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

[lockybalboa]

Pretty funny all the so-called "professional reviewers" from all the major mainstream gamesites still have the cheek to give this joke of a game 6.5-7 scores. IGN didn't even have the balls to give an official score because they are afraid of offending both the developer and gamers. Bunch of corrupt opportunist bastards

[Donald Hellscream]

Why people are so upset about brigading when it clearly happens in reverse constantly.....I have no idea

No one is getting paid to give negative reviews.

Which means they're almost always more trust able than positive ones.

- - - Updated - - -



Your view would make sense if you reacted to every echo chamber that gave a game an artificially high score.

Lot more fake positive than negative reviews out there in the world people. Open your eyes lol

Its cute that you think I am unaware that people also give inflated scores to bad products.. My point stands, you can't review it if you haven't tried it, that goes for people slamming it without having played it and people who praise it without having played it.

[Edge-]

Pretty funny all the so-called "professional reviewers" from all the major mainstream gamesites still have the cheek to give this joke of a game 6.5-7 scores. IGN didn't even have the balls to give an official score because they are afraid of offending both the developer and gamers. Bunch of corrupt opportunist bastards

Or, because they haven't finished their review. Or aren't interested in reviewing it.

But I guess there's a broader conspiracy or something. They're protecting Blizzard! And doing this by...

Covering the fan backlash - https://www.ign.com/articles/warcraf...launch-version
And the Blizzard apology - https://www.ign.com/articles/blizzar...d-fan-feedback

And this bit from the end of that second article -

IGN is currently working on a review for Warcraft 3: Reforged so keep an eye out for that to be published soon.

Don't let your bitterness blind you, dude.

[lockybalboa]

Or, because they haven't finished their review. Or aren't interested in reviewing it.

But I guess there's a broader conspiracy or something. They're protecting Blizzard! And doing this by...

Covering the fan backlash - https://www.ign.com/articles/warcraf...launch-version
And the Blizzard apology - https://www.ign.com/articles/blizzar...d-fan-feedback

And this bit from the end of that second article -



Don't let your bitterness blind you, dude.

Yeah you're right, they definitely aren't too keen to give a review at the current stage for sure. There is an intricate balance to be struck I'm sure you get what I mean Poor chaps. Probably waiting on players to simmer down then deliberate on whether to give a 7 or an 8 lmao

[jackofwind]

Pretty funny all the so-called "professional reviewers" from all the major mainstream gamesites still have the cheek to give this joke of a game 6.5-7 scores. IGN didn't even have the balls to give an official score because they are afraid of offending both the developer and gamers. Bunch of corrupt opportunist bastards

You need to get over yourself and read a little bit closer. IGN has covered a lot about the fan response to the game and are still reviewing the game themselves, they just haven't posted their article yet.

Chill your tits and grow up a bit.

[lockybalboa]

You need to get over yourself and read a little bit closer. IGN has covered a lot about the fan response to the game and are still reviewing the game themselves, they just haven't posted their article yet.

Chill your tits and grow up a bit.

You're right I'm just 16 I still have not developed a mind of my own. I've learnt everything from textbooks.

[jackofwind]

You're right I'm just 16 I still have not developed a mind of my own. I've learnt everything from textbooks.

There's a difference between thinking for yourself and making ridiculous and obviously uninformed statements, but you do you friendo.

[lockybalboa]

There's a difference between thinking for yourself and making ridiculous and obviously uninformed statements, but you do you friendo.

So when did I "make ridiculous and uninformed statements" like you said?

[Edge-]

Yeah you're right, they definitely aren't too keen to give a review at the current stage for sure.

Or...hear me out...they got the game launch day like everyone else and aren't rushing to post a review as quickly as possible. Which is good.

There is an intricate balance to be struck I'm sure you get what I mean

No, I don't.

Probably waiting on players to simmer down then deliberate on whether to give a 7 or an 8 lmao

Sure, if this is what you want to believe, habeeb it.

- - - Updated - - -

So when did I "make ridiculous and uninformed statements" like you said?

"IGN isn't even working on a review"
"Yeah, but they're holding it until patches so they can score it better"

The former allegation being flat out, objectively wrong. The latter being devoid of any evidence to support it.

[tikcol]

They reforged it carefully molded into a pile of steaming dung

[GreenJesus]

Or...hear me out...they got the game launch day like everyone else and aren't rushing to post a review as quickly as possible. Which is good.



No, I don't.



Sure, if this is what you want to believe, habeeb it.

- - - Updated - - -



"IGN isn't even working on a review"
"Yeah, but they're holding it until patches so they can score it better"

The former allegation being flat out, objectively wrong. The latter being devoid of any evidence to support it.

I mean.. it's been a week? How long does it take to write a review?

[jackofwind]

So when did I "make ridiculous and uninformed statements" like you said?

Oh I don't know, your entire conspiracy theory about how IGN doesn't have the balls to review the game when they've already published articles documenting the unhappy fan response and have a note that they are still writing their own review?

- - - Updated - - -

I mean.. it's been a week? How long does it take to write a review?

Depends how much time the person playing and writing the review has dedicated to produce the article and their current workload of other projects?

How long does it take to dig a hole?

[lockybalboa]

Or...hear me out...they got the game launch day like everyone else and aren't rushing to post a review as quickly as possible. Which is good.



No, I don't.



Sure, if this is what you want to believe, habeeb it.

- - - Updated - - -



"IGN isn't even working on a review"
"Yeah, but they're holding it until patches so they can score it better"

The former allegation being flat out, objectively wrong. The latter being devoid of any evidence to support it.

Nice misquote. I said they"didn't even have the balls to give a review" which was true at the time I posted. There is still no review. What was wrong with I've said? Oh so them holding out for patches is "better" for you now ey? I remember the same you defending your IGN buddy giving a 4 to Prey just because of an initial bug. And now you say it is better to wait til a game is patched before review. You're funny mate

[Edge-]

I mean.. it's been a week? How long does it take to write a review?

Well...

1. Getting the copy and securing a reviewer to review it takes time.
2. Getting them set up and ready for the review takes time.
3. Reviews take time, between 5-20+ hours to play the game and take notes (it's not just normal play like you and I may do).
4. Writeups take time, followed by sending to reviews editors for copy editing, scheduling etc.
5. Editorial calendars exist, they can't just drop it whenever.
6. Reviewers aren't just reviewing one game and only one game. They have multiple reviews going on, or they're working on a review or two plus other editorial work at the same time.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice misquote. I said they"didn't even have the balls to give a review" which was true at the time I posted.

It was not then, and it's not now. They're working on it, it takes time.

What was wrong with I've said?

They have the balls to review it. They're working on it now.

Oh so them holding out for patches is "better" for you now ey?

There's no indication they're waiting for anything. That's all unfounded assertion on your part.

I remember the same you defending your IGN buddy giving a 4 to Prey just because of an initial bug. And now you say it is better to wait til a game is patched before review. You're funny mate

I literally have never said this. You're making shit up. My position remains the same with both games.

[lockybalboa]

Oh I don't know, your entire conspiracy theory about how IGN doesn't have the balls to review the game when they've already published articles documenting the unhappy fan response and have a note that they are still writing their own review?

- - - Updated - - -



Depends how much time the person playing and writing the review has dedicated to produce the article and their current workload of other projects?

How long does it take to dig a hole?

No idea why are you linking their reports anyway. What does that have to do with them not putting out a review? The articles didn't show anything much too. They just quoted what the fans say. No criticism of Blizzard or anything.

[Edge-]

No idea why are you linking their reports anyway. What does that have to do with them not putting out a review? The articles didn't show anything much too. They just quoted what the fans say. No criticism of Blizzard or anything.

Which, if they were "burying" criticism as you allege, they wouldn't have covered at all.

[lockybalboa]

Well...

1. Getting the copy and securing a reviewer to review it takes time.
2. Getting them set up and ready for the review takes time.
3. Reviews take time, between 5-20+ hours to play the game and take notes (it's not just normal play like you and I may do).
4. Writeups take time, followed by sending to reviews editors for copy editing, scheduling etc.
5. Editorial calendars exist, they can't just drop it whenever.
6. Reviewers aren't just reviewing one game and only one game. They have multiple reviews going on, or they're working on a review or two plus other editorial work at the same time.

- - - Updated - - -



It was not then, and it's not now. They're working on it, it takes time.



They have the balls to review it. They're working on it now.



There's no indication they're waiting for anything. That's all unfounded assertion on your part.



I literally have never said this. You're making shit up. My position remains the same with both games.

My point was simple. They are hesitant to give out a review right now because of fear of public backlash at this sensitive time. They are waiting for it to be patched then they can give a boot-licking score and avoid offending both the players and the developers. But right now, no review that's a fact. Hence no balls. Nothing wrong with what I've said.

Yes you did mate. We were debating on the other game review thread on whether is it fair for Stapleton to give a 4 to a game just because of an initial bug on the review site thread. I said no, you said yes because he has already played the game. And now you're saying it is better for them to wait for patches to give a "better' review. Biased much? Your inconsistencies are really funny tbh

- - - Updated - - -

Which, if they were "burying" criticism as you allege, they wouldn't have covered at all.

They weren't criticizing anything. They were merely quoting. There is no offending anybody.

[sam86]

Most people probably know what a low profile 0/10 game is, but what is a 0/10 AAA game? I'd like to see one to compare. Obviously you can't in that case use features that were literally just WC3 itself, as WC3:RF is at best a skin for it.

wc3 reforge is a 0/10 AAA game because it is reforge, stand alone it would earn at least 4

Not even sure 0/10 is even possible for a game to get, in my opinion. To be a 0 there would have to be hardly any game. But games that come close are Aerogauge, Superman 64, Ride to Hell Retribution, Big Rigs, Bubsy 3D. I thought Aliens: Colonial Marines was still far worse than Warcraft: Reforged, which ironically also has things promised that we never got, but unlike Aliens: Colonial Marines at least WC:R told us before had that they were cutting out shit.

I certainly wouldn't go any lower than a 4/10 for Warcraft: Reforged. I personally give it a 6/10 because I am still playing and actually enjoying myself :P

all games u mentioned deserve a fat zero, u are way too generous imo to refuse to give them zero

Also -again - wc:re should be measured as what it did to original game, not stand alone, stand alone it would earn 6 but as reforge it deserves its zero, its improvement is only in new skins that are still shit for 2020 release and they even removed lot of older features

[Edge-]

My point was simple. They are hesitant to give out a review right now because of fear of public backlash at this sensitive time.

Again, not backed up by anything.

They are waiting for it to be patched

Literally false. I already linked you to the article showing their review is in progress now.

Yes you did mate. We were debating on the other game review thread on whether is it fair for Stapleton to give a 4 to a game just because of an initial bug on the review site thread. I said no, you said yes because he has already played the game. And now you're saying it is better for them to wait for patches to give a "better' review. Biased much? Your inconsistencies are really funny tbh

Quote where I say it's better that IGN waits for the patch in this thread.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

[jackofwind]

No idea why are you linking their reports anyway. What does that have to do with them not putting out a review? The articles didn't show anything much too. They just quoted what the fans say. No criticism of Blizzard or anything.

Because if they were covering for Blizzard they wouldn't be publishing any articles that talk about the negative fan reaction at all.

This isn't rocket appliances dude, use that big ol' emancipated 16 year old brain.