WC3:RF Lowest User Rated Game of All Time (Metacritic)

[Segus1992]

It's often good to swim against the flow of mindless tears, if it wasn't for the Mass Effect 3 whiners I wouldn't have tried out that series and it became one of my all time favourites.

Anecdotal evidence, but you do you I guess. If you've never played WC3 then RF will be worth checking out, though the lacking animations, graphics that aren't up to 2020 standards by any means, AI & pathfinding from 2002 etc, will be noticeable. You can still just play the original, which holds up just fine today, barring the downgrades RF imposed on it. The same does not go for ME3, which is a real game, not a remaster.

- - - Updated - - -

Original Pvp gear rules and stats, making said gear way to powerful for the current content... speaking of which, 1.12 class balance and quality of life changes for 1.1 conent.
But guess that is meaningless, because those are unpleasant issues that are removed, so nobody cared?

See the difference is that Classic is a new game in a sense, since Vanilla hasn't been available since 2006. WC3:RF is a graphical skin on a game that still exists, which before the release of RF was superior.

Yes Classic isn't a perfect copy of Vanilla, but it made Vanilla available again, even if only a snapshot of what Vanilla was.

[tankbug]

Why do people consider Reforged to be a AAA game? It's an old game with graphic updates which are great compared to the old ones, but are not even close to the current standards. Hey, it's much more than a current mobile game, but still no company in their right minds would release it as a AAA today.

[Dhrizzle]

Because being objective is the only way to reach a consensus and/or to understand it. It's definitely fine for you to like it, but if you want to understand why people might not, you have to be able to be objective.

No you don't because objectivity is bullshit when it comes to subjective experiences like video games. Consensus is nonsense when it comes to personal preferences. For me what matters about a game is whether or not it is enjoyable to play. To me that is far more important than a checklist of features people consider necessary for a game to be good regardless of gameplay.

[Blodia]

Original Pvp gear rules and stats, making said gear way to powerful for the current content... speaking of which, 1.12 class balance and quality of life changes for 1.1 conent.
But guess that is meaningless, because those are unpleasant issues that are removed, so nobody cared?

They made it abundantly clear that they are releasing the game with 1.12 balance and itemisation. They didn't remove features vanilla already had either. If they released vanilla but without guild interface for example then it'd be comparable.

[josykay]

See the difference is that Classic is a new game in a sense, since Vanilla hasn't been available since 2006. WC3:RF is a graphical skin on a game that still exists, which before the release of RF was superior.

Yes Classic isn't a perfect copy of Vanilla, but it made Vanilla available again, even if only a snapshot of what Vanilla was.

Was it though? Because WC 3 looked more like a corpse to me, the latest News article being about Reaper of Souls, which was 6 years ago... about an other game. Meaning, that Blizzard did absolute shit, it was just kind of there, uncared to rot.

[Acidbaron]

Sold as a reimagining, held to standards we saw in the starcraft remake and all people got was a HD reskin for the price of a full game.
Learn from this and don't pre-order from Blizzard or other companies with a questionable track record.

I even read that it overwrites your original WC3 copy, if that is true what a clusterfuck indeed.

On the up side i don't think they will have to fear community members modding this game and making something good out of it, the question will be more likely "where are the community members?".

[Dhrizzle]

Anecdotal evidence, but you do you I guess. If you've never played WC3 then RF will be worth checking out, though the lacking animations, graphics that aren't up to 2020 standards by any means, AI & pathfinding from 2002 etc, will be noticeable. You can still just play the original, which holds up just fine today, barring the downgrades RF imposed on it. The same does not go for ME3, which is a real game, not a remaster.

I did play through WC3 but that was about 15 years ago and goodness knows where my copy is now. I really wasn't going to consider the remake but if people keep talking about it I might buckle and buy myself a copy.

[Segus1992]

No you don't because objectivity is bullshit when it comes to subjective experiences like video games. Consensus is nonsense when it comes to personal preferences. For me what matters about a game is whether or not it is enjoyable to play. To me that is far more important than a checklist of features people consider necessary for a game to be good regardless of gameplay.

Ok. WC3:RF still has a very low critic score for a game from an AAA studio, and the lowest user score of all time. That's subjectivity.

Or are you going to say that you never listen to ratings of games at all?

That said, nobody has mentioned any checklist. WC3:RF is a skin on WC3, what it does is change the graphics and hamper online functionality. If you believe the graphics are good, and that they're worth the downgrade, good for you. A lot of people wouldn't.

[Seranthor]

It's often good to swim against the flow of mindless tears, if it wasn't for the Mass Effect 3 whiners I wouldn't have tried out that series and it became one of my all time favourites.

Well... to be fair, I do have some experience with horrible games... NMS (day one), Medieval Engineers (yea, really), X-Rebirth, Starpoint Gemini... So should be interesting.

[Blodia]

Was it though? Because WC 3 looked more like a corpse to me, the latest News article being about Reaper of Souls, which was 6 years ago... about an other game. Meaning, that Blizzard did absolute shit, it was just kind of there, uncared to rot.

It wasn't a huge playerbase but the online community was running pretty strong, mostly thanks to the ease of use for custom content creation and community support systems such as tournaments, ladders and so on.

[josykay]

It wasn't a huge playerbase but the online community was running pretty strong, mostly thanks to the ease of use for custom content creation and community support systems such as tournaments, ladders and so on.

But the support by Blizzard was zero for years. Which makes it pretty appearant, why Ranked and stuff are an afterthought.
Starcraft Remastered did not have one either. It came a bit later.

Also, on a side note, i often read RoC and TfT should be sold on GoG... but as we see with Heroes 3, Diablo1... chances are online Multiplayer would not work. Like at all.

[Blodia]

But the support by Blizzard was zero for years. Which makes it pretty appearant, why Ranked and stuff are an afterthought.
Starcraft Remastered did not have one either. It came a bit later.

Also, on a side note, i often read RoC and TfT should be sold on GoG... but as we see with Heroes 3, Diablo1... chances are online Multiplayer would not work. Like at all.

And zero support was enough with the features the game had.

[Dhrizzle]

Ok. WC3:RF still has a very low critic score for a game from an AAA studio, and the lowest user score of all time. That's subjectivity.

No that's objectivity - those things will remain facts regardless of anyone's opinions. My point is those objective facts don't matter to how much people enjoy the game.

Or are you going to say that you never listen to ratings of games at all?

Ratings are bollocks, the idea that an experience like a video game can be given a score out of 10 that will accurately reflect how much I like it is nonsense. An aggregator like metacritic is worse and falls into the realm of a farce when you see campaigns like this one happening. Reading reviews that offer good reasoning or from people I know have similar opinions is the only way to get close to a decent idea of whether I will enjoy a game.

That said, nobody has mentioned any checklist. WC3:RF is a skin on WC3, what it does is change the graphics and hamper online functionality. If you believe the graphics are good, and that they're worth the downgrade, good for you. A lot of people wouldn't.

If you follow our quote chain back you'll find a checklist of features which is what kicked off my assertion that games should be rated on how enjoyable they are to play rather than what boxes they tick on a list.

- - - Updated - - -

Well... to be fair, I do have some experience with horrible games... NMS (day one), Medieval Engineers (yea, really), X-Rebirth, Starpoint Gemini... So should be interesting.

I have hundreds of hours sunk into the 2015 SimCity reboot :-P

[Beastiel]

The review bombing is kind of annoying because the game is perfectly bad enough to earn itself an awful grade, like a 3-5, organically.

But dipping the score under a 1 isn't going to do anything other than teach the devs not to take audience feedback seriously and encourage the company to stay even more closed off.

[Seranthor]

The review bombing is kind of annoying because the game is perfectly bad enough to earn itself an awful grade, like a 3-5, organically.

But dipping the score under a 1 isn't going to do anything other than teach the devs not to take audience feedback seriously and encourage the company to stay even more closed off.

This guy gets it.

[Segus1992]

The review bombing is kind of annoying because the game is perfectly bad enough to earn itself an awful grade, like a 3-5, organically.

But dipping the score under a 1 isn't going to do anything other than teach the devs not to take audience feedback seriously and encourage the company to stay even more closed off.

If they disregard the game going into "worst rated game of all time" levels, they deserve everything that's coming to them. Blizzard understands as well as anyone that it's an exaggeration to send out a message. They choose not to act on it normally because they've accumulated so much goodwill in the earlier days of the company's life that they can put out bad games and still have them sell, but a PR fiasco like 0.6/10 isn't something they can just sweep under the rug.

[Astalnar]

Blizzard looks more and more like a giant dumpsterfire. Must say, it really suits them.

[Charge me Doctor]

People overhyped a glorified mod and now are disappointed. Who knew that would happen?

[Khaza-R]

People have every right to be upset with the mess that is Reforge but the metacritic score is just because of review bombing.

All it really proves is that Blizzard has some of the most “passionate” fans out there

[Dhrizzle]

If they disregard the game going into "worst rated game of all time" levels, they deserve everything that's coming to them. Blizzard understands as well as anyone that it's an exaggeration to send out a message. They choose not to act on it normally because they've accumulated so much goodwill in the earlier days of the company's life that they can put out bad games and still have them sell, but a PR fiasco like 0.6/10 isn't something they can just sweep under the rug.

Nah, it takes a tiny proportion of players to review bomb like this, assuming they all actually played the game and aren't just jumping on a bleating internet hate train. Obvious campaigns can and should be ignored as customer feedback.