Shogun's response to patch campaign

[Turbo]

To CA it is quite dark, so it is their right to do so. To them it is in fact people going out of their way to hurt the company. I don't know about you but that is pretty dark. Fair has nothing to do with it.
Just because Saddam has no way to speak about it, doesn't make it unfair of us to claim that he was a rather dictatorial leader right? Just putting a light on it.
It is all about how the action has an impact on you, and the impact is very different for you and CA.

Kraxis,

That post is directed toward one of the moderators of .ORG, not the .COM, not CA. You are right about one thing, fair has nothing to do about it.

[Red Harvest]

Old Celt,

I really like the analogy of the load game AI problem being equivalent to playing chess against the toaster. However, my toaster was not as amused and has demanded an apology.

[Turbo]

Hey Mouzaf,

I'm not sure if you know, but some people are going beyond boycott. Some are actually sabotaging the Amazon.com rating so to blackmail CA into releasing a new patch.

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.

[Puzz3D]

But it would be at the level of a GOOD toaster, not just a basic bargain toaster!

The AI can only be as good as the people designing it. Regardless of how much the loadgame issue hobbles the AI, the fact that CA thinks this is proper game design boggles the mind. At $35 usd, the RTW add-on is the price of a good toaster, but one that's going to burn the toast anyway.

[Turbo]

You expect from them to do this for their own money, which would delay, or make more buggy expansion they are working on, while Activison would get all money from sold copies, not CA.

Developer patches are very rare thing. Only big companies have maony and staff for them.

Absolutely! I expect them to support their product and to support their customers. CA's problems with Activision are their problems. As the customer I am only interested in resolution not excuses.

Developer patches are not rare, they are actually quite common. Take for example Battlecrusier.

[Red Harvest]

At $35 usd, the RTW add-on is the price of a good toaster, but one that's going to burn the toast anyway.

That is unfair...after all, burning the toast is a *feature* not a bug. It was decided the the toaster should periodically reset and reevaluate, starting on the "Incinerate" setting (or for the XPack on the new "Ash" setting.)

[starkhorn]

Developer patches are not rare, they are actually quite common. Take for example Battlecrusier.

I could be wrong but I seem to remember STW having a developers patch released ?

Anyone still here from that time to confirm or deny ?

[Quietus]

Perhaps you should try reading that dictionary some time because your vocabulary doesn't match the definitions. Sabotage is not used as an implement of improving something...it is used to destroy or otherwise hamper an organization. It's specific root is the use of the worker's wooden shoe, "sabot," to destroy manufacturing equipment in the early industrial age.

Blackmail also carries the connotation of extracting something undeserved from someone else with no benefit to the victim. A campaign to get a patch would hardly fit that criteria, since proper patching and support is of benefit to both parties. However, there is also the defined aspect of exposing some serious embarrassment or improper behaviour or criminal act of the victim--something unflattering that the victim wants to be kept secret. So you can take half credit and a very Pyrrhic victory since you and CA don't want CA's questionable support or the actual state of the game exposed to the general public.

Dictionary: Blackmail - "To coerce (into doing something) as by threats". The campaigners are trying to coerce CA into releasing a patch under threats of sabotaging the Amazon.com rating.
Dictionary: Sabotage - "The deliberate obstruction of or damage to any cause, movement, activity, effort, etc." Campaigners unfairly damaged the Amazon.com rating which function as the will of the collective reviewers NOT the will of the few (who gave RTW unreasonably low ratings for the purpose of blackmail).

Funny that you are trying to quantify the scale to suit your own needs. If you want to use a relative scale, then anything better than it would drop it from 5 star, making all the 5 star ratings bogus. As I said, I would have given it a 3, but I saw enouth BS 5 star ratings, that I added "weighting" to my score, much as many of the 5 stars seem to have done in the other direction. It is called "fighting fire with fire." There is nothing to prevent others from going in and putting in 5 star rankings... And many of the ratings on Amazon are 2 or 3 star, rather than 1. Your perspective is porked.

POWER TO THE CONSUMER!

I do not believe it deserves one star. However to offset the skew created by less informed posters that rate something 5 stars mainly because it looks good and they themselves lack a technical insights into the game or just basic understanding of things work it is a reasonable course of action. The end result should be 2.5 - all things being equal.

It is not for anyone to attenuate other people's reviews. Here's why:

• Point#1: Reviewer X1 gives RTW 5 stars. Reviewer X1 will review other games, cds, books or products accordingly to the same standard. Why?
  Reviewer X1's impetus/intention is pure = fair assessment = rating system works.
• Point#2: Reviewer X2 gives RTW 4 stars. Reviewer X2 will review other games, cds, books or products accordingly to the same standard. Why?
  Reviewer X2's impetus/intention is pure = fair assessment = rating system works.
• Point#3: Reviewer Y gives RTW 1 star. Reviewer Y will NOT review other games cds, books or products accordingly to the same standard. Why?
  Reviewer Y's impetus/intention is impure = unfair assessment = rating system tampered.
• Point#4: Reviewer Z gives RTW 2 stars. Reviewer Z's reasoning is to attenuate the impact of Reviewer X1's rating. Is Reviewer Z going to TRACK DOWN all the reviews of Reviewer X1 and attenuate all of them?? NO. NO. NO.
  Result = rating system for RTW is tampered.

When you do a review, you DON'T do it to attenuate other people's review. You DON'T do it to sabotage the rating as well. You do a fair assessment for potential buyers.

If you FEEL that RTW is rightfully 3-star not 5-star, then give it a 3-star rating, but not 1-star. 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.

Lastly, again, nobody can justify this amazing scale:
* = RTW
** = ???
*** = ???
**** = ???
***** = ???

[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

[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 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.

[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?

[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.

[Morat]

Quietus: I have to say I agree with Red Harvest. Words like "sabotage" and "blackmail" taken within their context in this thread (and in more general usage) are strongly negative. The balanced and reasonable spin (or sugar-coating) you now put on them is disingenuous to say the least. I think it is just as bad to dismiss the many reviews as "afterthoughts" when many are clearly well thought out and intentioned.

People have a right to express their opinions. Amazon gives them that right. It also gives other customers the right to appraise those opinions. Mark them down if you don't like them and write a review of you own. Stop bashing your fellow members of this board.

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?

Yet you look at the numbers who voted in Amazon it's hardly a 1 star whitewash. Some customers have obviously taken into account their disgust at the support of the product and rated it down. That is okay in my book. If Ford produce a car that is almost a classic but has a great number of obvious faults and does not intend to put them right, I would expect people to mark the car down.

Rome: Total War is in its final incarnation. What you buy at the shop is what you'll get. Yet there are three major issues with the game: the bizarre reload reassessment behaviour, the battle difficulty bug and the double combat traits bug. All of these are major issues and the last two are pretty noticeable. There are also numerous smaller issues with the game. Jerome Grasdkye admitted three of the smaller bugs on these very forums today. We can have some pointless debate over who carries the can for this very unfortunate state of affairs but that is the facts. Rome is a faulty product. It does not deserve 5 stars IMO. It deserves 3. Two marks are deducted for the errors and the lousy support. If we want to force software companies to support their product we can't just lie back and say it's okay to leave the game in this state! It was well be playable but it's not nearly as enjoyable as it should be.

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.

I think it means that we've reached the end of the civil discussion when someone refers to a dictionary. I also note which member it was who first mentioned it. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...8&postcount=83

What more can one say?

As for people who believe that the game deserves 3 but vote 1 to bring down the average, well I do not agree with them. But I understand their view. They are tactically voting for the reasons most state in their reviews. It is not as if they are deceiving anyone here. The majority tell people exactly why they have given the game a 1 star rating. Usually in a lot more detail than those who have given it 5.

[Kraxis]

Ah but if you take a single look at the Amazon reviews you will notice at least one case of a person reviewing twice, and even with the very same text. I chage you to take a look at it.
Of course if you are a member with two accounts that is possible, but that defeats the entire point of reviewing, but it makes for a great personal agenda don't you agree. If one person can impact the entire franchise then that person has gotten his will at the expense of other who might have liked it.

I might agree with that person, but that doesn't make it right. That is indeed a "lets hurt 'em".

[Quietus]

Quietus: I have to say I agree with Red Harvest. Words like "sabotage" and "blackmail" taken within their context in this thread (and in more general usage) are strongly negative. The balanced and reasonable spin (or sugar-coating) you now put on them is disingenuous to say the least. I think it is just as bad to dismiss the many reviews as "afterthoughts" when many are clearly well thought out and intentioned.

I scarcely think you even know the root of this campaign. Have you read the original thread "Your Homework for Today"? It was already locked and deleted. However, the second thread pertaining to the campaign is not deleted as of yet. Look for the thread "Amazon down to 4 stars for Rome!". Another locked thread, "Post here if you're unhappy with CA support" show this. I also don't believe you go to other forums to know the extent of the campaign.

Lastly: Ratings are derived from Reviews. Reviews aren't derived from Ratings. What the campaigners colluded to is to rate the game 1-star and then write the review (hence, afterthought). Do you see the difference?

People have a right to express their opinions. Amazon gives them that right. It also gives other customers the right to appraise those opinions. Mark them down if you don't like them and write a review of you own. Stop bashing your fellow members of this board.

Scroll up and read my last post up there.

[HarunTaiwan]

Yeah, a link to amazon.com is just awful sabotage.

And no, there was never a single sentence in the original post saying go post 1 star. I merely mentioned that you could go post a review.

Good, bad, or ugly. Up to you.

Also, I don't see anyone here saying that all the 5-star reviews are obviously trying to re-weight the average up. If you think the game is "objectively" worth 3 1/2 stars, then you should also have issue with those people...especially later reviews.

Finally, you are allowed to review a product based on customer service alone. It happens all the time.

[Quietus]

Yeah, a link to amazon.com is just awful sabotage.

And no, there was never a single sentence in the original post saying go post 1 star. I merely mentioned that you could go post a review.

Good, bad, or ugly. Up to you.

Also, I don't see anyone here saying that all the 5-star reviews are obviously trying to re-weight the average up. If you think the game is "objectively" worth 3 1/2 stars, then you should also have issue with those people...especially later reviews.

Finally, you are allowed to review a product based on customer service alone. It happens all the time.

I can't quote the thread that is deleted, but for purpose of clarification I can quote others.
4/06/05 on "Post here if you're unhappy with Ca support" thread:

Might I also recommend offering some BAD REVIEW ON AMAZON?

I think ';ll go there soon and leave one.

You wouldn't know it from the title, but the Your Homework for Today thread actually contains a very good idea on this issue IMHO. Post a review of RTW on Amazon, now that you know about the load bug and CA's response to it. Maybe CA marketing will start to wonder why the average rating for their product took a nosedive and exert pressure on the devs to actually run the tests we asked for and see the bug for themselves.

Also go to the "Heart of the Matter...." thread. I went to Amazon.com site after seeing the "Your Homework For Today" thread and saw about 10 new reviews (all one-star; with the exception of one which I think is 2 or 3 stars).

[Red Harvest]

Kraxis,

I still only get 1 vote. It was after direct discussions with some putting up 5 stars that I had enough. 5 star at this point *while knowing the problems* is assinine at best, and certainly disingenuous. So I elected to send a message to counter what I consider fraudulent voting. The reviews I've read certainly aren't a 1 star white wash. (That double post might have been in error, I had that happen to me once on a hardware review--the review didn't appear for quite awhile so I thought it got lost in cyberspace, so I reposted it. Then both of them appeared next to one another in just a few seconds. Groan, thwarted by technology.)

Another issue is that most folks rate things within a few days of purchase if at all. So when it is all shiney and new, and the patches are still on the horizon, optimism tends to prevail (and that is good.) Now we are on the other side of that. I don't think many of us would rate it as highly now as we would have before. (Which is a real problem for me with 5 star reviews.) To me that is where the genius was in rating the game now. Incidentally, it would make just as much sense to do so with a game that greatly improved through patches after a shakey start.

I am amused by all of Quietus collusion, sabotage, and blackmail theories. As a side note, sabotage is usually in reference to an "inside job," again making it an incorrect usage. So using it for this is quite sensational and quite wrong.