Almost all negative Steam user reviews are due to bugs

[Ninjamestari]

It's a shame looking at the state of these forums, because reading the stuff the fanbois here post really makes me *want* to hate the game AND the company. I like the game so far, but the bug-ridden state of this release is utterly inexcusable and most of the criticism towards it is absolutely justified. If the game didn't feel so damn good, I probably would hate it, but as it is I can't. All I can do is be disappointed and hope they'll make up for this by patching things up as soon as possible.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Ninjamestari

[Fluffle]

It's a shame looking at the state of these forums, because reading the stuff the fanbois here post really makes me *want* to hate the game AND the company. I like the game so far, but the bug-ridden state of this release is utterly inexcusable and most of the criticism towards it is absolutely justified. If the game didn't feel so damn good, I probably would hate it, but as it is I can't. All I can do is be disappointed and hope they'll make up for this by patching things up as soon as possible.

 

Careful, careful, careful!

 

You're close to stepping into fanboying territory here!

 

You say the game feels so damn good despite all the bugs!

That's what a fanboy would do.

[Jawsjam]

 

 

OK

 

So to everyone who had disagreed with me saying them game is not broken im going to give you four reasons why it 100% is

 

Easy difficulty = absolute joke

hard difficulty = even bigger joke

veteran difficulty = frickin laughing stock

POTD = The biggest joke the world has ever seen since donald Trump got elected president

 

The difficulty levels in this game mean nothing and i mean 100% nothing.

 

There is absolutely no difference between me starting a easy difficulty play through compared to a POTD play-through

 

Level scaling also is completely broken. like totally broken (admitted by sawyer on twitter)

 

I wish all you non believers the best in your en-devours. May you beat the game sideways with your level 2 priest/ monk and enjoy yourselves.

 

Until you see the light and realize you have been completely screwed over until they fix the game, god bless you

 

you are truly special souls that deserve what you get.

 

god bless

So if I make a POTD character, it'll be just as hard/easy as it is on normal?

Yep the game is currently broken. According to sawyer himself level scaling is broken and POTD is way out of whack.

 

There are certain users on this forum who think otherwise. They are special people. Special people who try and delflect away from the truth with there special ramblings about nothing really,

 

 

Everyone is in agreement that the game is buggy, that is perfectly justifiable and we are not in disagreement about this. Ultimately an individuals experience depends on what you are willing to make of it.

 

Clearly your toys are out of the pram - Right, so obviously everyone else's opinions and experiences must be "special" - You are really so bent on undermining other people.

 

On the bright side, you should try out Fanatic or Zealot class for your next playthrough, you've already demonstrated this suits you perfectly from a roleplay perspective.

[darkhain]

And he's right the difficulty level is a terrible joke in this game, once you reach lvl6-8, you'll roflstomp the whole game (on PotD) without doing anything.

A game of this genre, with a such broken difficulty balance, is just a NO.

While I didn't review the game, because I'll wait a bit before, it deserve bad reviews while the game stay in this state.

[Ninjamestari]

 

It's a shame looking at the state of these forums, because reading the stuff the fanbois here post really makes me *want* to hate the game AND the company. I like the game so far, but the bug-ridden state of this release is utterly inexcusable and most of the criticism towards it is absolutely justified. If the game didn't feel so damn good, I probably would hate it, but as it is I can't. All I can do is be disappointed and hope they'll make up for this by patching things up as soon as possible.

 

Careful, careful, careful!

 

You're close to stepping into fanboying territory here!

 

You say the game feels so damn good despite all the bugs!

That's what a fanboy would do.

 

 

Nope, a fanboi would deny the existence of the bugs or try to downplay their significance, insisting that there's nothing wrong with the game and that all criticism against it is unfair.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Ninjamestari

[Amentep]

To Whom it May Concern: Knock off the personal commentary.  People are welcome to express opinions about topics without being called names, even if done through 'subtle' implication.

[Fluffle]

 

Nope, a fanboi would deny the existence of the bugs or try to downplay their significance, insisting that there's nothing wrong with the game and that all criticism against it is unfair.

 

Alright, then I take my comment back. For a moment I felt that you were downplaying the significance of the bugs a bit.

Because how can a bug-ridden game still feel so damn good?

 

I'm not even sure there are people here who deny the existence of the bugs. I think it all comes down to how much significance you put on the bugs.

 

There are people who can enjoy the game despite the bugs. And there are people who declare the game to be unplayable and be broken because of the bugs. But I haven't yet seen people who refuse outright that there are any bugs in the game at all. What I have seen is people being labelled "fanboys" in order to make their opinion invalid. But hopefully that is going to stop now, with Amentep's post in mind.

 

My opinion is that YES the bugs should be mentioned in reviews. Also it is okay to give the game a lower score because of the bugs. BUT then I would hope that the reviewer updates their review as soon as the devs fix the bugs. I think that'd be fair.

[Jawsjam]

 

 

Nope, a fanboi would deny the existence of the bugs or try to downplay their significance, insisting that there's nothing wrong with the game and that all criticism against it is unfair.

I'm not even sure there are people here who deny the existence of the bugs. I think it all comes down to how much significance you put on the bugs.

 

There are people who can enjoy the game despite the bugs. And there are people who declare the game to be unplayable and be broken because of the bugs. But I haven't yet seen people who refuse outright that there are any bugs in the game at all. What I have seen is people being labelled "fanboys" in order to make their opinion invalid. But hopefully that is going to stop now, with Amentep's post in mind.

 

 

Wholeheartedly agree, what's wrong with some decent passion and positivity? Fanboys unite!

 

I think we all just need to jump into a nice, steamy, adra-filled bathhouse and work things out together (And let off some steam of course) .

[Ninjamestari]

There's nothing wrong with passion, but there's plenty wrong with passion-induced-blindness. Passion always has to be tempered with honesty and reason.

 

Also, fanbois aren't about passion, they are about a desperate need to belong to a group. You know, kinda like the Star Wars people who still want to pretend the new films are good because their whole identity is built upon that premise. Having passion is something I respect (hell, I get to trouble all the time because I can be a little bit too passionate about the things I speak about), being a fanboi (in the manner I described) on the other hand is something I loathe.

 

EDIT: passion also has to be coupled with the strength to handle both it and the opposing reaction it generates. There is no passion without occasional ****storms.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Ninjamestari

[SonnySahl]

It will change once the new patch comes later today. People also go wonkers if everything is not perfect from the get go

[Fluffle]

There's nothing wrong with passion, but there's plenty wrong with passion-induced-blindness. Passion always has to be tempered with honesty and reason.

 

Also, fanbois aren't about passion, they are about a desperate need to belong to a group. You know, kinda like the Star Wars people who still want to pretend the new films are good because their whole identity is built upon that premise. Having passion is something I respect (hell, I get to trouble all the time because I can be a little bit too passionate about the things I speak about), being a fanboi (in the manner I described) on the other hand is something I loathe.

 

EDIT: passion also has to be coupled with the strength to handle both it and the opposing reaction it generates. There is no passion without occasional ****storms.

 

I think we can let it go now calling other people fanboys in order to make their opinion invalid.

 

Fanboys are not the topic of this thread anyway. You have expressed your definition and your opinion about fanboys now.

We have also all be reminded by a moderator to "Knock off the personal commentary".

 

So at least in this thread, we should not call each other that anymore.

 

The thing is, even if I agreed with your opinion and your definition of a fanboy, what good is that as long as I cannot use it against other forum members on this forum whose opinions I don't like? But that is exactly what a moderator asked us to stop doing!

Edited May 15, 2018 by Fluffle

[yoyolll]

My opinion is that YES the bugs should be mentioned in reviews. Also it is okay to give the game a lower score because of the bugs. BUT then I would hope that the reviewer updates their review as soon as the devs fix the bugs. I think that'd be fair.

 

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that 99% of reviews will not do this.  They will simply move on to the next release and never think about Deadfire again.  Same with all the potential consumers who see the negative reviews and think "I'll check up on this later".

 

I've had this same argument with communities of games in Early Access.  They don't realize that you only get to make one big splash at launch.  You get the spotlight for exactly 1 day, whether that's beta, or early access, or a bug-ridden mess of a launch.  Even if it's patched to perfection 2 weeks after launch, the vast majority of people have already moved on.  There are so many games coming out these days, it's ludicrous to expect the average gamer to even keep up with patches and improvements for games they own, much less ones they don't.

 

The people here are fans of Obsidian, and we know Obsidian will (mostly) fix all the bugs and polish up the game over the next several months.  But the larger audience only sees this game on launch day.  If it weren't for the import/history bug, this game would probably have been "overwhelmingly positive" on Steam for at least the first two days or so.  That would have gone a very long way for the cRPG revival.

 

To be clear, I'm not putting any blame on reviewers.  If the game is bugged, the review needs to reflect that.  I'm putting the blame on Obsidian, who seem to be unable to break out of this habit of releasing their games too early and fixing it post-launch.

 

This sort of carelessness reflects extremely poorly on one of my favorite genre of games.  It makes me sad.  We have been lacking high-budget cRPGs since the days of KotOR and NWN, and the fact that Deadfire had half peak players as PoE1 on launch will not improve the situation.

[Fluffle]

 

My opinion is that YES the bugs should be mentioned in reviews. Also it is okay to give the game a lower score because of the bugs. BUT then I would hope that the reviewer updates their review as soon as the devs fix the bugs. I think that'd be fair.

 

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that 99% of reviews will not do this.  They will simply move on to the next release and never think about Deadfire again.  Same with all the potential consumers who see the negative reviews and think "I'll check up on this later".

 

I've had this same argument with communities of games in Early Access.  They don't realize that you only get to make one big splash at launch.  You get the spotlight for exactly 1 day, whether that's beta, or early access, or a bug-ridden mess of a launch.  Even if it's patched to perfection 2 weeks after launch, the vast majority of people have already moved on.  There are so many games coming out these days, it's ludicrous to expect the average gamer to even keep up with patches and improvements for games they own, much less ones they don't.

 

The people here are fans of Obsidian, and we know Obsidian will (mostly) fix all the bugs and polish up the game over the next several months.  But the larger audience only sees this game on launch day.  If it weren't for the import/history bug, this game would probably have been "overwhelmingly positive" on Steam for at least the first two days or so.  That would have gone a very long way for the cRPG revival.

 

 

I agree with you mostly for that part of your post that I quoted and I give you a like for that part. With the rest I disagree.

 

This is my big fear actually. That many reviewers will not bother to update their reviews. It's just a fear though. It may be unwarranted. I do not know how many reviewers will update their review and if they are going to do it at all.

 

First, I'd like to avoid speaking of "blame". I'd rather be talking about "responsibility". And then I would say, that in my opinion, Obsidian is responsible to keep their game as bug-free as possible. Yes, also at launch. That does not mean that I expect a flawless game without any bugs at launch. Personally, I don't mind bugged launches even. I'm just saying that I think it's Obsidian's responsibility to deal with the bugs.

 

But I also think that reviewing a game comes with responsibility. One thing to think about is this for example: Should a review really be given on day one?

Edited May 15, 2018 by Fluffle

[yoyolll]

But I also think that reviewing a game comes with responsibility. One thing to think about is this for example: Should a review really be given on day one?

 

The answer in 2018 is unequivocally "no".  Most games with a good developer will get some amount of post-launch patches or content, so the day one review will inevitably be outdated.

 

However, that's just not how it works in reality.  Reviewers need to get their reviews out as soon as the embargo is lifted because that's how they get views.  I wish I could find some kind of aggregated data of game review clicks on launch week vs the rest of their lifetime.  I would bet that reviews get more clicks within 7 days of release (and embargo if they are different days) than every day from then on put together.  That's why reviewers always try to get that day 1 review out ASAP.  And also why most of them don't ever bother updating their reviews.  There are so many games, movies, TV shows, news, etc. coming out all the time that people don't have the mind-space to follow up on a game that's supposed to be fixed later.

 

I did find some interesting data, though not the exact type I was looking for.  This is from "Predicting Video Game Sales in the European Market" by Walter Steven Beaujon from Vrije University in Amsterdam:

"The data shows that most titles will launch to a high first week and start to decline every week from that point on. On average games that see decline will decrease with 36% from week 1 to week 2, and then with 33% from 2 to 3."

 

That's why reviewers only care about the day 1 review.  That's when the consumers are paying attention to the game.  And then, right away, it's on to the next one.  I do think it's irresponsible not to update the reviews, but I can't say I blame them considering how many games are constantly coming out and how little interest a follow-up review will hold.

 

It's a tough market, and what Obsidian does is not easy.  But I can't imagine that delaying the game for another month would have hurt as much as releasing with so many bugs.

[Ryz009]

 

My opinion is that YES the bugs should be mentioned in reviews. Also it is okay to give the game a lower score because of the bugs. BUT then I would hope that the reviewer updates their review as soon as the devs fix the bugs. I think that'd be fair.

 

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that 99% of reviews will not do this.  They will simply move on to the next release and never think about Deadfire again.  Same with all the potential consumers who see the negative reviews and think "I'll check up on this later".

 

I've had this same argument with communities of games in Early Access.  They don't realize that you only get to make one big splash at launch.  You get the spotlight for exactly 1 day, whether that's beta, or early access, or a bug-ridden mess of a launch.  Even if it's patched to perfection 2 weeks after launch, the vast majority of people have already moved on.  There are so many games coming out these days, it's ludicrous to expect the average gamer to even keep up with patches and improvements for games they own, much less ones they don't.

 

The people here are fans of Obsidian, and we know Obsidian will (mostly) fix all the bugs and polish up the game over the next several months.  But the larger audience only sees this game on launch day.  If it weren't for the import/history bug, this game would probably have been "overwhelmingly positive" on Steam for at least the first two days or so.  That would have gone a very long way for the cRPG revival.

 

To be clear, I'm not putting any blame on reviewers.  If the game is bugged, the review needs to reflect that.  I'm putting the blame on Obsidian, who seem to be unable to break out of this habit of releasing their games too early and fixing it post-launch.

 

This sort of carelessness reflects extremely poorly on one of my favorite genre of games.  It makes me sad.  We have been lacking high-budget cRPGs since the days of KotOR and NWN, and the fact that Deadfire had half peak players as PoE1 on launch will not improve the situation.

 

 

This is why Obsidian's "oh we don't wanna spoil" beta made me shake my head. You know how many issues DOS1 &2 early access caught? Loads. The import issue would've been reported the first day of early access. The companion issues also would've been reported early on. There was no reason to get us absolutely zero critical path to check and all it did was backfire on them.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Ryz009

[Fluffle]

 

But I also think that reviewing a game comes with responsibility. One thing to think about is this for example: Should a review really be given on day one?

 

The answer in 2018 is unequivocally "no".  Most games with a good developer will get some amount of post-launch patches or content, so the day one review will inevitably be outdated.

 

However, that's just not how it works in reality.  Reviewers need to get their reviews out as soon as the embargo is lifted because that's how they get views.  I wish I could find some kind of aggregated data of game review clicks on launch week vs the rest of their lifetime.  I would bet that reviews get more clicks within 7 days of release (and embargo if they are different days) than every day from then on put together.  That's why reviewers always try to get that day 1 review out ASAP.  And also why most of them don't ever bother updating their reviews.  There are so many games, movies, TV shows, news, etc. coming out all the time that people don't have the mind-space to follow up on a game that's supposed to be fixed later.

 

I did find some interesting data, though not the exact type I was looking for.  This is from "Predicting Video Game Sales in the European Market" by Walter Steven Beaujon from Vrije University in Amsterdam:

"The data shows that most titles will launch to a high first week and start to decline every week from that point on. On average games that see decline will decrease with 36% from week 1 to week 2, and then with 33% from 2 to 3."

 

That's why reviewers only care about the day 1 review.  That's when the consumers are paying attention to the game.  And then, right away, it's on to the next one.  I do think it's irresponsible not to update the reviews, but I can't say I blame them considering how many games are constantly coming out and how little interest a follow-up review will hold.

 

It's a tough market, and what Obsidian does is not easy.  But I can't imagine that delaying the game for another month would have hurt as much as releasing with so many bugs.

 

Based on that you can actually advocate (at least) two different "solutions":

 

One is, the game should come out with as little bugs as possible. That's a given.

 

Second is, the reviews should be updated. But since that seems not practical, I would say instead this:

 

The significance of bugs in day one reviews should be reduced. Yes, the reviewer should still mention them. And the reviewer can lower their score based on that. However, if it is reasonable to assume that the bugs are going to be fixed and if it is reasonable to assume that the reviewer will not be bothered with updating their review anymore, THEN I would say the reviewer should put less importance to the bugs in their review.

 

And before someone attempts to put words in my mouth. I'm not suggesting at all that the reviewer should ignore the bugs. I'm suggesting that they mention the bugs but put the focus of their review elsewhere.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Fluffle

[Ninjamestari]

 

But I also think that reviewing a game comes with responsibility. One thing to think about is this for example: Should a review really be given on day one?

 

The answer in 2018 is unequivocally "no".  Most games with a good developer will get some amount of post-launch patches or content, so the day one review will inevitably be outdated.

 

However, that's just not how it works in reality.  Reviewers need to get their reviews out as soon as the embargo is lifted because that's how they get views.  I wish I could find some kind of aggregated data of game review clicks on launch week vs the rest of their lifetime.  I would bet that reviews get more clicks within 7 days of release (and embargo if they are different days) than every day from then on put together.  That's why reviewers always try to get that day 1 review out ASAP.  And also why most of them don't ever bother updating their reviews.  There are so many games, movies, TV shows, news, etc. coming out all the time that people don't have the mind-space to follow up on a game that's supposed to be fixed later.

 

I did find some interesting data, though not the exact type I was looking for.  This is from "Predicting Video Game Sales in the European Market" by Walter Steven Beaujon from Vrije University in Amsterdam:

"The data shows that most titles will launch to a high first week and start to decline every week from that point on. On average games that see decline will decrease with 36% from week 1 to week 2, and then with 33% from 2 to 3."

 

That's why reviewers only care about the day 1 review.  That's when the consumers are paying attention to the game.  And then, right away, it's on to the next one.  I do think it's irresponsible not to update the reviews, but I can't say I blame them considering how many games are constantly coming out and how little interest a follow-up review will hold.

 

It's a tough market, and what Obsidian does is not easy.  But I can't imagine that delaying the game for another month would have hurt as much as releasing with so many bugs.

 

 

I think you're downplaying the responsibility of the gaming company to not ship unfinished games. It's their choice, if they release a game in a sorry state, it's going to reflect in the reviews and in many cases you won't get a second chance. It's better to ship the game late than to ship the game as a buggy mess. It's not the responsibility of the reviewer to shield the game from the bad decisions of the producers and developers. If I review a game, I won't downplay the bugs, I'm going to tell exactly what I think about them and treat the game as it is, not what it could be. I'll update that review if things change and I feel like it, but the responsibility of a good launch is not on those who make the review, it's 100% on the company that makes the game.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Ninjamestari

[yoyolll]

 

 

But I also think that reviewing a game comes with responsibility. One thing to think about is this for example: Should a review really be given on day one?

 

The answer in 2018 is unequivocally "no". Most games with a good developer will get some amount of post-launch patches or content, so the day one review will inevitably be outdated.

 

However, that's just not how it works in reality. Reviewers need to get their reviews out as soon as the embargo is lifted because that's how they get views. I wish I could find some kind of aggregated data of game review clicks on launch week vs the rest of their lifetime. I would bet that reviews get more clicks within 7 days of release (and embargo if they are different days) than every day from then on put together. That's why reviewers always try to get that day 1 review out ASAP. And also why most of them don't ever bother updating their reviews. There are so many games, movies, TV shows, news, etc. coming out all the time that people don't have the mind-space to follow up on a game that's supposed to be fixed later.

 

I did find some interesting data, though not the exact type I was looking for. This is from "Predicting Video Game Sales in the European Market" by Walter Steven Beaujon from Vrije University in Amsterdam:

"The data shows that most titles will launch to a high first week and start to decline every week from that point on. On average games that see decline will decrease with 36% from week 1 to week 2, and then with 33% from 2 to 3."

 

That's why reviewers only care about the day 1 review. That's when the consumers are paying attention to the game. And then, right away, it's on to the next one. I do think it's irresponsible not to update the reviews, but I can't say I blame them considering how many games are constantly coming out and how little interest a follow-up review will hold.

 

It's a tough market, and what Obsidian does is not easy. But I can't imagine that delaying the game for another month would have hurt as much as releasing with so many bugs.

I think you're downplaying the responsibility of the gaming company to not ship unfinished games. It's their choice, if they release a game in a sorry state, it's going to reflect in the reviews and in many cases you won't get a second chance. It's better to ship the game late than to ship the game as a buggy mess. It's not the responsibility of the reviewer to shield the game from the bad decisions of the producers and developers. If I review a game, I won't downplay the bugs, I'm going to tell exactly what I think about them and treat the game as it is, not what it could be. I'll update that review if things change and I feel like it, but the responsibility of a good launch is not on those who make the review, it's 100% on the company that makes the game.

I 100% agree with this, sorry for not making that clear. The responsibility rests squarely on the developer's shoulders for a bug ridden launch. I was just pointing out that games rarely, if ever, get a second chance in today's market because there are so many constantly being released year round. You just can't expect reviews to be updated or people to pay attention, even if it's the right thing to do.

[Slotharingia]

 

 

OK

 

So to everyone who had disagreed with me saying them game is not broken im going to give you four reasons why it 100% is

 

Easy difficulty = absolute joke

hard difficulty = even bigger joke

veteran difficulty = frickin laughing stock

POTD = The biggest joke the world has ever seen since donald Trump got elected president

 

The difficulty levels in this game mean nothing and i mean 100% nothing.

 

There is absolutely no difference between me starting a easy difficulty play through compared to a POTD play-through

 

Level scaling also is completely broken. like totally broken (admitted by sawyer on twitter)

 

I wish all you non believers the best in your en-devours. May you beat the game sideways with your level 2 priest/ monk and enjoy yourselves.

 

Until you see the light and realize you have been completely screwed over until they fix the game, god bless you

 

you are truly special souls that deserve what you get.

 

god bless

So if I make a POTD character, it'll be just as hard/easy as it is on normal?

Yep the game is currently broken. According to sawyer himself level scaling is broken and POTD is way out of whack.

 

There are certain users on this forum who think otherwise. They are special people. Special people who try and delflect away from the truth with there special ramblings about nothing really,

 

You'll be overjoyed to hear I actually tried this, with some difficulty I might add since first my P1 saves didn't display and I had to faff around, after which the game just removed Eder for no apparent reason. Now those are things I find pretty annoying xD So, third time lucky, I made an ascendant cipher/rogue hybrid. Really wish I'd done this for my other char who's pure rogue. As for the difficulty, I haven't got very far, but it is definitely harder than normal in spite of having Berath's Blessings. I have to kite a lot as the mobs stop hittiing Eder and focus on my main. I'm taking way more damage, and the rest of the party drop like flies (Xoti, Aloth and a homemade one). I think it was actually easier before I got those 3. I'm having to pay a lot more attention to what I'm doing, use more items etc. I've also had to give up on some stuff to go back later, so you can take it from a person who doesn't normally play harder difficulties that it actually is significantly harder. *shrug* I'm only level 2, but I'm not sure I want to inflict any more of this upon myself xD

Edited May 16, 2018 by Slotharingia

[Ninjamestari]

 

There's nothing wrong with passion, but there's plenty wrong with passion-induced-blindness. Passion always has to be tempered with honesty and reason.

 

Also, fanbois aren't about passion, they are about a desperate need to belong to a group. You know, kinda like the Star Wars people who still want to pretend the new films are good because their whole identity is built upon that premise. Having passion is something I respect (hell, I get to trouble all the time because I can be a little bit too passionate about the things I speak about), being a fanboi (in the manner I described) on the other hand is something I loathe.

 

EDIT: passion also has to be coupled with the strength to handle both it and the opposing reaction it generates. There is no passion without occasional ****storms.

 

I think we can let it go now calling other people fanboys in order to make their opinion invalid.

 

Fanboys are not the topic of this thread anyway. You have expressed your definition and your opinion about fanboys now.

We have also all be reminded by a moderator to "Knock off the personal commentary".

 

So at least in this thread, we should not call each other that anymore.

 

The thing is, even if I agreed with your opinion and your definition of a fanboy, what good is that as long as I cannot use it against other forum members on this forum whose opinions I don't like? But that is exactly what a moderator asked us to stop doing!

 

 

It's nice that you keep up the personal commentary while accusing others of it.

[Lokithecat]

'Almost all negative Steam user Reviews are Due to Bugs'

 

And here I thought all negative Steam user Reviews (on any game) are due to whiny children, who's opinion is completely meaningless.

[PangaeaACDC]

Try to avoid the pit of darkness that is steam, but looked up the game on metacritic. It has a review score of 89 (hope Obsidian employees wouldn't get a massive bonus if it got 90 and nothing without..) and a user score of 8.3. Certainly not too shabby, and we all know who user scores can be "gamed". I like to look up the negative reviews to see what they actually say. As expected most are irrational and mostly baseless criticisms.

 

Playing the game and not having fun is fine, it can happen -- but to then give the game a rating of 0? That's not being serious.

 

Actual reviews can be horrible too, on the opposite side of the scale usually, but at least they have to be somewhat serious -- even if they typically give terrible games great reviews and scores. There are reasons for that of course, which the sadly cancer-struck youtube commenter highlighted time and again.

[yoyolll]

Try to avoid the pit of darkness that is steam, but looked up the game on metacritic. It has a review score of 89 (hope Obsidian employees wouldn't get a massive bonus if it got 90 and nothing without..) and a user score of 8.3. Certainly not too shabby, and we all know who user scores can be "gamed". I like to look up the negative reviews to see what they actually say. As expected most are irrational and mostly baseless criticisms.

The user score on Steam is at 83% as well, so they are in agreement.  But I actually saw a lot more angry, irrational reviews on metacritic than on Steam.  The negative Steam reviews for Deadfire mostly highlight the major bugs in the game.  Although I've noticed there are a lot more people complaining about the story now than there were a few days ago.  I guess because people are finishing the game now.

[Fluffle]

'Almost all negative Steam user Reviews are Due to Bugs'

 

And here I thought all negative Steam user Reviews (on any game) are due to whiny children, who's opinion is completely meaningless.

And here I thought all positive reviews are due to fanboys, whose opinions are completely meaningless.

 

Yeah that game can be played both ways.

 

When there is an opinion we don't like we find a pejorative label for the person who has that opinion and we try to discredit them with that label, so that their opinion doesn't count anymore.

 

Let's just admit it already. Let's stop this game of pretending to be nice. Let's say it how it is:

If someone's opinion doesn't match our own then that person's opinion is invalid per default. And by giving that person a label we justify that.

 

So when can we finally start to actually discuss actual opinions without trying to discredit the person who has that opinion in order to make their opinion invalid?

 

Can we start now? What about now? How about now?

[Karkarov]

The import/history bugs, broken quests in Neketaka, and messed up relationship system really should not have gotten past QA.  No one in their right mind expects a game like this to be bug free, but this many broken quests and non functional or barely functional features is inexcusable.

What broken quests in Neketaka?  I literally haven't found one, I have found some strange ones that work a little odd, but they weren't broke.  Also those heinous import bugs were fixed in a patch that was available by the time you made this post?

 

Yes people have a right to be upset, yes you have a right to call out and report bugs, there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Just please stop calling the game broken, it is not broken.  You can boot it up, you can play it, you can complete it.  Could it be better?  Yes.  Does it need a difficulty balancing?  Sure does.  Are there some bugs?  Yes, there are bugs.

 

None of that means the game is "broken and unplayable" though.