave it a 0 on MC. You aren't being more reasonable than them by complaining about them vociing their disappointment.

 

[ScOULaris]

Absolutely not. User reviews can often be problematic and unreliable due to review bombing by people who never even intended to play the game in the first place, but this is NOT that.

This is actually one of the only times where the extremely low reviews (mostly zeroes) are 100% justified. Reforged DOES deserve a 0/10 because it's far more than just a bad game. It's a bad game that needlessly replaces the vastly superior original and locks out decades worth of community-driven content.

 

[Scuffed]

Review bombing is fine when it's strictly about the game. It's just public sentiment so if your game causes such a reaction you fucked up. The review bombing that is obviously trash is when it's political in nature like alt-right assholes angry about representation or something but it's pretty easy to tell when that is happening.

 

[Fjordson]

User reviews, especially on Metacritic, have always been meaningless to me. I can't remember a single game where I actually took into account the user rating. There are countless other ways to get a more in-depth and nuanced view into why a game is bad or is causing controversy.

Especially nowadays with places like YouTube or Twitch. There are 10 minute videos on YouTube right now that are infinitely more valuable and informative than all the user reviews in the world.

 

[Mentalist]

'This game quite literally ruined my childhood and the company in question is dead."

I mean your perception of what a 60 means doesn't really matter here, neither does mine, the common consensus is that anything below 7=worthless for the majority of people. Hell, and that's being kind and not acknowledging the 8-10 review scale.

Click to shrink...

This game made it impossible for me to experience one of my favorite childhood games, unless I buy a pair of used disks on Amazon and do an offline install.

The company that made the game isn't dead per se; but after going back to deliberately wreck a beloved 18 year old classic, their reputation is.

 

[unicornKnight]

You don't have to have played/purchased it to have been affected by Reforged's changes, because it retroactively changed the classic version of the game.

What part of this do people not understand?

Click to shrink...

So you say all these 0.0 are from old client users that got screwed and not from people that read the situation online and decided to punish the bad corporation.

 

[Arkanim94]

So you say all these 0.0 are from old client users that got screwed and not from people that read the situation online and decided to punish the bad corporation.

Click to shrink...

I am not seeing the problem.

 

[EvilBoris]

I always kind of viewed reviewing bombing as some kind of automated or organised attempt to kill a game's score.
However this strikes me (as is often the case in videogame world) a toxic community individually en masse being asses. You see YouTuber's and games blogs and even threads on sites like Era perpetuating sentiment that stirs up people into an immature frenzy that results in this.

 

[Disclaimer]

So you say all these 0.0 are from old client users that got screwed and not from people that read the situation online and decided to punish the bad corporation.
This is an extreme case that affects old client users but that's not the case with other games and review bombing is still a thing.
Review bombing should be perceived the same way always and not whichever way it suits us depending on the case.

Click to shrink...

Many of them, yes. And how exactly is it a bad thing when the "bad corporation" is punished in one of the few ways consumers visibly can, when in fact they've done wrong?

Equating this with other review bombings that are political in nature, removed from a game's actual quality, is asinine. People are rating Reforged a 0 because, as a product, it has done substantial net harm not just to a pre-existing game, but to the creative works of its fans.

 

[Deleted member 8852]

Nah it deserves to sit at 0 for deleting the original game.

Even if it was a review bomb who cares, Blizzard shows zero respect to the playerbase and the playerbase replied in kind.

 

[Mentalist]

So you say all these 0.0 are from old client users that got screwed and not from people that read the situation online and decided to punish the bad corporation.

Click to shrink...

Many of them are, yes.

 

[LewieP]

A lot of arbitrary and inconsistent explanations for why review bombing is different to just mass negative sentiment then.

Review bombing is a nonsense term.

 

[MillionIII]

Oh no costumers showing their frustration someone please think of poor Bilzzard

 

[NCR Ranger]

Good. At the very least Blizzard needs to roll back the changes to the classic version. I can't decide what is worse them pulling that shit or the people who feel the need to strike at the "injustice" of consumers expressing their dissatisfaction and giving a game a 0.

 

[Hamchan]

It actually shows the worth of user reviews. Warcraft 3 reforged is not the worst game ever, because it has Warcraft 3 inside it and that's a good game, but it might be the worst remaster ever made. Really, the critics average looks too high for what this product is.

 

[Kaguya]

It's a tool, just like forum posting, it can be used both positively and negatively. With W3: Reforged's user score being a positive use of users reviews.

 

[Kittens McMittens]

I always kind of viewed reviewing bombing as some kind of automated or organised attempt to kill a game's score.
However this strikes me (as is often the case in videogame world) a toxic community individually en masse being asses. You see YouTuber's and games blogs and even threads on sites like Era perpetuating sentiment that stirs up people into an immature frenzy that results in this.

Click to shrink...

Come on dude, you seriously think it's OK that Blizzard pushed a patch that wiped the classic client? That was completely unnecessary. They straight up pulled a perfectly functioning game from their customers machines and replaced it with something that doesn't even have feature parity. It's not immature to be upset by that. This is probably the most justified one of these outrages I can remember.