August 2024 PC Gamer Article Discussion

[Zloth]

That seems to be a growing trend in recent years. It's like a wolf pack waiting for the next wounded animal to ravage, rinse and repeat.

The animal need not be wounded. The pack just has to see that it's safe to ravage. Once they see that people can hate on the game without getting called out for it, they rush in. It doesn't matter if that "wound" is something real, something small that's getting exaggerated, or something completely made up. I doubt it matters whether it's even a game or something/somebody else. If they can punch it without much chance of getting punched back, they're going to punch it.

 

[Frindis]

Oh of course. But that's not the topic of that article, which focuses on experiences where there are no lessons or learning opportunities—other than hasten the subscription model.

The problem with Concord was mainly them bashing some players in an immature way and that did not get popular amongst the players. Seems the author forgot to mention that small detail. Also, talking about what games succeed and why others do not is kind of misplaced regarding Concord because it is not that hard to understand why it failed in the first place. It failed because it tried to compete with heavy hitters in an already oversaturated market while not being able to deliver something that stood out for the players. It's not rocket science.

Regarding player critiquing, No Man Sky is the perfect example of what happens when you don't deliver and disrespect your player base by not fulfilling your promises. Players disliked Hello Games for it and obviously, they deserved a lot of the hate they got. But then the company did a 180, got their stuff together, and started to deliver. What do you think happened with the Steam/Metacritic score? It slowly got better because the players finally got what they were supposed to get in the first place.

To use myself as an example: I hope Blizzard Entertainment crashes and burns as a company and I will be dancing on what is left. Why? Because in the last few years, they have done nothing more than destroy their own reputation while making it harder and harder for players to enjoy their games. They have deliberately implemented insane PTW microtransactions in their games and they continue to manipulate the payerbase in any way possible to squeeze out as much money as possible. They are the real wolves! So, yeah, sometimes you have the right to gloat and give the middle finger to a company because the company sure did its absolute best to do the same to you.

Maybe some companies should "get a grip" to use the author's wording.

 

[Colif]

The $40 asking price against already established games that were free, sort of made it a hard sell as well. Weekly cut scenes fleshing out the characters seems misplaced in a shooting game. It seems they have made a lot, wonder what will happen to those now. Delete...

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Can't underestimate the influence of go-woke-go-brokers here. Have a little read of the player reviews on somewhere like Metacritic and every 3rd one mentions wokeness somehow. Outrage farmers on the grift is a big factor for the bombing on these 2 games.

Concord seems uninteresting but its not my type anyway. But Outlaws by all accounts doesnt look terrible apart from some technical issues. I'd give it a go on a sale.

 

[Frindis]

Concord seems uninteresting but its not my type anyway. But Outlaws by all accounts doesnt look terrible apart from some technical issues. I'd give it a go on a sale.

The problem is when there is a clear difference between the user score and critic reviews. Normally you don't see that with solid games because logically most people are going to give for example BG3 a high score because: It IS good. Seeing the gameplay from Outlaws I gave it a 5,5 just by looking and it comes to me as no shock why the score is around there from players. I still believe scoring it under 5 is too low and over 7 is waaay too high considering other games reviewed in the past.

Giving it a go on sale also seems to be what a lot of other user scores reflect and I don't believe that is just because of the price tag. The quote one commenter from the video Colif linked to: "It really makes you FEEL like it's gonna be on sale for 60% off soon"

 

[Colif]

Outlaws: A balanced review by someone trying to straddle fence and be on both sides at once

Spoiler

Seems the end is really good, shame you have to slog through 15 hours of not so good to get to it. So 20 hours, 75% of it you wonder why you doing it, last 25% shows you.
I am not audience but I hate books where nothing happens in entire story until end.

 

[Frindis]

Not heard of that guy before, but from what I am watching now, he knows how to make a solid review. I am impressed by how he balances the review as you mentioned and I like the small tidbits of facts he throws in between talking about the game, like how Ubisoft used to make good stealth games.

 

[Colif]

Well, I can tell from his accent that he is from Australia. He been around for a while.

 

[Frindis]

He didn't have that deep Paul Logan accent, but I did hear it also

 

[Colif]

Paul Logan

I assume you mean Paul Hogan

Better known for some Crocodile movies.

 

[Frindis]

Ha ha, omg! Yeah, that Hogan, not Logan. I blame Coffeezilla for that brain fart!

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

The problem is when there is a clear difference between the user score and critic reviews. Normally you don't see that with solid games because logically most people are going to give for example BG3 a high score because: It IS good. Seeing the gameplay from Outlaws I gave it a 5,5 just by looking and it comes to me as no shock why the score is around there from players. I still believe scoring it under 5 is too low and over 7 is waaay too high considering other games reviewed in the past.

Giving it a go on sale also seems to be what a lot of other user scores reflect and I don't believe that is just because of the price tag. The quote one commenter from the video Colif linked to: "It really makes you FEEL like it's gonna be on sale for 60% off soon"

There were definitely mumblings about BG 3, but I kind of agree with you for different reasons. I dont think the larger part of the market cares much about DEI, certainly not enough to boycott a game they would love to play. I think mid and below average games are better targets to bomb because its easier to get the average right down and claim a righteous victory for the cause. Outlaws is a Star Wars games so its going to draw more larger market people hence the score isnt quite the travesty that Concord got to.

Concord is mixed on Steam at 66% so theres a bit of a disconnect with Metacritic there. Perhaps the Steam reviews are coming from people you can see actually played the game, so bombing isnt as effective?

 

[Colif]

Concord is mixed on Steam at 66% so theres a bit of a disconnect with Metacritic there. Perhaps the Steam reviews are coming from people you can see actually played the game, so bombing isnt as effective?

There are only 64 people playing it on Steam right now, max of 119 in 24 hours

https://steamdb.info/app/2443720/charts/

As for PS5, there are charts that show the trophies awarded. There is a trophy in the game for 1st kill. Only 1200 players have that trophy so far.
So its sales estimates might be a little off.

its visually unappealing and most of the characters are just bland, and would be hard to fix to make interesting enough to want to pick from a roster

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Well far as I can tell the numbers mean people dont care about it, not that they actively hate it having played it.

 

[Colif]

Well far as I can tell the numbers mean people dont care about it, not that they actively hate it having played it.

Apathy is worse than hatred as people don't care what happens to you... with hatred they might keep track of you. They might react to your actions.

Someone would have to read all the steam reviews and judge sentiment among the PC players to know if they hate it after playing or rejected it without playing. I don't think it did anything really bad to get people to react negatively, I just think most people weren't interested enough to bother.

Steals an image off Brian. I wonder if PS5 users have to prove they have a PS5 or the game before they can vote. As that would be the only way to know if the score is based on people who bought it. We don't know the actual sales figures, its not told to even share holders so we have no hope of knowing for sure. Based on Trophies won, either many copies were purchased as gifts for people who haven't played it yet, or the sales on PS5 might not be very high.

That 665 could be half the people who have played it so far. And as its player count drops, the negative scores may rise as there won't be anyone to play against. They should have put bots in the play against. People could pretend others are there. AI bots that act like players.

They needed a package deal to get people to buy it... something like, buy Concord and get a PS5 free... people might have bought it then. I can't guarantee they play it though.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

As far as business goes yes. Game seems mid, some like it ok but thats not enough in a competitive area of the market.

People sure seem to have a big swinging hate boner over a game no one cares about though. Weird.

 

[Colif]

If you mean social media, have to remember its where people go now to yell at the sky. Everyone is too busy yelling and no one is listening. It used to be a cry of LOOK AT ME but now its past that and everyone thinks their problem MUST be fixed now. So since no one listens, wars get started over stupid things. And nothing ever gets fixed. (sounds like the real world)

Get offline. Its not real. What people say online doesn't matter. Too many people think the opinion of those on X or whatever are the majority when its really not. They just the loudest there but outside X they are almost silent. Almost meaningless.

Feels too much more and I will be throwing rocks in a glass house. Forums are close to social media but audience is more controlled. We get trolls (Brian (lol)) but they have to join to comment. Can't just comment anon. Its the only form of social media I ever cared to use.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

If you mean social media, have to remember its where people go now to yell at the sky. Everyone is too busy yelling and no one is listening. It used to be a cry of LOOK AT ME but now its past that and everyone thinks their problem MUST be fixed now. So since no one listens, wars get started over stupid things. And nothing ever gets fixed. (sounds like the real world)

Get offline. Its not real. What people say online doesn't matter. Too many people think the opinion of those on X or whatever are the majority when its really not. They just the loudest there but outside X they are almost silent. Almost meaningless.

Feels too much more and I will be throwing rocks in a glass house. Forums are close to social media but audience is more controlled. We get trolls (Brian (lol)) but they have to join to comment. Can't just comment anon. Its the only form of social media I ever cared to use.

I honestly think Youtube might be more problematic for rage baiting people than anything else, because you can earn real money from people watching stuff. If its something contentious then you get love and hate clicks and comments, double bubble.

 

[Colif]

I see a few channels doing the trick of reporting on what they posted on their own website... one way to make me see your ads I guess. Too many self advertising, or reporting on what a small selection of websites are reporting. It is for clicks but on more than just the video. Gaming journalists are no better really.

They all feed off each other. Echo chambers.

If people had to actually get their own info and not just report on what other people are saying, it would make Youtube more interesting. Too much drama, too many talking about things that don't matter.

 

[Frindis]

They all feed off each other. Echo chambers.

Well said! Negative news sells like hotcakes and everyone wants to be in the middle for that sweet, sweet click.

 

[Frindis]

There were definitely mumblings about BG 3, but I kind of agree with you for different reasons.

True, I was one of the mumblers. The issue was not large at hand though, it was already a very, very good game at release, it just could have been a bit more ironed out like having Act 3 running better and with better endings for companions. I think I gave it a 9/10 for that reason. Today, it is a solid 10/10 even without the last Patch 7 which is right around the corner.

I think mid and below average games are better targets to bomb because its easier to get the average right down and claim a righteous victory for the cause. Outlaws is a Star Wars games so its going to draw more larger market people hence the score isnt quite the travesty that Concord got to.

Most definitely, because those games are not delivering from the get-go.

Concord is mixed on Steam at 66% so theres a bit of a disconnect with Metacritic there. Perhaps the Steam reviews are coming from people you can see actually played the game, so bombing isnt as effective?

Both can be good/bad. I have seen review bombing on Steam attack all the games from a company and that type of attitude does not belong anywhere. There are review bots on Metacritic and Steam, so I'm not sure that one is necessarily more honest than the other. Often a mixed game on Steam goes up or down when more players try it out and I would guess with Metacritic, it gets a greater rush of people from different platforms so it would faster come to the same conclusion.

 

[Pifanjr]

I honestly think Youtube might be more problematic for rage baiting people than anything else, because you can earn real money from people watching stuff. If its something contentious then you get love and hate clicks and comments, double bubble.

I've seen a Pokémon YouTuber mispronounce Pokémon names on purpose just so he'd get a whole bunch of comments about it, which just means more engagement and makes it more likely for the algorithm to recommend his videos to others.
(He pronounced Magnemite like you pronounce Yosemite).