Boss Man
Member
Lol nice username post combo
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
God of War Ragnarok is Being Review Bombed
- Thread starter Lunatic_Gamer
- Start date
- News Drama Cringe
- Status
Lol nice username post combo
Giallo Corsa
Member
I really get what you're trying to say brother even though I haven't played GOWR.
I did play the 2018 game and I felt exactly the same though, i kept thinking to myself "is this it ? Is this the GOTY/BEST GAME EVAHHH everyone's talking about ?" I mean, it was a well produced game with nice gfx but other than that...up to this day i really can't understand what was so great about it, it was formulaic as heck and the writing was nothing to write home about...
Off topic but I also felt the same for Elden Ring, a game that already felt old when it came out due to the graphics and art-direction (to me it felt like generic high fantasy stuff) with the gameplay being "more of the same " , heck, if you told me that it was dark souls 4 instead of a new franchise I'd have believed you, it also really bums me that fans can't see through its BS and have decided that it's the best thing after sliced bread.Worst thing about it though is the fact that you can't even talk about it/criticize it since you're gonna get gang-banged by the usual internet crowd.
I Suppose that GOWR is the same thing : a game belonging to a beloved Sony franchise with exceptional production values and friggin' millions behind it (just the ads with Travolta/Stiller etc must have costed millions) which doesn't necessarily do anything new nor original and yet, you're supposed to love it 'cause the press and mega-fans told you so.
Cheers
Robbinhood
Banned
I think when MS starts getting games next year you'll see a drop in Sony exclusive review bombing.
sainraja
Member
Ah, so you are just denying that the game is getting 'review' bombed.Because twitter and some shitty journo said so? Barely a review bomb. It's at 7.9/8. Theres 2k positives vs 400 negatives and there are a lot of dumb 10's. Also fuck critic and user scores.
sainraja
Member
People do review bomb games and if that is what is happening here, I don't see a point in characterizing it as a "Sony" thing. Other games have also gotten review bombed and they have gotten threads on it. Any popular thing attracts some unwanted attention and sometimes that might drown out the valid points being raised.I think everytime a Sony game releases the negative reviews are mislabelled as ‘review bombs’. Complaining about the narrative, cinematic focus or technical issues are all legitimate complaints. The 0 scores with praise for the game are probably just being left by technically illiterate people. What a scandal
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
Use the search function for this forum and type ‘review bombing’.
The only game titles that appear in the thread titles in the 8 pages of results are literally all including Sony games.
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/hori...view-bombed-on-ps5-ps4-for-no-reason.1630914/
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/abou...-battlefield-2042-and-cyberpunk-2077.1624403/
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/gt7-...review-bombs-regarding-server-issues.1632984/
So yeah. Just to reiterate; criticising Horizon/GT/GoW/TLoU2 =/= review bombing like some on GAF seem to think.
papersleeves
Member
Does not surprise me. The Game Awards are tonight. It feels appropriate for a bunch of idiots to review bomb the game that could oh my god challenge their simp favorite GOTY contender. I mean Elden Ring would suddenly fucking SUCKS if it's losing the GOTY right???? What's that???? You think it already sucks?????? What the FUCK are you waiting for then, go review bomb ER ASAP u cunts.
Last edited:
NickFire
Member
Someone will probably bookmark this post and circle back a couple days after Starfield launches. Chances are very high it gets review bombed (cause people are weird).
The Cockatrice
Banned
Yes. All games have tons of 1's. Is this your first time on metacritic? Did you ever call out the fake 10's review bombing? Guess not. Where are the other threads about the other big games getting review bombed?
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
So what are you saying....are you saying that none of the games have been review bombed?
I've seen people post about other games getting review bombed, not necessarily Sony ones, there is a thread on World of Warcraft and Battlefield for example. They may not be the most recent but most of threads you are linking are of Sony games that came out recently. Not all criticism is review bombing and not all review bombing are valid criticism, if it is indeed a review bomb and there is enough evidence showing that, that is.
EDIT
Looking a little more closely....the negative user reviews aren't that much and mostly people are saying it's the same as the previous game, it still has more positive reviews overall. I think if people were targeting the game it probably would have been a lot worse. Unless it started happening in response to The Game Awards but that will be very hard to prove lol. I suppose we will see in the next few days.
Last edited:
jezhumphrey75
Banned
maybe its crap?
Banjo64
cumsessed
Nearly every game will have 0/10 scores from pathetic fanboys. I remember reading a few when Tunic launched.
I’m just highlighting that when it’s a Sony game we have to get a NeoGAF thread on it, and most of them equate legitimate criticism with review bombing.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
ResurrectedContrarian
Suffers with mild autism
I like reviews being verified by purchase (great on Steam etc), but I would absolutely not weigh them by progress in the game.
One the greatest and most common failures of a game is to simply not be compelling at all, so that after only 3-5 hours you realize your time is too valuable to keep going, no matter what the sunken-cost of the sticker price may have been.
Reviewers who dropped a game because it dared to waste 2 or 3 hours of your life are absolutely valid, deserve full weight.
Gudji
Member
SafeOrAlone
Banned
I hear ya. I should have noted that I generally felt the same towards GoW 2018 as I do Ragnarok, though I did complete GoW 2018. I guess I thought it was pretty good but not worth replaying.
Elden Ring, I feel differently about, respectfully. I can totally see why people would not like Elden Ring, and given it's constant praise and somewhat hyperbolic adulation, I can understand how old that could get for someone who doesn't love it.
That said, the reason I like Elden Ring is that I find the world to be utterly compelling, Each new enemy freaks me out in it's design, and occasionally it's move set. The world just feels haunted to me, and I enjoy how the story is there for you to find, rather than being forced down your throat. But just different strokes on that one.
I don't want to deny everyone who loves Ragnarok a valid reason for doing so, but I can't help but also feel that some people must be blinded by the production values and general consensus. I feel that there is a lot to love about Ragnarok but it is a frustrating experience all around, due to it's many flaws.
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
I think they are valid, but don't deserve full weight and that's objectively obvious.
2 hours is enough to judge a 40 hour game? Why not 5 minutes? Where is your arbitrary cut off?
Think there is validity to the 2 hours someone played but it isn't the same weight as someone who finished the game.
If I was asking someone's opinion on a movie and 1 person finished the movie and the other person watched the first quarter, whose opinion means more to me, the person with full knowledge of the whole experience or the one without?
There is no argument to be made against weighing that as a factor.
Vick
Member
HoodWinked
Member
It's disappointing to see people actually advocating removal of user reviews.
The benefit of the user score is that it shows if there is alignment with the critics. If it's higher or lower or a large disparity then there is more what's being stated.
The benefit of the user score is that it shows if there is alignment with the critics. If it's higher or lower or a large disparity then there is more what's being stated.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
The closest term is probably shill.
Its stupid that it happens but I’ve never seen one person who hates their fav game getting review bombed stating it equally sucks for the zero comment 10/10s shill scores that also can pop up day one.
It’s only a serious issue when it’s a negative score to a game they like. If their game gets 10s or a competing game they don’t like gets bombed they are a-ok with it.
Mozzarella
Member
Meh, every game gets that review bombing.
Actually this is very mild, even Witcher 3 was review bombed harder than this when they released Cyberpunk 2077 in a buggy state, Witcher 3 score went from 9.4 to 9.2 just because Cyberpunk 2077 was broken, then after they announced that game is banned from Russia it went down to 9.1 too, and Witcher 3 had a lot of ratings to begin with so it took a very high amount of review bombing to get it down, i remember i saw a whole 3 pages of red scores all 0/10 cursing CDPR.
Metacritic did nothing about it and there was no Twitter lord to save the day, this Twitter lord now got the game a lot of attention in the same way TLOU2 got its attention, by getting that kind of attention from the Twitter minions the game will benefit in the long run by having a lot of fanboys who review it with tons of 10s to boost it and combat the haters(tm)
So yeah, Metacritic doesnt give a crap, but hopefully maybe this kind of attention from the passionate fans can come up with a solution to fix the review bombing.
Metacritic was good before TLOU2 release, it used to have few bad reviews but many good ones, nowadays its just a platform to whine and protest and to practice toxic fanboyism towards games, thanks to TLOU2 controversy about user score the website imo lost its meaning, even the top games by user scores was amazing back before 2020, it was full list of amazing classics and modern masterpieces, but now a lot of cringe ecchi novels dominate it, so yeah again, Metacritic just sucks and i stopped caring about its user score.
Actually this is very mild, even Witcher 3 was review bombed harder than this when they released Cyberpunk 2077 in a buggy state, Witcher 3 score went from 9.4 to 9.2 just because Cyberpunk 2077 was broken, then after they announced that game is banned from Russia it went down to 9.1 too, and Witcher 3 had a lot of ratings to begin with so it took a very high amount of review bombing to get it down, i remember i saw a whole 3 pages of red scores all 0/10 cursing CDPR.
Metacritic did nothing about it and there was no Twitter lord to save the day, this Twitter lord now got the game a lot of attention in the same way TLOU2 got its attention, by getting that kind of attention from the Twitter minions the game will benefit in the long run by having a lot of fanboys who review it with tons of 10s to boost it and combat the haters(tm)
So yeah, Metacritic doesnt give a crap, but hopefully maybe this kind of attention from the passionate fans can come up with a solution to fix the review bombing.
Metacritic was good before TLOU2 release, it used to have few bad reviews but many good ones, nowadays its just a platform to whine and protest and to practice toxic fanboyism towards games, thanks to TLOU2 controversy about user score the website imo lost its meaning, even the top games by user scores was amazing back before 2020, it was full list of amazing classics and modern masterpieces, but now a lot of cringe ecchi novels dominate it, so yeah again, Metacritic just sucks and i stopped caring about its user score.
Toots
Gold Member
I don't want to live in a world where you have to know what you're talking about before telling everyone your oh so important opinion... (Neither do politicians and media people)
Jokes aside, is there any use to review bombing, like you can review bomb a game out of game of the year title contention ?
Kupfer
Member
Last edited:
SeraphJan
Member
Both critic and user score are useless, metacritic is useless
Buying a game you know nothing about solely based off metacritic score is one way to get yourself disappointed
If any review that is close to reliable I would take steam user score, its not perfect, but at least its up to date that take all the latest patches in the equation, and they are don't hesitated to address technical issue of a game which I think critic review totally missed the mark
Buying a game you know nothing about solely based off metacritic score is one way to get yourself disappointed
If any review that is close to reliable I would take steam user score, its not perfect, but at least its up to date that take all the latest patches in the equation, and they are don't hesitated to address technical issue of a game which I think critic review totally missed the mark
Last edited:
darrylgorn
Member
Pedro Motta
Gold Member
Some fans have no games, so they spend their time doing this bullshit.
RoboFu
One of the green rats
Is it really review bombing if a lot of people get together over a big issue for them though? I mean I liked the game but there are cutscenes ever few steps.
I would say a review bomb would be something that does not pertain to the game but this does pertain to the game.
I would say a review bomb would be something that does not pertain to the game but this does pertain to the game.
Last edited:
Gamerguy84
Member
Wow that is beyond pathetic. A group of ppeople are smiling about this right now. Toxicity level among gamers is at an all time peak.
MonkeyClaw36
Banned
Virgins, Incels, Friendzoned nobodies, neckbeards, snowflakes, zealots, and the just plain retarded.
yamaci17
Member
Here's my offer
user reviews... must be moderated and governed.
there must a minimum 500 amount of review. but the review MUST also defend why they the score. the moderation team should judge whether they genuinely think the game deserves the 1/10 or not. the review itself should be convincing as to why the game is 1/10.
another offer would be that do not use the score directly for the calculation. I see that the controversial scores are not tagged as helpful by most people. that 4/10 review is tagged as helpful by 60 people out of 124 people. so make it so that their 4/10 review score only has a 0.5x multiplier for the final average user score.
a review that gets 70/70 helpful score can be calculated with 1x multiplier and so on
this why it would lessen the impact of the user scores that are given out of spite
user reviews... must be moderated and governed.
there must a minimum 500 amount of review. but the review MUST also defend why they the score. the moderation team should judge whether they genuinely think the game deserves the 1/10 or not. the review itself should be convincing as to why the game is 1/10.
another offer would be that do not use the score directly for the calculation. I see that the controversial scores are not tagged as helpful by most people. that 4/10 review is tagged as helpful by 60 people out of 124 people. so make it so that their 4/10 review score only has a 0.5x multiplier for the final average user score.
a review that gets 70/70 helpful score can be calculated with 1x multiplier and so on
this why it would lessen the impact of the user scores that are given out of spite
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
WitchHunter
Banned
It's not review bombing. People finished the game and realized that it's a botched god of war. I don't know whappened @ ssm but it's nothing to be proud of.
WitchHunter
Banned
Heres my take: you get the straitjacket. User score is mostly free of influence and arse whiffs. The only reliable source for seeing what people think. What kind of retardation want to abolish that?
MonkeyClaw36
Banned
You didn't play it, did you?
Just walkin' along with teh sheepz... You're so full of shit, I can smell it here...
I finished it, was it the best i've played? Not by a long shot. Still worth an 8 out of 10 for me.
Now, riddle me this: If a game is technically fine, has good flow and story. Does the for some negative ending justify review bombing?
Nope!
Thats how I know you havent touched this game with a 10 foot pole for more then 30 minutes.
Begone shill!!
jasondefaoite
Member
yamaci17
Member
it doesn't necessarily have a negative or bad ending. its just that buildup for certain stuff/characters do not get a proper pay off in the end. then the whole build up also loses a lot of its meaning, when they're made into mere props in the endgame.
EXACT reason why endgame scored less than infinity war. infinity war allowed characters to shine personally, properly. in endgame, most folks were mere props to the overall scheme of things.
im giving the game a decent clean 9/10. but that's about it. not a perfect 10/10 goty tier of game. you gotta back what you built up. even if it means in a negative way. that's why I liked tlou2 more than gowr actually. yes, it has a negative ending (for most, not for me, actually) but at least its a proper send off. build up is rewarded hansomely for the player. cant say the same for gowr
final %20 of the game is so rushed that post game quality is beyond recognition of what game offers in first half of the game. a similar thing happened with witcher 3 and its final wild hunt war / wild hunt general chase. all of a sudden without any buildup or context, you start butchering them wild hunt generals left and right. none of it makes sense. baron questline is more fleshed out than the entirety of wild hunt stuff....
of course all games i mention here are great. these facts do not take GREATLY away from what they managed to accomplish in other areas. but payoff is also important as much as the build up ,for me personally. games like tlou2, portal 2, rdr 2 etc. have great payoffs. gowr, not so much. that's about it. a game caliber of gowr should've had a better payoff. it being called Ragnarök, the damn Ragnarök should've been simply longer than the fairy tale sequence they got going on in the first %30 of the game. (i actually do like the fairy tale sequence. but when it is more fleshed out then the actual war itself, I naturally view it as a super negative point for the game, which by itself, made me put gowr behind elden ring. if they were to give the ragnarök battle justice, my goty would've been gowr, undisputed. it simply fell flat on its face...
EXACT reason why endgame scored less than infinity war. infinity war allowed characters to shine personally, properly. in endgame, most folks were mere props to the overall scheme of things.
im giving the game a decent clean 9/10. but that's about it. not a perfect 10/10 goty tier of game. you gotta back what you built up. even if it means in a negative way. that's why I liked tlou2 more than gowr actually. yes, it has a negative ending (for most, not for me, actually) but at least its a proper send off. build up is rewarded hansomely for the player. cant say the same for gowr
final %20 of the game is so rushed that post game quality is beyond recognition of what game offers in first half of the game. a similar thing happened with witcher 3 and its final wild hunt war / wild hunt general chase. all of a sudden without any buildup or context, you start butchering them wild hunt generals left and right. none of it makes sense. baron questline is more fleshed out than the entirety of wild hunt stuff....
of course all games i mention here are great. these facts do not take GREATLY away from what they managed to accomplish in other areas. but payoff is also important as much as the build up ,for me personally. games like tlou2, portal 2, rdr 2 etc. have great payoffs. gowr, not so much. that's about it. a game caliber of gowr should've had a better payoff. it being called Ragnarök, the damn Ragnarök should've been simply longer than the fairy tale sequence they got going on in the first %30 of the game. (i actually do like the fairy tale sequence. but when it is more fleshed out then the actual war itself, I naturally view it as a super negative point for the game, which by itself, made me put gowr behind elden ring. if they were to give the ragnarök battle justice, my goty would've been gowr, undisputed. it simply fell flat on its face...
Last edited:
Giving scores like that is just ridiculous and there is way too much hyperbole about the game being more of a slog. Those who played the first game mabye didn't expect this but that's no way to react, review bombing in general is just being a baby especially when it's not a massive bugged up disaster at launch.
WitchHunter
Banned
Oh man you are just plain wrong. I mean if you are newborn and gets a hard on from all kinds of mediocre things, like gow ragnarok, then I understand your point if view. The prev game was aok, but this is a game put together from leftovers. Has all kinds of egregious pacing issues, blatant out of place elements, characters, terrible writing at the level of a 18 year old. Only babies like you who like to eat trash defend it with such vehemence.
Last edited:
BiohazardX95
Member
Why all this hate towards a Game, ragnarok is good.
BiohazardX95
Member
This weak narrative from people that didn't played the game.
TheGodfather07
Member
Lol they already hated sony before but now this Activision shit has made them lose their minds. Its hilarious. That and the lack of games.
- Status