Steam installeren
inloggen
|
taal
简体中文 (Chinees, vereenvoudigd)
繁體中文 (Chinees, traditioneel)
日本語 (Japans)
한국어 (Koreaans)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgaars)
Čeština (Tsjechisch)
Dansk (Deens)
Deutsch (Duits)
English (Engels)
Español-España (Spaans - Spanje)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spaans - Latijns-Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Grieks)
Français (Frans)
Italiano (Italiaans)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Hongaars)
Norsk (Noors)
Polski (Pools)
Português (Portugees - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Braziliaans-Portugees)
Română (Roemeens)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Fins)
Svenska (Zweeds)
Türkçe (Turks)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamees)
Українська (Oekraïens)
Een vertaalprobleem melden
Dit topic is gesloten 
Regels en richtlijnen voor discussies
Dit bericht rapporteren
And you'll keep shifting and shifting and shifting your goalpost until we reach some faith-based territory. And we already know your endgame it's right there.
Aka "you're right but figuring it out is racist" argument.
More gaslighting.
No, it objectively isn't. No part of the story ever made any reference to Filia's panty color. it never served a plot-related purpose, and since you can play with different color palettes the entire point is moot. You're REALLY reaching here.
No, they aren't. You can't actually see any of that in the game. You're still reaching.
What? This makes no sense. The review bomb wasn't "the update". The review bomb was the overblown and hyperbolic reaction to the update. You're asking why reviews after the filtered period aren't excluded; I'm telling you it's because they're not part of the review bomb. It's that simple.
Yeah, man. Life is unfair sometimes. It's unfair that none of my reviews for games I bought (legitimately) outside of Steam don't get counted. But it's not arbitrary, and this minor and ultimately non-consequential unfairness exists for a productive and valid reason. If there were a better alternative, I'm sure Valve would consider it, but 'allow review bombs to run rampant" is not a reasonable suggestion and will not happen. Sorry.
So where's the outrage campaign? Where's the outside source?
Dude, he said "the bomb". And the reaction to the update was not "overblown and hyperbolic", it was natural as no outside force blew things out of proportion.
It's developers, who fight their culture war, not the players. And players are outraged because content they have emotional attachment to was removed for the sake of "fighting the hate groups" and stuff.
Ah, so you adimt that your "someone else" was gaslighting! Good.
Her appearance in the game IS a part of the story.
Plot and lore are two parts of the game's story. That's one of the basics of narrative design. How a character is dressed, how a character talks, even how a character moves while loading a gun - all that is a part of the story.
That's literally the reason that was given for the changes. Are you saying that devs were lying?
The devs just updated their game in a way that has no effect on the experience of playing it. It's the entitled mob that decided to make a war out of it.
You're gaslighting again. Nobody had emotional attachment to that content in particular, certainly not thousands of people. And, again, the reviews themselves don't demonstrate any emotional attachment to anything but being outraged.
No, that's a nonsensical claim. Sorry. Why have multiple palettes, then?
No, that's a straw man. I'm saying the devs' reasons do not manifest in any tangible way in the game. Their reasoning exists completely separately and outside of the experience of playing the game. Any problems you have with their reasoning is an objection on principle, not a reaction to the game becoming less fun.
You are really trying to assert that other people's feelings and opinions don't matter while trying to claim that other people's arguments are not legitimate. People cared about that change, and that is all there is to it. If the game launched today, as is, and no one knew the original art plans, then sure. People would still view Skullgirls as a "coomer game" with tight fighting mechanics. People would probably even complain that it objectifies women. Yet, now it's censored. People are upset that things were changed, and people are defending the changes as being "less gross". There comes a point where you have to acknowledge that the current state and reception is impacted by how things were previously.
You are free to enjoy the games you enjoy, but you are not the authority on how other people get to enjoy or value the things they purchase.
Of course, everyone has the free will to write what they want, and they should, but the system should be adjusted to address more people who actually leave a review than those who just write something silly and get 200 likes and are included in the "useful" tab, while one guy actually wrote something and got 5 likes and little relevance.
They did, but not about how it affected the game (which they don't care about). They cared about the change insofar as it gave them another battle to fight in their silly culture war.
... but not what was changed or how it affected the game. They are offended on principle, which is fine, but it's certainly not useful to someone who wants to know if the game is fun (it is).
I have never claimed to be. I'm basing my conclusions on what the angry mob has said, int heir own words.
- It is technically and practically impossible to evaluate each and every review written for "usefulness". Not only is it much more subjective to judge individual cases than it is overall trends, it's also less productive since individual reviews don't have a big effect on the aggregate.
- Lots of people simply can't express themselves well in writing so they make short or jokey reviews. They're still generally representative of whatever the reviewer thinks of the game on its own merits, so they serve a purpose and should be counted with the aggregate.
Non sequitur. If changes had no effect on the experience, they wouldn't be worth the work. They definitely wouldn't reflect the devs' values.
Again, you are just making an accusation without any proof or evidence.
The phrase "ruined my girl" literally demonstrates emotional attachment to the character.
Your comment about the YouTube video that accused devs of calling fans creeps, on the other hand, demonstrated that you haven't watched the video, so your claim that it's clickbait was made on principle, not based on any evidence. Just like your claim about reviews.
Those pallets are additional. Just like additional costumes for the characters in other games. Are you going to claim that Ashley in RE4 Remake canonically is dressed in medieval armor and not in an orange sweater and green plaid skirt?
It doesn't exist separately because it's the reason for no armbands and black panties. Again, you can't say that something is both reflected in the game and isn't affecting the game at all. I mean, you can but that would be doublethink nonsense.
You are just projecting. You are the one, who defends devs on principle and not making arguments in good faith.
Bomb is used as a methaphore (in both definitions here):
Bomb: a bomb that is set to explode at a particular moment
It's a metaphore. The actions are taken by the devs, in the first place. They have set "the bomb".
Reviews are reactions, and they are individually expressed, not in group. If they sum up, it's because the bomb affected many. You see them in the whole as a bomb because they are many. There is not such a thing. "Review bombing" is when some organize to use syncroniously the power of many, to make them use this power of reviewing collectively against something.
And again, as the "review bomb" metaphor is used wrong: When in the reality bomb explosions happens, in the hospitals does not arrives "a bomb of victims" just because they are many.
Reactions outcomes are not called "bombs". Many victims arrive, because a bomb explodes.
I reviewed superothotvr via my free will, no one organized that group of reviews alltogether in the same time
False equivalence, you know what happen and how your review is treated before both acts.
You know that during the purchase, and during the reviewing process. The metric is CLEAR.
On the contrary, the filtering of a period of a review, because Valve wrongly decides is irrelevant, happen after the user does it, and without metric on the individual action. Only because it's inside a timespan, alltogether with many other reviews stating a disappointment. Since they are too many unconvenient for publishers to mantaining sales, Valve filters them.