Shogun's response to patch campaign

[Quietus]

How is it sabotaging Amazon's rating by writing a negative review if you are an Amazon customer or registered there? If you are disatisfied with the product or customer service it is your right to go on there and write a negative review. Go in and post a 5 star rating there if you want, you won't see me whinning about it.

The "campaigners'" explicit, unfair goals/motives is to give it a pre-determined, automatic, de facto 1-star rating. The review part was an afterthought.

[Pericles]

The same people who give RTW 5-stars have pure intentions, thus their review for OTHER games will be in-line their review for RTW.

This is simply incorrect.

It is well known that many game companies will spike a review with 10/10s and 5/5s through their employees/fanboys to give a game an inflated and favourable review, whether or not the game actually deserves it.

Rarely, if ever, does a game deserve a 10/10 or 5-stars under any reviewing system.

So in this case the bias is to give the game high ratings which is NOT pure intentions, since it over-looks or hides problems with a game, thus deceiving the consumer into believing the game is a better product than it actually is.

[player1]

Well said Quietus.

[player1]

Well, I haven't seen anyone give deliberatbly good ratings to prima strategy guides.

Probably beacuse they do suck, even without need of campaign to "fix the scores".

[Red Harvest]

The "campaigners'" explicit, unfair goals/motives is to give it a pre-determined, automatic, de facto 1-star rating. The review part was an afterthought.

There is nothing "unfair" about their motives. You might not like their tactics, but they have just as much right to put a 1 star score as you do to put up a 5. They are using the only tools CA has left them with.

Those reviews don't read at all like an "afterthought." You can try to slander them all you like, but their reviews are far more accurate than what I've seen of yours.

As for blackmail, my dictionaries say, "extortion by threats" rather than "coerce" Since there is no money going to the campaigners, extortion is out of the question. There is a clear implication of money, since the origin of the word is in "black rent." Ahh, I see how you are manipulating this now, you are using the verb definition, rather than the noun. You should work for CA...

And with sabotage, it is the same thing. Your skewed view doesn't match the connotation at all. This is an effort to actually improve the game, not damage it. That is clearly NOT SABOTAGE. You can call it that all you want, it won't make it so.

I was neutral to the campaign when I first saw it. But reading your bumbling defense and others like player1 have turned me strongly in the other direction.

[Gregoshi]

I think the Org Community Game Ranking shows quite well Quietus' point. The poll is a good measure of "pure intentions" because no one is trying to influence Amazon.com sales through it. In that poll, ratings 1-4 seem to equate well with a 1 star rating on Amazon.com. Only about 16% of the responders rated RTW with a 1-4. Why doesn't there Org Community rankings have a higher percentage of patrons rating RTW with a 1-4 rating? Maybe because Quietus has a point about sabotage?

On another point: I don't think you can equate a patch for a game like Half Life with a patch for RTW. Your toaster could put out a patch for Half Life (relatively speaking of course ).


BTW, when people start suggesting that another look up a word in the dictionary, that is a good sign the discussion has just about run its course.

Second verse, same as the first...

[player1]

I was neutral to the campaign when I first saw it. But reading your bumbling defense and others like player1 have turned me strongly in the other direction.

Interesting. It was for me just the opposite.
I was neutral until someone said it's OK giving 1star, even if he personaly thinks it's worth more, since it's only way to lower averge score.

I call that a campaign to deliberatly lower average score.

[ElmarkOFear]

Starkhorn: There were, if I remember correctly: 3 patches:

1. For STW by the developers and tested by a group of players from the community.
2. For STW/MI aka. WE by the developers and also using a group of players from the community.
3. A 2nd unofficial patch for STW/MI aka. WE, made solely by a group of players to fix the remaining problem with musketeer units and a few other small issues.

Puzz3D, CBR, or TosaInu could answer this question in a more precise way since I was only involved in one of those patch groups while they were in all 3.

[Bhruic]

How exactly does that make it a "campaign"? In order for it to be a "campaign", then there has to be a concerted effort to get people to do it. I haven't seen any such effort. I've seen it suggested, and I'm sure some people have done it. But I'm also sure that others have gone and given it a 5/5. Are we calling that a "fanboy campaign"?

Bh

[player1]

Well, I haven't see any fanboy campaign around. There are some good ratings, but they are dispersed over great lenght of time. So they are spontanius, not initiated from somewere.

On the other hand, bunch of 1-2star reviews, are all from April or later, highly concentrated (never seen so many new reviews in few weeks), and there are threads on several forums with links to amazon, and let's give them bad review comments.

Yes, it looks like campaign to me.

[Bhruic]

I haven't seen those posts, so couldn't comment. Are they posts to "let's go post low scores that we don't really agree with", or "since we have no other option open to us, let us at least warn others of what they may be purchasing"?

Bh

[player1]

I haven't seen those posts, so couldn't comment. Are they posts to "let's go post low scores that we don't really agree with", or "since we have no other option open to us, let us at least warn others of what they may be purchasing"?

Bh

I think only few posters said that they think RTW is more worth then they voted.

But still, even "since we have no other option open to us, let us at least warn others of what they may be purchasing" is campaign. Why deny it. Without ideas on the forums, you won't be seeing buch of low star rating on the amazon.

[Red Harvest]

I haven't seen those posts, so couldn't comment. Are they posts to "let's go post low scores that we don't really agree with", or "since we have no other option open to us, let us at least warn others of what they may be purchasing"?

Bh

The latter.

Most people rate something early on when it is new. So waiting until after the final patch is a rather interesting approach. There is nothing to prevent others from rating it higher. The difference is mainly that people were reminded that they could send a clear message with their ratings and reviews (since the .com had been shut down to them.) And they did so.

[Red Harvest]

Interesting. It was for me just the opposite.
I was neutral until someone said it's OK giving 1star, even if he personaly thinks it's worth more, since it's only way to lower averge score.

I call that a campaign to deliberatly lower average score.

I can count on you to be counter to whatever position I take, player1. You always seem to be devil's advocate. And that is why I lost any interest in the unit stats threads.

[player1]

I can count on you to be counter to whatever position I take, player1. You always seem to be devil's advocate. And that is why I lost any interest in the unit stats threads.

You sound like it's personal.
It's not.

[Kraxis]

Red do you really think that it is fair for a reviewer to give a 1 to make the average more like what he/she wants it to be? That is effectively the same as giving people the chance of actually using several votes in election. If they want their vote to be representative they will only use the single vote they should, but if they want the result to reflect their opinion then they should use the several vote system. That way we could screw over the honest people and make cetain we would get anything but a representative election.
That is what is wrong with too low votes.

I don't know .Spartan yet, but he has given me the impression that he feels personally insulted (the comment about him wanting them to send a threat to him was an obvious statement to that) and is now out for blood. He is the only one to have been so strong about it directly, but I have gotten the feeling others are in the same state of mind right now.

I would never give RTW a 5 now, it is more like a 3.5 for me. It can be great fun to me at times, and I love to test out my recent changes to it. But at the same time I hate the flaws and feel that they are very much detracting from the experience. So if I were to give it stars at a site that had nothing but 5 star reviews should I then give it a 1 star? Or should I try to give it a 3 or 4 star?

[Turbo]

The "campaigners'" explicit, unfair goals/motives is to give it a pre-determined, automatic, de facto 1-star rating. The review part was an afterthought.

The reviews are anything but an afterthought. You obviously haven't read the reviews.

[Catiline]

.org's views on the discussion of this campaign have been made clear. Thread closed.