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

[Belize]

https://www.reddit.com/r/warcraft3/c...by_on_twitter/

So the menu system is basically a Chrome Client. Blizzard Quality (tm).

So I'm a developer, having worked on both web apps and self-contained desktop solutions, right, and I'm left scratching my head as to why the fuck this would be a thing.

Just. Why? Were they planning literal Chrome browser support for a BNet launcher, cut it and said "eh fuck it, it's too complicated to build a basic goddamn interface that runs within our program so we'll just leave it".

[Segus1992]

If anything it makes metacritic and the people who take that site seriously worth analyzing.

If you don't take any significant number of people seriously you're just bigoted. It's a huge website, and a game reaching anywhere near the bottom is definitely worth discussing to anyone who doesn't make being ignorant a point of pride.

[Animaneth]

This is definitely in part due to bandwagoning the downvotes, but to reach the accolade of "worst game of all time" the playerbase has to be pretty much unanimous in its hatred. Another game of similar (probably actually way bigger) hype that was bandwagon-hated was Diablo 3, which had somewhere around 3.0/10 user score at its lowest on Metacritic.

Well when D3 came out, review bombing was not that popular / common. Not saying review bombing is a new phenomena.

[Hyral]

Review-bombing is stupid and counter productive. If you dislike the game and know it is bad then give it a proper rating. Now people will just point to the ridiculously low score to say "It's just the adultbabies whining, the game is obviously not that bad" and you know what, if I didn't know anything I would believe them.

Be honest, give it the 5/10 it deserves. There's a game there and it's alright, but everything besides the game is trash, so it's 5/10. I don't know how the destruction of the original client should be taken into account though, but maybe drop the score to 4/10 and put a disclaimer at the top the score suffered for retroactively damaging a previous version of the game or something.

There is plenty wrong about the game without having to lie or put up a show about it. Lying always hurts your cause more than helps.

[Edge-]

If you don't take any significant number of people seriously you're just bigoted.

Not at all. User reviews are usually pretty garbage. There's context backing this score up a bit, but even then it's still hyperbolic nonsense for the most part. Note: I think this remaster is garbage and have no interest in spending a penny on it.

Has nothing to do with "bigotry", it's simply a reality of user reviews. More often than not they're junk, just like when Death Stranding got review bombed by PS4 fans because it was coming to PC.

[GreenJesus]

It's a remaster of part of the game released almost 20 years ago.
People went in expecting a full fledged new game with all AND MORE features the original had and now they are dissapointed.

IMHO: Once the community goes "look people we made it, we bombed a score" that same score kinda loses value.

I'll wait a month till they fix some of the issues and then buy it and replay the campaign; play a bit with custom-maps... and that's all i expect out of it.

Blizzard's own words paraphrased "this is not the just the regular remaster, this goes beyond it" and they charged 30-40 US dollars for it with those expectations.

[Segus1992]

Well when D3 came out, review bombing was not that popular / common. Not saying review bombing is a new phenomena.

I mean, Diablo has just under half the reviews that WC3:RF does, and was actually loved by many on release, the main reason people even hated on it at all was because they couldn't connect on launch day. Big difference.

D3 was heavily review bombed too, the playerbase just wasn't as unanimous about it.

[Caprias]

Polarizing hate train that in the end will actually boost sells (it almost always does cuz ton of PR).
VS
Objective critique and disappointment until the game fades away and hurts Blizzard/Acti financially.

Acti/Blizz won, gj gamer morons, hate but still play/consume the product.. lol

[Segus1992]

Not at all. User reviews are usually pretty garbage. There's context backing this score up a bit, but even then it's still hyperbolic nonsense for the most part. Note: I think this remaster is garbage and have no interest in spending a penny on it.

Has nothing to do with "bigotry", it's simply a reality of user reviews. More often than not they're junk, just like when Death Stranding got review bombed by PS4 fans because it was coming to PC.

Again, as I've said many times, I'm not saying the score itself is indicative of anything, but the fact that enough people thought it was worth pushing it down to worst game of all time has merit to discuss, review bombing notwithstanding.
Disregarding Metacritic entirely is just shoving your head in the sand because you disagree.

[Rustedsaint]

If you don't take any significant number of people seriously you're just bigoted. It's a huge website, and a game reaching anywhere near the bottom is definitely worth discussing to anyone who doesn't make being ignorant a point of pride.

Lol clearly you haven’t been paying attention to the reviews posted. The majority of reviews are spam from people who don’t even have the game
I’m not saying the game doesn’t have problems but the fact remains there are worser games listed higher in the list

[Segus1992]

Lol clearly you haven’t been paying attention to the reviews posted. The majority of reviews are spam from people who don’t even have the game
I’m not saying the game doesn’t have problems but the fact remains there are worser games listed higher in the list

Clearly you don't really understand the discussion, but people not having the game doesn't mean they have no reason to review it, since the launch of the game literally downgraded another game that's worked just fine for 17 years.

[NoiseTank13]

Starcraft Remastered was decent, only what, ten, twenty bucks? Everything is for the most part intact, and was fun playing it on modern rigs again, you can swap between Remastered and Classic styles on the fly, it's what a remaster should be and was advertised to be.

Warcraft 3 Remastered(Reforged) has overdesigned, remade models that look samey from the top down view. Removed clan, ladder, no profile stats, draconian EULA on custom maps in an obvious, petty method to claim the next DotA, buggy campaigns, no custom campaign. $40 bucks for a literal downgrade.

Best part? It doesn't matter if you didn't buy it. You are getting the mechanical '"upgrade" "free of charge" adding 20 gigs to your HDD, screwing up and deleting your saves and maps, and downgrading your overall experience. People who don't own the "Remaster" probably do own the original and have to deal with the free "upgrade".

This "review hate-train bandwagon choo choo all aboard" didn't happen in a vacuum. Internet crusaders are almost never organized to this degree, unless it was something they all shared an agreement on, and passionate about their game and experiences to follow through with it. This is the result of a year and a half of radio silence from Blizzard, leaving people in the dark, so when the results came in and a product was delivered that not only didn't live up to peoples overgrown expectations, it downgraded their current experience as well.

I didn't add to the dogpile, as I think it's overkill at this point, but I do get a kick out of seeing the sub 1 scores, and an even bigger kick out of reading peoples post saying 'oh no now Blizzard will become more insular and sheltered from the world from all this bullying' like, bitch, please. It's like you think Blizzard is a singular entity that has feelings and emotions and will become a recluse and that all the mean schoolgirls giving him a wedgie will make him an incel. No, what's going to happen is John Bangowiz is going to come into the office, already knowing what happened, get a cup of coffee, sending a request to another person to contact Metacritic to see if they can scrub some of the reviews, and sending an email to a higher-up an explanation of why he sent a request to Meta-critic, before settling down at the computer and watch funny videos of Russian kids breaking their backs trying to do parkour on snowy buildings.

I also get a certain sense of sadness, as I didn't expect people to break new ground with the Metacritic rating with a beloved Blizzard property, something most people hold in their hearts as sacred. In twenty years Blizzard went from this childhood hero to this strung-out has-been in a Santa Suit trying to get kids to his lawn in the middle of July. It's sad it came to this, and it's all of Blizzards doing.

[Mirishka]

Because people are idiots that are used to abuse (you'll get people that'll defend literally every little thing) and are incapable of conviction to not spend on Blizzard games... much like EA, who get away with a ton of scummy business practices, and people still keep buying their games.

Alternate take: not everyone has to be a clone of you, or hate the same things you hate.

Shocking, I know. Gasp.

- - - Updated - - -

We don't need another thread, this has been mentioned in the megathread a dozen times.

Some people think that their opinion is special and needs a special spotlight all to itself.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, as I've said many times, I'm not saying the score itself is indicative of anything, but the fact that enough people thought it was worth pushing it down to worst game of all time has merit to discuss, review bombing notwithstanding.
Disregarding Metacritic entirely is just shoving your head in the sand because you disagree.

Its called review bombing. Which gamers/nerds do pretty much any time a game, developer, movie etc hurts their feelings somehow.

WC3 remastered sounds like a mess, and for that reason I'm not buying it. And I think its BS that it modifies the original game. But these people that don't even own a product and just want to hop on the outrage bandwagon are just... in need of a life.

[Edge-]

Again, as I've said many times, I'm not saying the score itself is indicative of anything, but the fact that enough people thought it was worth pushing it down to worst game of all time has merit to discuss, review bombing notwithstanding.

In this instance, given the contextual information alongside it, yes, there is some merit to that specific score. But again, user scores are largely valueless without that additional context. Again, I'll point to Death Stranding - a game that by all accounts was received well both critically and with consumers. But it had a dogshit review score. Why? Not because the game was broken. Not because online was buggy as hell. Not because there were any actual ISSUES WITH THE GAME. Purely because PS fanboys were mad that it wasn't a PS4 exclusive and went to bomb it.

Disregarding Metacritic entirely is just shoving your head in the sand because you disagree.

Metacritic user scores are a single data point, and not a terribly meaningful one at that. Again, it's the context around that score that gives it a bit of credibility for being so low, but it alone isn't significant.

[Onikaroshi]

Metacritic user scores are a single data point, and not a terribly meaningful one at that. Again, it's the context around that score that gives it a bit of credibility for being so low, but it alone isn't significant.

Like I said before, RDR2 PC has been patched as far as I remember but still maintains a 4.8 user score on meta from launch issues

[Garretdejiko]

Welp, it seems that the circus is over, you can't write an user review anymore. Either that or the page decides to die when clicking Submit

[GreenJesus]

That's why I mentioned Fallout 76, which got, and still gets similiar flak, was released fairly recently, from a strong franchize, but still has only a third of the "review" numbers, while having a way better score.
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.
That is not "reforged", that is a new game. Also, it was appearant, that the basic UI would remain the same from very early on in the development cycle. People who still expected a "new" game were lying to themselves. (Also, TBF, the Alpha Ui was hidously ugly).
The only points I can understand are the disappointment about the cutscenes... because, well, yeah, they technically are reforged, because they use the reforged graphics, but after the fairly good Culling cutscene, most was a letdown. Still in a strict sense, since that cutscene is marked as "WIP" not false advertisement.
And of course the lose of features of WC 3, like ranked, clans and so on. Giving people having classic a "downgrade". While I can see, that disable might be necessary, to grant the possibility to fuse classic and reforge, so people can play together, instead of splitting the player base, Blizzard should have communicated, that that stuff is only temporaty for a let's say "Merging periode".

As for the copyrights, well, the ownership of the costum games, I honestly see, where that comes from. Dota is a Starcraft map, designed by Blizzard, recreated with tools from Blizzard in Warcraft, using assets owned by Blizzard. Wanting royalties is shady for that.
Also, the other IP clause is there to simply portect blizzard from claims by other companies.

Blizzard at blizzcon literally said "this will not be the regular remaster" so people expected what they showed in 2018.

[NoiseTank13]

Welp, it seems that the circus is over, you can't write an user review anymore. Either that or the page decides to die when clicking Submit

This has been happening throughout the whole ordeal, give it a bit.

Metacritic probably has some weird hiccups

[unbound]

They started out by promising a number of modernizations to the game. For a price tag of $30, that seemed like an okay deal.

When released, pretty much only the cinematics were actually updated. While that is nice, that isn't worth remotely paying $30.

Consumers support this kind of business model because they don't want to admit that they were wrong. Ever ask someone about their car? The answer, more than 90% of the time, is that they love their car, and it works very well, hardly ever being in the shop. It isn't until you dig into details that you find out their bias (got a chuckle once when someone bragging about their car was talking about how it was in the shop for the 3rd time to replace the catalytic converter, and it was a relatively new car).

You see the same thing with die-hard supporters of any product or group (Apple / Android, Microsoft / Sony / Nintendo, Democrat / Republican, Ford / Chevy / whatever, even certain house builders). Many people feel overly invested in their decisions and to question their decision feels like you are questioning their competence or intelligence, so they'll fight you tooth and nail. They will defend the company like they were part of the family for the same reason.

Heck, we see the same thing on the big topic for this site - WoW. Despite the fact that the game is clearly going down in quality, you have staunch defenders that get extremely rattled. And as long as companies can count on suckers...er, customers like this, then they will continue to find ways to be cheaper and cheaper or pull more money out of customers as much as possible.

[Caprias]

Heck, we see the same thing on the big topic for this site - WoW. Despite the fact that the game is clearly going down in quality, you have staunch defenders that get extremely rattled. And as long as companies can count on suckers...er, customers like this, then they will continue to find ways to be cheaper and cheaper or pull more money out of customers as much as possible.

It is impossible there are a ton of different target audiences playing the game differently and preferring different things, right?
Also only your perspective is the true and only one.