Thanks. Based on what you said, I was expecting probably no response, possibly an angry inappropriate one. Nice to get a calm, considered and well explained response instead.
Having thought about your examples, I’m not sure either of them is that relevant here, though.
Re: your internet provider, I don’t think this really extends to computer game reviews, because people’s possible reasons for reviewing a utility like an internet provider are so different. If a utility provider does their job near-perfectly for a reasonable price, then they are fine and there’s unlikely to be any reason to review them. Anything less than that and a bad review is understandable. In most cases, it would be almost absurd to give a utility provider a good review. Not so for games.
Re: Snow White, I’m not into Disney so I have no prior knowledge about it and can only go on what you’ve written. Based on that, it seems like this was a bad film that got deservedly bad reviews. The fact that it was so bad that it was obvious that it was bad before it was released doesn’t make me think that those reviews were not deserved.
I agree that the bad PR/marketing for The Three Kingdoms probably did account for some of the very early negative reviews. But we’re talking about a situation where the proportion of bad reviews has gone up over time – the negative score is mostly a result of recent reviews, not early ones. I think people writing bad reviews now are unlikely to be outraged people who haven’t actually played the DLC. More likely they will be people who bought the it expecting to enjoy it, played it, and concluded that they actually dislike the content.
Thanks, but I’m not really interested in doing that. I’m not trying or expecting to change your mind – I’d rather voice my thoughts and opinions on this where other people can read them too.
60% of all negative reviews happened in the first week of it’s release. To claim that the negative score is mostly a result of recent reviews is objectively false.
If you decided to attribute the impact of the pre-DLC PR to literally any whole percentage value and then constrained that impact to the earliest reviews (first week only) it would be enough to tip the reviews, as a whole, positive. The higher you go, the more positive it’d tilt. So we’re not even talking about a big impact. I think the impact was actually quite substantial… but it’s not like I’ve got the statistics on that.
Alright. Now I’m really out. I have no intention of getting into a drawn out argument about - what is in actuality - opinions being armed with handpicked statistics, because I’ve done it before and I’ve gotten my purple heart doing so once before.
they have been reported over and over again. Tamar is fixed in the PUP, idk about barbarossa though, it’s not been mentioned and i deleted my AOE as a protest against 3K. If you or anyone else could check it out, that would be delightful:) Same with Sargon.
Ah, I struggled to word that part and obviously didn’t word it clearly. What I meant was that the fact that the proportion of negative reviews is now over 50% is a result of recent reviews. Earlier on the proportion was below 50%.
There were more positive reviews than negative ones in the first week. If we ignore the first week completely on the grounds that reviews written that quickly are based on preconceptions rather than the actual product, then the proportion of negative reviews is actually above 50%. (I mean I haven’t done the calculation, but it must be.) I don’t think it’s legitimate to ignore only the negative reviews from the first week but keep the positive ones – I can’t think of any reasonable justification for doing that.
Good luck with that. That sounds sarcastic, but I mean it genuinely – you seem to be struggling not to participate in a discussion you obviously don’t really want to be involved in.
Even after getting over the 50/50 hurdle, it’s still continuing to go down at a steady pace. With the last 3 reviews both being all negative and all critical of the inclusion of short-lived antiquity-era political states into ranked.
You asked us what we hate devs? Three words: Wu, Wei, Shu.
They should be out of the base game. Just move 3K to its own game mode
If they do it, the people who quit because of 3K and those who only wanted jurchens and khitans will buy the dlc. Thus, the rating wouldn’t even be that bad. Instead of keeping them like right now and ruining the game.
I only do the sp content and I hate this dlc. As a matter of fact, this dlc was the reason I started frequenting the forums to voice my frustrations.
They didn’t wtf they were doing with this and it only smells of out of touch leadership making highly regarded deschisions.
My theory is that they were afraid that a “cash cow” like 3k would be too obscure and wouldn’t make the money they were hoping for as a AoE2 addon
Either way the only thing they accomplished with this was that I’ll neveragain buy ANYTHING they put out unless it’s 100% what I want. And what I want is a return to form with traditional campaigns. The dlcs have been getting worse with each year, with this year’s dlcs (of every aoe game) being complete slop
A few materials for yet another minigame in the making for the 3K fans (still far from finished: the units are all European)
Then management: we need to deliver a regular DLC with a sufficient number of base game civs and campaigns, and also a cash cow DLC that attracts new Chinese audience!
Then some genius: you know what let’s stitch all these into one and call it both
I once thought I was not the kind of nitpicky OCD guy who could he offended by something simply appearing in front of you that you are free to ignore. And WE proved me wrong twice already. The first time was V&V btw
Oh absolutely. V&V was the lowest effort dlc ever. But they tried to pass it off like it was high tier campaign content when it was a pack mid tier mods.