Why in the hell has 81% reviews?

[AntiGrieferGames]

Are they are purchased reviews or even fake reviews? I dont know how this has good rating.

Edit: 82% now. are there more fake, botted, bought positive reviews? You can no longer trust reviews on every corporation anymore

Edit2: Finally they are back to 81%!

[Prisoner 76561197992841073]

Originally posted by AntiGrieferGames:

Are they are purchased reviews or even fake reviews? I dont know how this has good rating.

It's the Dustborn effect. So few people have bought the game, only those who were really into it bought it and thus they would review it highly.

[JKDos]

The game hasn't been out long enough for any of the reviews to be legitimate, positive or negative... For what it's worth, if you love Assassin's Creed, you don't need reviews, just buy the game and have fun.

Ignore the negative reviews talking about how it doesn't work on their computers. You see these a lot for computer games, and they don't reflect the actual game. I seen these a lot especially for Ghost of Tsushima and Starfield, despite both games running flawlessly on Ultra Settings.

Originally posted by HDDLoverBoyForLife:

Doesn't work on my potato computer because I thought I was too good to follow the minimum specs. SSD Required? Not for me, I'll keep my HDD thank you very much. 1/5

[Widget]

Originally posted by Stan:

Originally posted by Widget:

Only 200 people played it for at least 5 hours, most people blindly leave a like.

Because apperantly people don't need to eat, sleep, work, or live in different time zone.

Then they should leave a positive review after they do those things, I heard most of early game is cutscene after cutscene. How much of a gameplay they saw in those 2 hours of gametime they have.

[Weird, weird...]

Originally posted by Stan:

Originally posted by Weird, weird...:

Sure, I'm down KEKW.

Dude, no need to get all on the defensive: you lost an argument, because you provided a false claim. Use this to get better at arguing (if you so desire) instead of letting your ego take over and make ANOTHER false claim (pretending that I said that he was clearly a bot. All I said is that you can't prove that he's not)...

One step at a time, you'll get better at this, it's not a big deal and it takes time <3.

So you saying you can't prove either that neither him or i are bots.

That is correct! See how easy it is to NOT claim that you know everything? To not make statements that are based on... Nothing?

I'm still waiting for your phone number to call you though...

And, last but not least, just in case that you, yet again, are confused: I thought that it WAS sussy IF it was an account with 2k reviews, but 2k games with 48 reviews = yeah, that's not sussy imo. Maybe he's a BIT addicted to games, sure, 2k games IS a lot imo, but I have 0 reason to think that he's a bot, paid for reviews, since he only has 48.

[Widget]

Originally posted by Widget:

Originally posted by Stan:

Because apperantly people don't need to eat, sleep, work, or live in different time zone.

Then they should leave a positive review after they do those things, I heard most of early game is cutscene after cutscene. How much of a gameplay they saw in those 2 hours of gametime they have.

I'm sorry, now that I have checked 60% people haven't played more than 1 hour.

[Happy Larry]

Already discussed many times , its fake. Steam won't let the game(Suicide squad, Star wars outlaws were the same) review bombed . Only the positive ones stay for a long time ( they add some negative ones here and there)
Money talks.

[PaulGR]

It's not rocket science.

The game is being purchased only by a small minority that will defend this slop with their life for political reasons. All the other people didn't buy it and therefore can't review it. Imo 81% is very low considering the only people who bought this mess were fanboys. Then you also have the issue of paid reviews and Ubisoft has paid popular review websites like IGN for positive reviews many times in the past, including for AC Shadows. It's not reaching far assuming that most reviews on Steam are purchased bots.

What you should look at is player numbers. Clocking 35.000 people on Steam on launch day IS WILD. Especially for a "triple-A" and an Assassins Creed title. They are filing for bankruptcy after this. Tencent will probably buy them.

[Xarko]

Why is it surprising that people who bought the game think the game is worthy of buying?

[emilethetemplar]

Originally posted by Junders Plunkett:

Culture war stuff aside, it does suck to see so many people continue to support one of the most anti-consumer companies that has ever existed. As for the review score, may I suggest that a lot of people have quit buying these type of games, so the majority of folks who bought it knew what they were getting. 41K on steam is not a lot, Im guessing because Ubisoft has hit PC gamers the hardest with their anti-consumer practices where as on console its not as noticeable.

That's the most frustrating part. They are perfectly legitimate reasons to despise Ubisoft and instead people decide to go after the stuff they deem woke. Like come on...

[JKDos]

Originally posted by PaulGR:

It's not rocket science.
Clocking 35.000 people on Steam on launch day

Not true. It was 41,000, not 35,000. Plus, it was a thursday. People have jobs. Plus, that's the Steam count. It doesn't include Ubisoft+, Connect, Xbox, or Playstation.

Again, please stop pushing lies. Launch day was 3-20-2025. Launch day had 41,000 Steam players

[a x o]

Cuz its an great game? The best AC since the Ezio Trilogy.
The one that are playing are the true gamer, that dont care for any agenda, just here for the fun and not some fake rage bait tourist, that never played the series anyway.

[Stan]

Originally posted by Weird, weird...:

Originally posted by Stan:

So you saying you can't prove either that neither him or i are bots.

That is correct! See how easy it is to NOT claim that you know everything? To not make statements that are based on... Nothing?

Isn't that what you a doing currently?

You first claim that these people who leave positive review are bots, i provide you with a name and ask you if he is a bot, you say yes.

Then you ask me to prove that he is not a bot by calling hes phone, using facebook, X, ect..
Now i can't do this because like i said, i am not hes personal friend, so i ask you instead to prove that i am a bot which i'm clearly not.

Now you said you can't do that but you are still claiming that this guy is a bot, yet you can't prove he is a bot either. So isn't your claim also based on nothing?

And if you still keep claiming that this guy is one of thous bots, then are you then also claiming that that developers of Wukongg, spider-man and others games have also use bots to create fake reviews, and if so, then i would like to see some prove on that.

[Weird, weird...]

Originally posted by Stan:

Originally posted by Weird, weird...:

That is correct! See how easy it is to NOT claim that you know everything? To not make statements that are based on... Nothing?

Isn't that what you a doing currently?

You first claim that these people who leave positive review are bots, i provide you with a name and ask you if he is a bot, you say yes.

Then you ask me to prove that he is not a bot by calling hes phone, using facebook, X, ect..
Now i can't do this because like i said, i am not hes personal friend, so i ask you instead to prove that i am a bot which i'm clearly not.

Now you said you can't do that but you are still claiming that this guy is a bot, yet you can't prove he is a bot either. So isn't your claim also based on nothing?

And if you still keep claiming that this guy is one of thous bots, then are you then also claiming that that developers of Wukongg, spider-man and others games have also use bots to create fake reviews, and if so, then i would like to see some prove on that.

WOW, ok, you are WAY more confused than I thought...

1- I never said that this person was a bot; I claimed that an account with 2000 reviews would look suspicious to me. Does this account have 2000 reviews? No, he has 48.

2- I asked you to prove that he is not a bot because, well, you can't; even if I specified that I no longer suspect him of being a bot (since he has 48 reviews; not 2000).

3- No, I am not "still claiming" that he is a bot (I never claimed that he was in the first place, I firmly encourage you to re-read my messages).

4- I have no idea if devs of Wukong and other games use bots, I'm sure that SOME do, but it would be very hard to prove; I'm not Sherlock Holmes for bot reviews, all I claimed, was that an account with 2000 reviews would look INCREDIBLY suspicious.

Hope this helps, cause you seem to be lost in the sauce...

[SoldadØ]

I bought the game with the certainty that I would play the first 2 hours and get a refund, but when I saw it, I had 6 hours of gameplay and was hooked in the story. The game is really good, the only one that has kept me hooked since BF. If the numbers aren't better, it's not the game's fault, but Ubisoft's fault.

The theme is good, the graphics are good, the gameplay is good, the characters are good. The game is very good, even if the haters don't agree.

[RedCelt]

82%

The more it increases, the harder the sheeple deny