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

[Edge-]

Can't you see the consistency here? The numbers?

If you literally ignore the other 18 reviews and look at those 4, sure.

But that would mean that you're intentionally ignoring context that would undermine your argument.

That's also known as a lie.

Oh fuck, don't tell me it's my fault again you can't read/refuse to read and hence what I've said is a "conspiracy" again?

No, it's your fault that you're misrepresenting facts.

You see their scores? All 60-70s? Nothing wrong with what I've said. But keep dodging

What is this, then? Is this something that doesn't exist, despite literally existing here? https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/w...critic-reviews

[jackofwind]

6/10 for a shit product like this is a great complement. You call it "conspiracy" I call it "common sense", and it seems you are completely devoid of it. Why not you prove me that what i've said is merely a conspiracy then。 The delay is obvious as day dude. Keep dodging.

Sure, but that's the exact same argument people make about jet fuel and steel beams. Every single conspiracy theorist in the world shouts that they're the only one with common sense, but that doesn't make them any less batshit. Flat Earthers? It's just common sense baby.

You made the initial claim, it's on you to back it up. Your entire argument is just a series of logical fallacies. You haven't actually presented a single coherent argument with substantive evidence to back it up.

- - - Updated - - -

Can't you see the consistency here? https://imgur.com/a/YcEPXAA The numbers? Oh fuck, don't tell me it's my fault again you can't read/refuse to read and hence what I've said is a "conspiracy" again? Don't be childish. You see their scores? All 60-70s? Nothing wrong with what I've said. But keep dodging. And why are you linking WC3. We're talking about reforged here.

You're cherry picking a bunch of reviews and ignoring the ones that are lower, then claiming all the reviews are like the ones you linked. I could handpick 5x 10/10 reviews and claim they're all like that while ignoring 50x 1/10 reviews - that's in essence what you're doing. Either show all the data or none of it, don't be disingenuous.

Do you really think you're fooling anyone but yourself with that nonsense?

[lockybalboa]

If you literally ignore the other 18 reviews and look at those 4, sure.

But that would mean that you're intentionally ignoring context that would undermine your argument.

That's also known as a lie.



No, it's your fault that you're misrepresenting facts.





What is this, then? Is this something that doesn't exist, despite literally existing here? https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/w...critic-reviews

You call 60s-65s scores for a game of this calibre not inflated then? Not politically correct enough for you?

[jackofwind]

You call 60s-65s scores for a game of this calibre not inflated then? Not politically correct enough for you?

You really need to go look up with politically correct means.

[Edge-]

You call 60s-65s scores for a game of this calibre not inflated then? Not politically correct enough for you?

No, I don't. The game is not great, but it's not fundamentally broken. A 6 on average (i.e. some scores above, plenty below) is not a great score and based on what I've seen of this game, is a fair assessment.

Now you're backpedaling, and I have no clue what "politically correct" has to do with anything. Back your arguments up with evidence or don't expect anyone to treat you differently than an old guy shouting at the clouds.

[lockybalboa]

Sure, but that's the exact same argument people make about jet fuel and steel beams. Every single conspiracy theorist in the world shouts that they're the only one with common sense, but that doesn't make them any less batshit. Flat Earthers? It's just common sense baby.

You made the initial claim, it's on you to back it up. Your entire argument is just a series of logical fallacies. You haven't actually presented a single coherent argument with substantive evidence to back it up.

- - - Updated - - -



You're cherry picking a bunch of reviews and ignoring the ones that are lower, then claiming all the reviews are like the ones you linked. I could handpick 5x 10/10 reviews and claim they're all like that while ignoring 50x 1/10 reviews - that's in essence what you're doing. Either show all the data or none of it, don't be disingenuous.

Do you really think you're fooling anyone but yourself with that nonsense?

60 is inflated BS for this piece of crap. How many times do you need me to repeat myself.

[Edge-]

60 is inflated BS for this piece of crap. How many times do you need me to repeat myself.

In your opinion*

[jackofwind]

60 is inflated BS for this piece of crap. How many times do you need me to repeat myself.

That's your opinion. That's great. It does nothing to prove any kind of conspiracy.

So I guess what that means is you can repeat yourself as many times as you want, it's never going to be proof of anything because it's just your personal opinion.

[Polarthief]

0.5 is a hilarious score. IMO it's actually more of a 4/10. But I think it's just the hype compared to disappointment, expecting 'Blizzard polish', and the thing that was incredibly scummy = deleting the old game completely.

As someone personally outraged by this garbage ass game:

- If WC3R came out as WC3 today and there was no "Reforged": I'd probably give it a 7 or even 8 out of 10. Very buggy, but it's a great game. Lots of campaign missions and a map maker?! There's gonna be SO MANY GAMES MADE FROM THIS! (literally what WC3 did)
- But because we live in a reality where it's a remake and not a brand new game: 4/10, just looking at WC3R. Not looking at what happened to WC3, not looking at the Custom Games scene.
- Taking literally everything into account: Nah the 0.5/10 is justified IMO after ruining the classic game and destroying the custom games scene. The world would have been a (ever so slightly) better place if this game never came out​. That's how you know this game deserves the < 1 score.

[lockybalboa]

That's your opinion. That's great. It does nothing to prove any kind of conspiracy.

So I guess what that means is you can repeat yourself as many times as you want, it's never going to be proof of anything because it's just your personal opinion.

If reviewers giving this piece of crap 60+ isn't telling enough then I don't know what is. They just want to be PC

[jackofwind]

If reviewers giving this piece of crap 60+ isn't telling enough then I don't know what is. They just want to be PC

A) That's not what PC means.

B) Reviewers not giving the score that you personally think they should isn't evidence of anything.

[Flurryfang]

I guess a score of 0.5 means, that not only is the game bad, but the world got a little bit colder and darker because of it? xD

[jackofwind]

I guess a score of 0.5 means, that not only is the game bad, but the world got a little bit colder and darker because of it? xD

IMO ratings that low should go to games that actually don't function at all - things like Big Rigs. Games that aren't even working games because they're simply unplayable.

[jackofwind]

My opinion on what? If you mean people in your line of work I feel mainstream game journalists are all corrupted parasites robbing and lying for a living.

What a shocking revelation, we never would have guessed.

[lockybalboa]

A) That's not what PC means.

B) Reviewers not giving the score that you personally think they should isn't evidence of anything.

Those so-called journalists are scums lying for a living. And it is not just me that feel that way. Just keep at the prevalent disparity between user opinions and these so-called "pro" journalists. They are nothing but parasites.

[Edge-]

My opinion on what? If you mean people in your line of work I feel mainstream game journalists are all corrupted parasites robbing and lying for a living.

Again, I'm not a game writer. This is a terrible argument to fall back on when the rest of your arguments fail.

[jackofwind]

Those so-called journalists are scums lying for a living. And it is not just me that feel that way. Just keep at the prevalent disparity between user opinions and these so-called "pro" journalists. They are nothing but parasites.

Being extra vocal and indignant about your opinion doesn't make it anything greater than just your opinion.

Also, the best way to stick it to the people you think are useless parasites is to simply not read their reviews, not pay attention to them, and be one person who provides less traffic to their websites. You're probably more heavily invested in them than most people right now, based on your vehemence.

[lockybalboa]

Again, I'm not a game writer. This is a terrible argument to fall back on when the rest of your arguments fail.

How so? Just look at the PC and inflated scores they give. They are slaves beholden to developers and not sincere in their game appraisal.

- - - Updated - - -

Being extra vocal and indignant about your opinion doesn't make it anything greater than just your opinion.

Also, the best way to stick it to the people you think are useless parasites is to simply not read their reviews, not pay attention to them, and be one person who provides less traffic to their websites. You're probably more heavily invested in them than most people right now, based on your vehemence.

I never pay heed to their appraisals but their blatant dishonesty irks the heck out of me.

[Edge-]

Just look at the PC and inflated scores they give.

You keep saying "PC" as if repeating it makes it true. It's not.

You keep saying scores are inflated. That's your opinion, not an objective fact. Repeating it doesn't make it true.

They are slaves beholden to developers and not sincere in their game appraisal.

This appears to be your foundation for your opinion and you seem to have no interest in accepting that it's blatantly wrong. You do you, dude. I'm done, because there's clearly no interest on your part in engaging in discussion.

[jackofwind]

I never pay heed to their appraisals but their blatant dishonesty irks the heck out of me.

If you were truly not paying attention to their appraisals you wouldn't even know about the scores they were handing out. The more likely truth is that you actually do pay attention and the review scores upset you.

Once again it's your personal opinion. You haven't done anything to back it up other than point at review scores and reiterate the same thing over and over, but it's still just your own opinion.

You say there's a conspiracy, reviewers are slaves to developers, reviewers are shills and try to mislead the public, the list goes on. You have provided evidence for none of that. You say "it's common sense", but that's a logical fallacy you're using to get out of actually showing your evidence. People aren't going to be fooled by that kind of grade-school argumentation here.

You say there's a conspiracy - so prove it. Prove it with more than your feelings, do it with actual tangible evidence. I'd love to read what this evidence is, so present it for me and lay out your argument without resorting to fallacies. Otherwise you're no different than a Flat Earther shouting that "it's just common sense".