@deadman said:
Bought and paid for, my friend. There's a reason for the huge discrepancy between magazine and user reviews, and not just in the case of DoW III.
Not true. Virtually every negative review is for emotional reasons and their own egocentric faulty thinking. User reviews are a near worthless metric and demonstrate the irrationality of the masses. Some of the best games i've ever played have mixed reviews because people seem to want to punish developers because they didn't get their way about something and refused to understand or accept the reasons for changes.
Every professional reviewer gave the game relatively high marks for a reason. Its pretty funny that some people think Relic went around and paid them all off.
@deadman said:
Bought and paid for, my friend. There's a reason for the huge discrepancy between magazine and user reviews, and not just in the case of DoW III.
Not true. Virtually every negative review is for emotional reasons and their own egocentric faulty thinking. User reviews are a near worthless metric and demonstrate the irrationality of the masses. Some of the best games i've ever played have mixed reviews because people seem to want to punish developers because they didn't get their way about something and refused to understand or accept the reasons for changes.
Every professional reviewer gave the game relatively high marks for a reason. Its pretty funny that some people think Relic went around and paid them all off.
yes and no, some of the best reviews on the steam store page are the ones "not recommended", though these are the exceptions as they're basically rocks sitting in ++heresy redacted++ oceans of nothing but one liners and cringy memes. The reviews are so badly done, that it's become a breeding grounds for outright lies, some people even outright lie and somehow within an hour they get 200+ helpfuls on those reviews...which leads me to believe that people have finally caught on to how browser bopping works and just do it whenever they want.
But also yes in the sense that a lot of professional review sites have stronger basis for view, like the PCGamer article where they basically sum up why most people hate on the game "because it's popular to do so". I've seen so many people in different avenues just go off of the old excuse of "I've seen enough gameplay to know that it's a shitty game" with most of them flat outright admitting they've only watched and searched for negative view points of the game and never tried it themselves.
but that's not to say there are no reasons for the hate, because there really is a strong sense of people disliking the game for some legitimate reasons. Though I do know most of the hate is because people have rose tinted goggles on and think things that were in 1 also carried into 2 and then some even believed that mechanics and units in Ultimate Apocalypse were part of the vanilla dawn of war and use that to detract from Dawn of War III. Others just wanted a real frankenstein of a game where the mechanics of 1 and 2 were combined into this horrid monstrosity of sheer uber imbalance and cringe, most people wanted a version of the game which would simply NEVER work.
Menu
Comments
CadisEtramaDiRaizel
I just realised that those review sites which gave dow3 a good rating, are none of which I know. ;D
deadman
Bought and paid for, my friend. There's a reason for the huge discrepancy between magazine and user reviews, and not just in the case of DoW III.
frumpylumps
Not true. Virtually every negative review is for emotional reasons and their own egocentric faulty thinking. User reviews are a near worthless metric and demonstrate the irrationality of the masses. Some of the best games i've ever played have mixed reviews because people seem to want to punish developers because they didn't get their way about something and refused to understand or accept the reasons for changes.
Every professional reviewer gave the game relatively high marks for a reason. Its pretty funny that some people think Relic went around and paid them all off.
Lockerd
yes and no, some of the best reviews on the steam store page are the ones "not recommended", though these are the exceptions as they're basically rocks sitting in ++heresy redacted++ oceans of nothing but one liners and cringy memes. The reviews are so badly done, that it's become a breeding grounds for outright lies, some people even outright lie and somehow within an hour they get 200+ helpfuls on those reviews...which leads me to believe that people have finally caught on to how browser bopping works and just do it whenever they want.
But also yes in the sense that a lot of professional review sites have stronger basis for view, like the PCGamer article where they basically sum up why most people hate on the game "because it's popular to do so". I've seen so many people in different avenues just go off of the old excuse of "I've seen enough gameplay to know that it's a shitty game" with most of them flat outright admitting they've only watched and searched for negative view points of the game and never tried it themselves.
but that's not to say there are no reasons for the hate, because there really is a strong sense of people disliking the game for some legitimate reasons. Though I do know most of the hate is because people have rose tinted goggles on and think things that were in 1 also carried into 2 and then some even believed that mechanics and units in Ultimate Apocalypse were part of the vanilla dawn of war and use that to detract from Dawn of War III. Others just wanted a real frankenstein of a game where the mechanics of 1 and 2 were combined into this horrid monstrosity of sheer uber imbalance and cringe, most people wanted a version of the game which would simply NEVER work.
Martin
lets not derail into discussing the reviews. There is a thread discussing those on the steam forums if you really are interested https://steamcommunity.com/app/285190/discussions/0/2579854400738480640/