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

[Justpassing]

Here's how it happened: Monkey see, monkey do.

[Charge me Doctor]

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

the only thing to be upset about is that blizzard claim all maps made for it honestly. I mean, as russian i may complain about botched VO and wait for savvy people to replace new VO with old one, so there is an extra point of fuck up in that, but the game itself is totally playable if you didn't bothered with wc3 campaign, which is understandable

[gaaara]

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.

if you believe that only a tiny % of people don't like what's being put out for basically a full priced game....you..are living in an alternate reality.

There are valid points of why this is disappointing, and what's worse is..this is Blizzard. There was some expectations from what was reveled early on and then what was launched as an end product with basically way too many features removed with no road plan to explain to the community what happened..and what the next steps are.

The bombing is silly, but it also shows how passionate these people were...they really messed up with this. The entire refund thing was also another joke...100% illegal in australia.

I think starcraft did a pretty good job of a remake...this however fails pretty hard. Blizzard used to be a "its done when its done"...this is all but a memory in the past.
CDProject is defiantly one of the more last developers that listen and provide what they say.

On another note i am looking forward to CnC remake, that so far looks pretty promising, especially with the original westwood studio taking development lead and with no EA hands.

[Coldkil]

I don't really get why so many people are pissed off at this review bombing.

Granted, i get why it's a crappy way to express disappointment, and way too many times players are just entitled brats that want the moon for free.

However, let's look at the context. WC3:R had been presented in a much better light than what it really is. Players were super interested in it, only to be let down. The product is objectively sub-par, and they also made so the old client doesn't work anymore.

Is the game worth an objective 0/10? Don't think so, since you can play it. However i wouldn't give it more than a 2 or 3 because given its legacy and the end result it's a terrible, terrible game. Doesn't matter much if you can play it or not - you could play Superman 64 aswell, it just was an abysmal experience.

Take this as the reaction for the Nth slip-up of Blizzard, that promised good stuff to come and wasn't able to deliver. Players are tired of the same shit over and over and do the only thing they can to express this. Is it the right way? Far from that, but given it has the biggest effect i can understand why it's going like this.

[ParanoiD84]

Review bombing is a way and pretty much the only way for players/fans to show that the product is shit so fine by me perhaps blizzard sees what kind of crap they put out.

[Mehrunes]

Not amazing at all, I'd like to see the real score, not just the review bombers.

How did it come to this, easy. The Devs deved and the whiners didn't like the devs devving because the whiners think they are better devs than the devs. So they review bombed the game. Folks need to learn to walk away sometimes instead of destroying everything because they dont get their own way.

More like devs fucked up on twenty different levels, which people can point out without claiming that they'd be able to make a game.

Also... it appears to me, that people wanted something... way more "amibtious", of which we had next to none implication, or mentioning. Just look at for example Starcraft Remastered, it become pretty quickly appearant for me, that gameplay will mostly be the same. That Pathfinding will remain the same clunkyness, it was 17 years ago, and Blizzard even confirmed that. That we won't have a Starcraft 2 like unit selection, but still have the 12 men battlegroups.

But there were more than implications. Now, Blizzard did walk back on some things like expanding the story a bit, but in regards to others like the making the cinematics more cinematic they did not. Also, Starcraft remaster mess up the original Starcraft. WC3 Reforged did do that on top of not delivering.

[Eosia]

Yeah, because review bombing isn't a thing on the Internet.

[Shakzor]

Only products that deserve to get review bombed get review bombed. Good.

ah yes, like Metro games because Exodus went for epic time exclusivity or Borderlands for the same reason.
People reviewbomb for the dumbest shit and say it's to "send a message". Metacritic review scores are the most useless things to reviewbomb, since no one gives a shit about those.
Not saying Reforged is perfect (far from good, imo), but it certainly isn't a 0.5/10, more a 4/10-6/10

[Flurryfang]

I guess that is what happens, when you make the most lackluster "remake/rework" i have seen since the 3rd remaster of Skyrim xD

In an age, where we have some really good remasters, like SC remaster and Age of Empires II definitive edition, people know what to expect and what not to be satisfied with. Warcraft 3 Reforged is a mess of a master, which is in many areas a direct worse version of the old game.

Remasters/"Reforges" are supposed to be better products, that shows a good analytic mind have been used and looked at a previous product, knowing that there could be improvements. If all Blizzard could see to improve with WC3 is improved models and graphics, then you have kinda fucked up.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

https://www.metacritic.com/browse/ga...=desc&page=158

Kind of amazing, honestly. It started off seeming like a cool upgrade to WC3, with updated cinematics, modern graphics, UI upgrades, balance changes etc. that most people were excited for.

It ended up ruining even the old Warcraft 3 by applying all of the system changes to that game as well.

How did it come to this? Why do we as consumers support this kind of business model?

It's largely because this generation of people rage on Twitter for five minutes, feel they've accomplished their goals, and move on, letting businesses (and politicians) get away with whatever they want.

There's a reason "write a letter/email but don't send it" is a valid psychological solution to a lot of anger and frustration issues. Twitter and social media just allows one to apply it to any trivial thing.

[Tavin]

Is the game bad? No

Do people love to hate random things for no reason? Absolutely, someone started so the rest followed

[Orby]

Does this matter - 5 or 0.5? For me if the game has user rating lower than 8 - then its shitty and not worth buying when there are bunch of better games.

So personal opinion doesn't matter? 5/10 means average not awful, 0.5/10 means its barely a game at all and hardly functioning. I would happily buy a 5/10 game because it means there's some quality there its just not up to par to be considered good. Bomberman 64 was rated similar and even though that game got slated for not being like the SNES Bomberman games for missing several featured like a good multiplayer it was still a lot of fun and I enjoyed it for what it was. It wasnt great but I got some value.

You kids these days have been ruined by journalism from IGN where 8/10 is considered average. Anything 8-9/10 is near perfect. I don't believe any game is close to warranting a 0/10 or a 10/10. Because there is no such thing as a perfect or perfectly bad game unless it's a biased personal opinion. Witcher 3 is my favourite game of all time but isnt perfect, there were bugs on release and even a graphical downgrade from what was advertised. Should that then get a 0/10 for not delivering what was promised? No, because that's stupid and Blizzard is flavour of the month for hating so gotta review bomb Blizzard.

[Flurryfang]

Is the game bad? No

Do people love to hate random things for no reason? Absolutely, someone started so the rest followed

If it was an original game, sure it is not bad, quite alright actually.

But we are talking about a remaster here, so the game has to stand up to its previous version. At that point it matters little if it is a good game or not, if it is a direct worse product, than what was before.

[Unholyground]

Nailed it!

It's nothing by rabid lunatics making a point the only way they feel they can.

From everything I watched and read a lot was promised and then they shit all over all those promises and took away things that were originally there, sounds like a GREAT UPDATE.

[ssviolett]

So personal opinion doesn't matter? 5/10 means average not awful, 0.5/10 means its barely a game at all and hardly functioning. I would happily buy a 5/10 game because it means there's some quality there its just not up to par to be considered good. Bomberman 64 was rated similar and even though that game got slated for not being like the SNES Bomberman games for missing several featured like a good multiplayer it was still a lot of fun and I enjoyed it for what it was. It wasnt great but I got some value.

You kids these days have been ruined by journalism from IGN where 8/10 is considered average. Anything 8-9/10 is near perfect. I don't believe any game is close to warranting a 0/10 or a 10/10. Because there is no such thing as a perfect or perfectly bad game unless it's a biased personal opinion. Witcher 3 is my favourite game of all time but isnt perfect, there were bugs on release and even a graphical downgrade from what was advertised. Should that then get a 0/10 for not delivering what was promised? No, because that's stupid and Blizzard is flavour of the month for hating so gotta review bomb Blizzard.

You probably didnt understand what I was trying to say. There are several good games appearing on the market every week - WEEK - you cant play them all - not enough time even if you are jobless student. In previous 0,5 years I've played Classic, Resident Evil 2, Pathologic 2 and Plague Tale: Innocence - which were great games I enjoyed a lot. I also tried new DMC, new Hearthstone addon, latest FF - didnt like it. Didnt have time to try more games. I was thinking about buying and playing new WC3, but when I learned they didnt bring anything new, but only make some things worse - like menus, custom maps, optimisation, and, probably the most important, voice acting - why should I spend my time on this quite average game? I was also thinking about preordering Shadowlands - now definitely no. Maybe new WC3 didnt deserve THAT bad rating - I dont care - for me its a piece of junk Im not going to play.
Oh, and also, I never check critics rating - I usually rank games by "most discussed" and choose some with top user score. The next games Im going to try are probably Sekiro and new Walking Dead.

[Khaza-R]

I don't really get why so many people are pissed off at this review bombing.

Granted, i get why it's a crappy way to express disappointment, and way too many times players are just entitled brats that want the moon for free.

However, let's look at the context. WC3:R had been presented in a much better light than what it really is. Players were super interested in it, only to be let down. The product is objectively sub-par, and they also made so the old client doesn't work anymore.

Is the game worth an objective 0/10? Don't think so, since you can play it. However i wouldn't give it more than a 2 or 3 because given its legacy and the end result it's a terrible, terrible game. Doesn't matter much if you can play it or not - you could play Superman 64 aswell, it just was an abysmal experience.

Take this as the reaction for the Nth slip-up of Blizzard, that promised good stuff to come and wasn't able to deliver. Players are tired of the same shit over and over and do the only thing they can to express this. Is it the right way? Far from that, but given it has the biggest effect i can understand why it's going like this.

Because it stifles real feedback. It’s the same reason why people hate hyperbolic complaint threads that plague forums such as these. Constructive feedback gets lost in the mire of outrage and emotion.

[Blodia]

Because it stifles real feedback. It’s the same reason why people hate hyperbolic complaint threads that plague forums such as these. Constructive feedback gets lost in the mire of outrage and emotion.

Constructive feedback is also ignored by Blizzard, because guess what issues were reported during the WC3:RF beta.

[shimerra]

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.

I mean let's not pretend that while the series overall was good the ending was anything but steaming pile of dog shit especially given the context of the series having previous choices matter.

If you think otherwise I could shit in a bowl and dump a pound of salt on it and you'd probably believe me when I told you it was chocolate frosted flakes. I'll even let you pick the color green red or blue .

[Segus1992]

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.

Only if you're a shitty company with a shitty product you're not interested in selling. Otherwise you'll investigate why the outrage is happening, even if you're convinced it's a bandwagon.

Outrage (from stupid people who are just crying as you seem to want to imply) doesn't result in lowest rating of all time, unless the playerbase more or less unanimously agrees.

[zenkai]

https://www.metacritic.com/browse/ga...=desc&page=158

Kind of amazing, honestly. It started off seeming like a cool upgrade to WC3, with updated cinematics, modern graphics, UI upgrades, balance changes etc. that most people were excited for.

It ended up ruining even the old Warcraft 3 by applying all of the system changes to that game as well.

How did it come to this? Why do we as consumers support this kind of business model?

As a top ladder player in SC I loved WC3 even hitting Top 10 on team ladder so I was excited about this game getting an upgrade

How disappointed I was, they didn't do anything really to improve the interface, they could have added elements from SC 2 to make it better like a better interface for custom games. I haven't even played much of it because of how disappointed I was.