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

[Kauko]

That is what Blizzard promised when they revealed the game two years ago.

Yes, they promised a remastered game... not a new game.

[lockybalboa]

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".

All you've done is say " Oh I know you're not right oh I know what you've said is merely a conspiracy" A 5 yr old can do better dodging.

Again let me repeat. I say reviewers tend not to give overly low scores to big developers because there is subtle pressure. The way it happens is that the PR at the gaming companies puts subtle pressure on the review sites to keep the scores high. They create conditional review embargos (you can't release your review before X date unless the score is higher than 80), buy ads on the site, and the gaming sites are reliant on the developers for content. So there is a lot of pressure to keep developers happy on the business end.

[Edge-]

They create conditional review embargos (you can't release your review before X date unless the score is higher than 80)

Sorry, going back on my word here but this is purely to correct factual issues.

This is not, and has never been, accurate, and no media outlet would agree to such an embargo. Ever. Post evidence of this.

buy ads on the site

PR does not in any way touch advertising, they're different disciplines. PR is "earned" media, advertising is "paid" media.

Additionally, editorial at outlets (especially major outlets) don't have any involvement with ads. If they're big enough they have their own ad-sales teams that manage the ads separately from editorial ("Church and State"), and for smaller sites they outsource to third party ad managers as they don't know how to handle that or don't have the bandwidth (in addition to that being highly questionable ethically)

and the gaming sites are reliant on the developers for content.

In no way, shape, or form does this ever make them review games more positively. If this was the case, every review would be glowing because they'd all be terrified of being blacklisted - something that' extremely rare.

You really need to stop talking about shit that you haven't the first clue about.

[Mukind]

Yet here people are reacting this way to genuine reviews...?

IDK seems weird to me bud

Ohhh boo hoo our corporate overlords didn't deserve such a miserable score. lol

Yes they did they made better 20 years ago

People whining about negative brigading need to find something else to do with their time just as bad as the people bragading the reviews

[jackofwind]

All you've done is say " Oh I know you're not right oh I know what you've said is merely a conspiracy" A 5 yr old can do better dodging.

Again let me repeat. I say reviewers tend not to give overly low scores to big developers because there is subtle pressure. The way it happens is that the PR at the gaming companies puts subtle pressure on the review sites to keep the scores high. They create conditional review embargos (you can't release your review before X date unless the score is higher than 80), buy ads on the site, and the gaming sites are reliant on the developers for content. So there is a lot of pressure to keep developers happy on the business end.

I'm not dodging. You presented the initial argument, it's on your to back it up. That's how debate works.

You have no actual evidence to point to that the conspiracy you believe in is happening, but you have strong personal feelings about it. That's great, but I'm not interested in engaging with someone who can't actually present their argument without resorting to logical fallacies.

You just listed a laundry list of things that - if you could actually back them up with solid evidence - would be valid points worth listening to. Unfortunately, you haven't backed them up at all. If these things are happening show me tangible evidence, otherwise it's literally just a lie.

The irony of this is that people like you claim to be woke because of the conspiracies you believe in but it's actually you who believe in things that have no extant proof of being real.

[lockybalboa]

Sorry, going back on my word here but this is purely to correct factual issues.

This is not, and has never been, accurate, and no media outlet would agree to such an embargo. Ever. Post evidence of this.



PR does not in any way touch advertising, they're different disciplines. PR is "earned" media, advertising is "paid" media.

Additionally, editorial at outlets (especially major outlets) don't have any involvement with ads. If they're big enough they have their own ad-sales teams that manage the ads separately from editorial ("Church and State"), and for smaller sites they outsource to third party ad managers as they don't know how to handle that or don't have the bandwidth (in addition to that being highly questionable ethically)



In no way, shape, or form does this ever make them review games more positively. If this was the case, every review would be glowing because they'd all be terrified of being blacklisted - something that' extremely rare.

You really need to stop talking about shit that you haven't the first clue about.

"no media outlet would agree to such an embargo" Woah. How are you sure. Prove evidence. "Additionally, editorial at outlets (especially major outlets) don't have any involvement with ads." -But the company they are working with are concerned with ad revenues. The editorial team' written work affects it more or less. They write less than flattery reviews, ads get pulled out. And how can you be sure that sites are being "ethical" all the time

"In no way, shape, or form does this ever make them review games more positively" -Prove it.

"If this was the case, every review would be glowing because they'd all be terrified of being blacklisted "-That's exactly what is happening: That is why so many scores given by major game-sites are so inflated.

Don't say what I've said are all BS. You are talking BS if all can you counter with is "It's BS because i say it is"


If you wanna keep covering your ears and eyes there's no point in arguing with a wall.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not dodging. You presented the initial argument, it's on your to back it up. That's how debate works.

You have no actual evidence to point to that the conspiracy you believe in is happening, but you have strong personal feelings about it. That's great, but I'm not interested in engaging with someone who can't actually present their argument without resorting to logical fallacies.

You just listed a laundry list of things that - if you could actually back them up with solid evidence - would be valid points worth listening to. Unfortunately, you haven't backed them up at all. If these things are happening show me tangible evidence, otherwise it's literally just a lie.

The irony of this is that people like you claim to be woke because of the conspiracies you believe in but it's actually you who believe in things that have no extant proof of being real.

Fucking hell what a tortoise you are lol.

[jackofwind]

Fucking hell what a tortoise you are lol.

Show me your evidence. If it's so obvious and easy to find you should have no trouble coming up with it.

[Flurryfang]

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.

That is if the only thing you are rating is the actual fun factor/playability of the game.

The question is if scores ever should be made based upon the performance of other games, like when it comes to sequels or, in this instance, remasters.

[jackofwind]

That is if the only thing you are rating is the actual fun factor/playability of the game.

The question is if scores ever should be made based upon the performance of other games, like when it comes to sequels or, in this instance, remasters.

Reviews based on the performance of other games become too subjective to be meaningful for my tastes. It's already a medium with a fair amount of subjectivity in it, so I think every review needs to essentially exist in a void, compared only to the rubric by which all reviews are written.

[Ihsatakar]

Never before had a game retroactively destroy a different game I already owned and loved upon its release, so a <1 score is warranted.

[Flurryfang]

Reviews based on the performance of other games become too subjective to be meaningful for my tastes. It's already a medium with a fair amount of subjectivity in it, so I think every review needs to essentially exist in a void, compared only to the rubric by which all reviews are written.

Hmm i think comparing to other games, is not more subjective than when it comes to liking game art style and theme. Game reviewers are already talking from a unique perspective, as people who play way more games than who they are making the review for.

That aside, if we see a review as guide to buy/not buy, ain't it natural to honest if a game is good compared to its direct competition? If car game A is much better than car game B, is it not in place to talk about the one product as lesser in its review?

Im really unsure about this. I understand that Reforged is, in a void, an alright game. It retains the positive elements of Warcraft 3 pretty well. But it is also a copy of another game. If somebody asked me if they should buy Reforged, im not sure it would be an ethical review if i did not tell them about the option of getting original WC3.

- - - Updated - - -

Never before had a game retroactively destroy a different game I already owned and loved upon its release, so a <1 score is warranted.

Maybe we can talk about the idea of a (-) score, since the game actually reduced the value of more than its own game xD

[jackofwind]

Hmm i think comparing to other games, is not more subjective than when it comes to liking game art style and theme. Game reviewers are already talking from a unique perspective, as people who play way more games than who they are making the review for.

That aside, if we see a review as guide to buy/not buy, ain't it natural to honest if a game is good compared to its direct competition? If car game A is much better than car game B, is it not in place to talk about the one product as lesser in its review?

Im really unsure about this. I understand that Reforged is, in a void, an alright game. It retains the positive elements of Warcraft 3 pretty well. But it is also a copy of another game. If somebody asked me if they should buy Reforged, im not sure it would be an ethical review if i did not tell them about the option of getting original WC3.

I guess the difference is that I don't read reviews as a guide to buy or not because games and movies and music are simply far too subjective on their own to have anyone recommend things via review. Simple recommendations based on potential similarities, sure - "if you like Final Fantasy Tactics you might like Fire Emblem" but those are really just suggestions based on genre.

To say, for instance, Dirt (Alice in Chains) is a better album than Nevermind (Nirvana) because of XYZ in a review is far too subjective to be worthwhile in my opinion. I wouldn't say it's fair to say that a particular album or game gets a review score that is impacted by the work of a completely different band or dev studio. I think it's more worthwhile, in my previous example, to review both albums in a void against a rubric, discuss their style etc., and then say "if you want a heavier Nevermind you may like Dirt".

[Flurryfang]

I guess the difference is that I don't read reviews as a guide to buy or not because games and movies and music are simply far too subjective on their own to have anyone recommend things via review. Simple recommendations based on potential similarities, sure - "if you like Final Fantasy Tactics you might like Fire Emblem" but those are really just suggestions based on genre.

To say, for instance, Dirt (Alice in Chains) is a better album than Nevermind (Nirvana) because of XYZ in a review is far too subjective to be worthwhile in my opinion. I wouldn't say it's fair to say that a particular album or game gets a review score that is impacted by the work of a completely different band or dev studio. I think it's more worthwhile, in my previous example, to review both albums in a void against a rubric, discuss their style etc., and then say "if you want a heavier Nevermind you may like Dirt".

Then what do you read reviews as instead?

I feel like when it comes to any subject of taste and opinion, you are never gonna get away from subjectivity no matter you do. Its impossible to be objective in a void, as your own taste is developed based upon previous experiences. Videogamedunkey have an interesting talk about it, how reviews are only good if you personally know what the reviewer overall like compared to yourself and then seeing the score in that light. If you a reviewer loves games that you hate, you should properly play games they dislike, as an example.

What we see as good also changes based upon what standard is set by rest of the entertainment, that we consume. If you have a very bad year of games, a game that is actually quite good might get 10, since it goes above everything around it, but only an 8 in a year, where it was worse than other good games.

That is the core of my wondering with Reforged. It has been launched in a period, where a lot of remakes have impressed players and felt like devs were going above and beyond in quality. Spyro was extremely well received, the same with Crash and Resident Evil 2. Our standards have been set by that and then comes Reforged.

[Onikaroshi]

That is the core of my wondering with Reforged. It has been launched in a period, where a lot of remakes have impressed players and felt like devs were going above and beyond in quality. Spyro was extremely well received, the same with Crash and Resident Evil 2. Our standards have been set by that and then comes Reforged.

I mean, if you're comparing a remaster to a remake you're already setting yourself up for disappointment. Reforged was never advertised as a Remake. It was always on the same engine.

Reforged is more comparable to something like the FFVIII remaster.

[Graeham]

Modern day Blizzard simply do not understand what it is about Warcraft 3 and the Vanilla -> TBC -> WOTLK era that people enjoyed. It's been that way for quite some time now. In no small part due to many of the original developers having left the company altogether.

[jackofwind]

Then what do you read reviews as instead?

I feel like when it comes to any subject of taste and opinion, you are never gonna get away from subjectivity no matter you do. Its impossible to be objective in a void, as your own taste is developed based upon previous experiences. Videogamedunkey have an interesting talk about it, how reviews are only good if you personally know what the reviewer overall like compared to yourself and then seeing the score in that light. If you a reviewer loves games that you hate, you should properly play games they dislike, as an example.

What we see as good also changes based upon what standard is set by rest of the entertainment, that we consume. If you have a very bad year of games, a game that is actually quite good might get 10, since it goes above everything around it, but only an 8 in a year, where it was worse than other good games.

That is the core of my wondering with Reforged. It has been launched in a period, where a lot of remakes have impressed players and felt like devs were going above and beyond in quality. Spyro was extremely well received, the same with Crash and Resident Evil 2. Our standards have been set by that and then comes Reforged.

I read reviews more as op-ed pieces. I've literally never purchased a game based on a review, ever, but I have stayed away from games that have been reviewed as objectively nonfunctional.

Because reviews are subjective to the tastes of each reviewer they are inherently biased, sure. That's why they're inherently limited. The key is finding a reviewer who shares your exact tastes, or just reading reviews and picking the objective things from them that you want info on to educate your decision - like what's the job system like, how does loot work, is it bullet-spongey, etc etc.

[october breeze]

Not at all, understand that everything pre-release is up for debate. Just because a dev shows off a feature a year before the release, doesn't mean that it is guaranteed to be in the game. This is life and this is the industry, whether you like it or not. Now the whole them advertising the changed cinematic on the website is a different thing...

You are trying to establish spouting nonsense as a norm and brush it as "it is life and industry!!". This mindset is dangerous to any decent and honest producer.
If they are not sure that they can develop something, they MUST NOT talk about it. Easy as that.

Otherwise, I can post pictures of iPhone 11 on eBay and post you a Nokia 1100 instead, and say, look it is lyfffe and indoostry!!!, I couldn't keep up with my promise!
How will that work for you?

[Redroniksre]

You are trying to establish spouting nonsense as a norm and brush it as "it is life and industry!!". This mindset is dangerous to any decent and honest producer.
If they are not sure that they can develop something, they MUST NOT talk about it. Easy as that.

Otherwise, I can post pictures of iPhone 11 on eBay and post you a Nokia 1100 instead, and say, look it is lyfffe and indoostry!!!, I couldn't keep up with my promise!
How will that work for you?

Well i mean if going to an extreme works for you, sure. Heres the thing, you assume that the only reason a feature isnt in the game is due to lying. This is wrong. Let me give you an example.

Say we have feature X, Y, and Z. These features are decently far in development so we announce them. Then during testing we feel that feature Y conflicts with X, or simply cant work out. Now according to you, we should keep it otherwise " we r lyinnngg". Or we cut it and announce the cut.

And unless you want to hear nothing about the game until it is done, then i recommend caution whenever a developer talks about something. Things can always change.

[Coldkil]

I don't really think the game deserves a 6/10. It's fundamentally not the game that has been advertised. At best a 4/10.

The whole point is not that the game "works or not". The game is objectively playable. But so it was the original. WC3:R should have been a complete overhaul and instead it's a mere "let's slap new models on the game and take out some features. Oh, and update ToS so they cannot steal another DotA".

It's literally not the game it was sold as. This is worth zero to me. I'm more than fine with the bombing because that's not the product people bought. Plus they managed to also break the original client so people that didn't buy it have a broken game now.

It's not "barely sufficient". It's "completely unacceptable". Again, the game was working already so "at least it works" doesn't count anything.

[Acidbaron]

I mean if you really want a decent RTS remake of that era, buy Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition for halve the price. You can even buy the first instalment and you still have money left over. Sure it does not have elves and orcs but hey at least it is an improvement.

Have to say it does take a special kind of talent to create something that did well in the past and make it worse, Makes you wonder with that kind of company vision how badly diablo 4 will turn out considering they crapped all over one of their flagship games.