Impact of roadmap in WH3 ratings (from reddit)

cabans33

https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/ueo5gj/player_reaction_to_roadmap_via_steam_reviews/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Impressive. I keep mine positive as with mods I like the game and already played more than 200 hours

What I can't understand is people with over 100 hours not recommending it

1v0

Here a screenshot for day 2 (that I just took).

And the day is not even over.


About the 100 hours thing - it's obvious and that question feel like a troll bait...

LegendaryArticuno

Meh, the "Mixed" rating is 100% earned. Don't release a game unfinished if you don't want negative ratings.

cabans33

1v0 said:

Here a screenshot for day 2 (that I just took).


About the 100 hours thing - it's obvious and that question feel like a troll bait...

haha, it isn't but I understand you...

I have been thinking wether to change mine or not... but I recommend the game at its current price with mods and all... I had my negative review till mods were available.

Xenos7777

this is getting worse by the day, really.

Surge_2

lol

I dropped my review at around 20 hours. After a few sessions.

It was negative, and if I updated it, I would make it even worse, especially after yesterday.

CA has earned this.

thebiglez

i like WH2 a lot, but i would never recommend it if ME wasnt included..
WH3 is not finished until its full IE is released

Valkaar

I'm okay with the game getting mixed reviews.

It clearly wasn't everyone's cup of tea.

I do find bizarre how people feel the need to rate a game in regards to a factor unrelated to the gameplay, like the marketing or some other side drama.

Like, the game has only gotten better since launch. Not perfect. But it has objectively improved. It definitely hasn't gotten proactively worse.

So you'd think the review scores would either stay the same or reflect the improvements and bump up slightly.

But nope, the reviews have gotten worse as people have gotten lost in the non-gameplay side drama.

Bayes

Seems really excessive to give a negative rating of the current game because future content is coming later than expected.

cabans33

Valkaar said:

I'm okay with the game getting mixed reviews.

It clearly wasn't everyone's cup of tea.

I do find bizarre how people feel the need to rate a game in regards to a factor unrelated to the gameplay, like the marketing or some other side drama.

Like, the game has only gotten better since launch. Not perfect. But it has objectively improved. It definitely hasn't gotten proactively worse.

So you'd think the review scores would either stay the same or reflect the improvements and bump up slightly.

But nope, the reviews have gotten worse as people have gotten lost in the non-gameplay side drama.

I really think CA deserves a negative review for doing what it did, because the game was a early beta at release but in the other hand I have enjoyed it with many hours put into it... now you can get it at 30 EUR in legal pages like Eneba, so for 30 I would recommend it.

I would like the option in Steam to rate the game and the developers separately.

IamNotArobot

Bayes said:

Seems really excessive to give a negative rating of the current game because future content is coming later than expected.

yes, they don’t know they are killing kuresh araby, nippon and ind with those negative reviews.

Artjuh90

IamNotArobot said:

Bayes said:

Seems really excessive to give a negative rating of the current game because future content is coming later than expected.

yes, they don’t know they are killing kuresh araby, nippon and ind with those negative reviews.

you can't kill something that is dead anyway

cabans33

IamNotArobot said:

Bayes said:

Seems really excessive to give a negative rating of the current game because future content is coming later than expected.

yes, they don’t know they are killing kuresh araby, nippon and ind with those negative reviews.

that actually a dilema... what is more useful? give the positive rating just to support the game knowing it is a beta or... punish the company so that it learn for the DLC...

Surge_2

Bayes said:

Seems really excessive to give a negative rating of the current game because future content is coming later than expected.

The current game deserves a negative rating anyway. Like 100%.

IamNotArobot said:

yes, they don’t know they are killing kuresh araby, nippon and ind with those negative reviews.

Bull.

CA's ineptitude. Inability to actually manage their resources, or the absolutely tragic misapplication of those resources and poor design choices, combined with a completely anemic 'communication' style and utter dependence on Youtubers to market their game WHILE HOLDING THOSE YOUTUBERS TO NDAs, is the problem.

You dont get to blame players for being ****, when the company has failed at every step from conception, to design, to development, to delivery.

Every single step of the process, CA failed, and the result is Game 3.

TheMadTypist

I don’t see the point of the fury here. We had no communication, nothing to base our expectations on, and when we finally get some level setting info these people flip their **** because… the company prioritized their feedback for fixes over new content? Because they set their own expectations based on nothing at all?

Bunch of **** children. This is why it’s so hard to get anything out of CA, communication goes two ways and they aren’t the only ones bad at it.

The company **** the launch, sure, that kind of feedback is warranted. But you can’t claim this wave has anything to do with the actual game as is.

LegendaryArticuno

IamNotArobot said:

Bayes said:

Seems really excessive to give a negative rating of the current game because future content is coming later than expected.

yes, they don’t know they are killing kuresh araby, nippon and ind with those negative reviews.

GW killed these races more than CA ever can. GW can't design any of these races without using extremely dated and probably offensive stereotypes.

cabans33

TheMadTypist said:

I don’t see the point of the fury here. We had no communication, nothing to base our expectations on, and when we finally get some level setting info these people flip their **** because… the company prioritized their feedback for fixes over new content? Because they set their own expectations based on nothing at all?

Bunch of **** children. This is why it’s so hard to get anything out of CA, communication goes two ways and they aren’t the only ones bad at it.

The company **** the launch, sure, that kind of feedback is warranted. But you can’t claim this wave has anything to do with the actual game as is.

reading you makes sense but on the other hand yesterdays roadmap was the confirmation to many that the game was released on early beta status.

I knew it as many other here, but some people just didnt accept that and yesterday they saw reality.

Bayes

Surge_2 said:

Bayes said:

Seems really excessive to give a negative rating of the current game because future content is coming later than expected.

The current game deserves a negative rating anyway. Like 100%.

IamNotArobot said:

yes, they don’t know they are killing kuresh araby, nippon and ind with those negative reviews.

Bull.

CA's ineptitude. Inability to actually manage their resources, or the absolutely tragic misapplication of those resources and poor design choices, combined with a completely anemic 'communication' style and utter dependence on Youtubers to market their game WHILE HOLDING THOSE YOUTUBERS TO NDAs, is the problem.

You dont get to blame players for being ****, when the company has failed at every step from conception, to design, to development, to delivery.

Every single step of the process, CA failed, and the result is Game 3.

Well obviously we disagree about that. But what I meant is that the current roadmap is a bad reason to give a negative review.

Surge_2

TheMadTypist said:

The company **** the launch, sure, that kind of feedback is warranted. But you can’t claim this wave has anything to do with the actual game as is.

No, thats correct. Its because its basically an admission of guilt, and if you listen to any of the comments around some of the youtubers, CA was aware of the issues in what they were releasing, at the very least.

My problem is just this.

Within a single session, the flaws of the game as released were apparent.

They are addressing many of those issues now, but it shouldnt have been up to us to expose these things as issues.

Its a failure from start to finish.

ASyrian

Review bombing is ki da meh

1v0

For me (and im ready for the disagrees, feel free to do so) - This is deserved ! I will explain:

So WH3 launched in a really bad state I called it unfinished and the bugs and reskins (no need to go over that).

But after 2 month I was thinking (and hoping) - This is enough time - just look at WH1 and WH2 (I will copy 1 comment from another topic below). There is a big patch just around the corner ! (think 2.0)

But the roadmap came out, and it just confirmed all of the suspicions - There is no big patch just around the corner and the Game is not just unfinished, It's unfinished and it needs reworks (tech and skills) !!! So I get why people are leaving negative reviews now !
It's about WH3 not just the roadmap - the roadmap just confirmed how unfinished WH3 is - Basic bugs like "snow is too bright" needing to be fixed 3 months after release...

Here is the copy I was talking about:

First ten months of major content additions:

Total War: Warhammer

Launch +1 month: Blood for the Blood God, Blood Knights
Launch +2 months: Call of the Beastmen, Amber Wizard
Launch +4 months: Grim & Grave, Vlad von Carstein
Launch +5 months: King & Warlord, Wurrzag, three new Chaos Warriors units
Launch +7 months: Realm of the Wood Elves, Morghur, Grey Wizard, Jade Wizard
Launch +8 months: Grombrindal
Launch +9 months: Bretonnia, Isabella von Carstein

Total War: Warhammer II

Launch +1 month: Blood for the Blood God II, Mortal Empires
Launch +4 months: Rise of the Tomb Kings, Tretch Craventail
Launch +9 months: Queen & Crone, Alith Anar, Sword of Khaine, Bone Giant
Launch +10 months: Kharibdyss

Total War: Warhammer III

Launch +3 months: Regiments of Renown I
Launch +5 months: Regiments of Renown II
Launch +6 months: Blood for the Blood God III, Immortal Empires Beta, Lord Pack I
Launch +8-10 months: Regiments of Renown III

Credit for this comment goes to @LordSolarMach .


TLDR:The roadmap confirmed how unfinished game 3 is !

Surge_2

1v0 said:

Here is the copy I was talking about:

First ten months of major content additions:

Total War: Warhammer

Launch +1 month: Blood for the Blood God, Blood Knights
Launch +2 months: Call of the Beastmen, Amber Wizard
Launch +4 months: Grim & Grave, Vlad von Carstein
Launch +5 months: King & Warlord, Wurrzag, three new Chaos Warriors units
Launch +7 months: Realm of the Wood Elves, Morghur, Grey Wizard, Jade Wizard
Launch +8 months: Grombrindal
Launch +9 months: Bretonnia, Isabella von Carstein

Total War: Warhammer II

Launch +1 month: Blood for the Blood God II, Mortal Empires
Launch +4 months: Rise of the Tomb Kings, Tretch Craventail
Launch +9 months: Queen & Crone, Alith Anar, Sword of Khaine, Bone Giant
Launch +10 months: Kharibdyss

Total War: Warhammer III

Launch +3 months: Regiments of Renown I
Launch +5 months: Regiments of Renown II
Launch +6 months: Blood for the Blood God III, Immortal Empires Beta, Lord Pack I
Launch +8-10 months: Regiments of Renown III

Credit for this comment goes to @LordSolarMach .


TLDR:The roadmap confirmed how unfinished game 3 is !

The absolute STATE of this game...

Valkaar

Bayes said:

Surge_2 said:

Bayes said:

Seems really excessive to give a negative rating of the current game because future content is coming later than expected.

The current game deserves a negative rating anyway. Like 100%.

IamNotArobot said:

yes, they don’t know they are killing kuresh araby, nippon and ind with those negative reviews.

Bull.

CA's ineptitude. Inability to actually manage their resources, or the absolutely tragic misapplication of those resources and poor design choices, combined with a completely anemic 'communication' style and utter dependence on Youtubers to market their game WHILE HOLDING THOSE YOUTUBERS TO NDAs, is the problem.

You dont get to blame players for being ****, when the company has failed at every step from conception, to design, to development, to delivery.

Every single step of the process, CA failed, and the result is Game 3.

Well obviously we disagree about that. But what I meant is that the current roadmap is a bad reason to give a negative review.

Basically this. If you want to leave a negative review for a game, then leave it for the GAME.

Which many people did. At launch. I get it. That's fine.

But leaving a negative review in response to marketing, unrelated to the game experience right now (which has actually gotten better), would be akin to leaving a negative review because the clerk at your bakery dyed their hair purple while wearing a CA T-shirt and you don't like the color purple.

Both the marketing and the clerks hair color have an identical amount of relevance to how you're experiencing the game right now.

If you're not enjoying the game right now, fine! Leave a negative review based on that.

But leaving negative reviews on a game for non gameplay factors is just strange to me.

TeNoSkill

ASyrian said:

Review bombing is ki da meh

Especially if its not concerning the game itsself...

Mazisky

Valkaar said:

I'm okay with the game getting mixed reviews.

It clearly wasn't everyone's cup of tea.

I do find bizarre how people feel the need to rate a game in regards to a factor unrelated to the gameplay, like the marketing or some other side drama.

Like, the game has only gotten better since launch. Not perfect. But it has objectively improved. It definitely hasn't gotten proactively worse.

So you'd think the review scores would either stay the same or reflect the improvements and bump up slightly.

But nope, the reviews have gotten worse as people have gotten lost in the non-gameplay side drama.

Yes, the same as those POSITIVE REVIEWS:

"still waiting on blood dlc"

"Warhammer Fantasy is better than Age of Sigmar"

Those are some of the meaningless non-gameplay related POSITIVE reiview.

And many others like this, positive reviews with no arguments.

Doesn't your logic apply to those aswell?

Valkaar

Mazisky said:

Valkaar said:

I'm okay with the game getting mixed reviews.

It clearly wasn't everyone's cup of tea.

I do find bizarre how people feel the need to rate a game in regards to a factor unrelated to the gameplay, like the marketing or some other side drama.

Like, the game has only gotten better since launch. Not perfect. But it has objectively improved. It definitely hasn't gotten proactively worse.

So you'd think the review scores would either stay the same or reflect the improvements and bump up slightly.

But nope, the reviews have gotten worse as people have gotten lost in the non-gameplay side drama.

Yes, the same as those POSITIVE REVIEWS:

"still waiting on blood dlc"

"Warhammer Fantasy is better than Age of Sigmar"

Those are some of the meaningless non-gameplay related POSITIVE reiview.

And many others like this, positive reviews with no arguments.

Doesn't your logic apply to those aswell?

Yes, it would.

Not that I can actually do anything about it. I can't control how others review games.

But a positive review that is unrelated to gameplay is just as baffling to me as a negative one not based on gameplay.

The only reason why this is a discussion right now though is because it looks like we're seeing a huge spike in non-gameplay based negative reviews at the moment.

If we were seeing a non-gameplay spike in positive reviews it would be just as confusing. But that's not what we're seeing the spike in.

Mazisky

Valkaar said:

Mazisky said:

Valkaar said:

I'm okay with the game getting mixed reviews.

It clearly wasn't everyone's cup of tea.

I do find bizarre how people feel the need to rate a game in regards to a factor unrelated to the gameplay, like the marketing or some other side drama.

Like, the game has only gotten better since launch. Not perfect. But it has objectively improved. It definitely hasn't gotten proactively worse.

So you'd think the review scores would either stay the same or reflect the improvements and bump up slightly.

But nope, the reviews have gotten worse as people have gotten lost in the non-gameplay side drama.

Yes, the same as those POSITIVE REVIEWS:

"still waiting on blood dlc"

"Warhammer Fantasy is better than Age of Sigmar"

Those are some of the meaningless non-gameplay related POSITIVE reiview.

And many others like this, positive reviews with no arguments.

Doesn't your logic apply to those aswell?

Yes, it would.

Not that I can actually do anything about it. I can't control how others review games.

But a positive review that is unrelated to gameplay is just as baffling to me as a negative one not based on gameplay.

The only reason why this is a discussion right now though is because it looks like we're seeing a huge spike in non-gameplay based negative reviews at the moment.

If we were seeing a non-gameplay spike in positive reviews it would be just as confusing. But that's not what we're seeing the spike in.

The recent spike is paired with RECENT POSITIVE REVIEWS such as

"Good game".

"Crybabies only complains"

"Yes"

"All"

"It is Total War Warhammer"



Those are all different reviews from a recent spike in made from fanboys desperate to see their game with bad ratings, so at the end it evens out, thus you can ignore the recent negative reviews from your considerations.

Mazisky

Valkaar said:

Mazisky said:

Valkaar said:

I'm okay with the game getting mixed reviews.

It clearly wasn't everyone's cup of tea.

I do find bizarre how people feel the need to rate a game in regards to a factor unrelated to the gameplay, like the marketing or some other side drama.

Like, the game has only gotten better since launch. Not perfect. But it has objectively improved. It definitely hasn't gotten proactively worse.

So you'd think the review scores would either stay the same or reflect the improvements and bump up slightly.

But nope, the reviews have gotten worse as people have gotten lost in the non-gameplay side drama.

Yes, the same as those POSITIVE REVIEWS:

"still waiting on blood dlc"

"Warhammer Fantasy is better than Age of Sigmar"

Those are some of the meaningless non-gameplay related POSITIVE reiview.

And many others like this, positive reviews with no arguments.

Doesn't your logic apply to those aswell?

Yes, it would.

Not that I can actually do anything about it. I can't control how others review games.

But a positive review that is unrelated to gameplay is just as baffling to me as a negative one not based on gameplay.

The only reason why this is a discussion right now though is because it looks like we're seeing a huge spike in non-gameplay based negative reviews at the moment.

If we were seeing a non-gameplay spike in positive reviews it would be just as confusing. But that's not what we're seeing the spike in.

There are tons of recent positive reviews with no content made exclusively to counter the negative ones.

It is the same as review bombing and it evens out the negative spike

cabans33

1v0 said:

Here is the copy I was talking about:

First ten months of major content additions:

Total War: Warhammer

Launch +1 month: Blood for the Blood God, Blood Knights
Launch +2 months: Call of the Beastmen, Amber Wizard
Launch +4 months: Grim & Grave, Vlad von Carstein
Launch +5 months: King & Warlord, Wurrzag, three new Chaos Warriors units
Launch +7 months: Realm of the Wood Elves, Morghur, Grey Wizard, Jade Wizard
Launch +8 months: Grombrindal
Launch +9 months: Bretonnia, Isabella von Carstein

Total War: Warhammer II

Launch +1 month: Blood for the Blood God II, Mortal Empires
Launch +4 months: Rise of the Tomb Kings, Tretch Craventail
Launch +9 months: Queen & Crone, Alith Anar, Sword of Khaine, Bone Giant
Launch +10 months: Kharibdyss

Total War: Warhammer III

Launch +3 months: Regiments of Renown I
Launch +5 months: Regiments of Renown II
Launch +6 months: Blood for the Blood God III, Immortal Empires Beta, Lord Pack I
Launch +8-10 months: Regiments of Renown III

Credit for this comment goes to @LordSolarMach .


TLDR:The roadmap confirmed how unfinished game 3 is !

To be fair, when making comparisons we need to consider Ogre kingdoms in WH3... and also that if they comit to the plans in terms of races and Legendary Lords we will end first 10 months of Warhammer 3 with more than first year WH2 (plus the regiments ;-) ) :

WH2 first 12 months: 16 Lords - 5 races with different mechanics
- 8 LL at launch - 4 races
- 4LL tomb kings - 1 race
- 2 with Q&C - 0 race
- 2 FLC (Alith / Tretch) - 0 race

WH3 first 9.5 months: 17 Lords - 8 races
- 11 LL at launch (including Blakor) - 7 races with different mechanics
- 2 LL ogre kingdoms - 1 race
- 4 with 4 champions DLC - 0 race

This not considering what is planned for December

TLDR - If they go as planned first year of WH3 will bring more than first year WH2

Valkaar

Mazisky said:

Valkaar said:

Mazisky said:

Valkaar said:

I'm okay with the game getting mixed reviews.

It clearly wasn't everyone's cup of tea.

I do find bizarre how people feel the need to rate a game in regards to a factor unrelated to the gameplay, like the marketing or some other side drama.

Like, the game has only gotten better since launch. Not perfect. But it has objectively improved. It definitely hasn't gotten proactively worse.

So you'd think the review scores would either stay the same or reflect the improvements and bump up slightly.

But nope, the reviews have gotten worse as people have gotten lost in the non-gameplay side drama.

Yes, the same as those POSITIVE REVIEWS:

"still waiting on blood dlc"

"Warhammer Fantasy is better than Age of Sigmar"

Those are some of the meaningless non-gameplay related POSITIVE reiview.

And many others like this, positive reviews with no arguments.

Doesn't your logic apply to those aswell?

Yes, it would.

Not that I can actually do anything about it. I can't control how others review games.

But a positive review that is unrelated to gameplay is just as baffling to me as a negative one not based on gameplay.

The only reason why this is a discussion right now though is because it looks like we're seeing a huge spike in non-gameplay based negative reviews at the moment.

If we were seeing a non-gameplay spike in positive reviews it would be just as confusing. But that's not what we're seeing the spike in.

There are tons of recent positive reviews with no content made exclusively to counter the negative ones.

It is the same as review bombing and it evens out the negative spike

It very specifically doesn't 'even out' or there wouldn't even be a thread.

The very premise of the thread is the observation of an imbalanced one sided review spike in response to the roadmap marketing.

If it balanced out, those graphs would not look that dramatically imbalanced and no thread would even have been posted.

Valkaar

Mazisky said:

Valkaar said:

Mazisky said:

Valkaar said:

I'm okay with the game getting mixed reviews.

It clearly wasn't everyone's cup of tea.

I do find bizarre how people feel the need to rate a game in regards to a factor unrelated to the gameplay, like the marketing or some other side drama.

Like, the game has only gotten better since launch. Not perfect. But it has objectively improved. It definitely hasn't gotten proactively worse.

So you'd think the review scores would either stay the same or reflect the improvements and bump up slightly.

But nope, the reviews have gotten worse as people have gotten lost in the non-gameplay side drama.

Yes, the same as those POSITIVE REVIEWS:

"still waiting on blood dlc"

"Warhammer Fantasy is better than Age of Sigmar"

Those are some of the meaningless non-gameplay related POSITIVE reiview.

And many others like this, positive reviews with no arguments.

Doesn't your logic apply to those aswell?

Yes, it would.

Not that I can actually do anything about it. I can't control how others review games.

But a positive review that is unrelated to gameplay is just as baffling to me as a negative one not based on gameplay.

The only reason why this is a discussion right now though is because it looks like we're seeing a huge spike in non-gameplay based negative reviews at the moment.

If we were seeing a non-gameplay spike in positive reviews it would be just as confusing. But that's not what we're seeing the spike in.

There are tons of recent positive reviews with no content made exclusively to counter the negative ones.

It is the same as review bombing and it evens out the negative spike

It very clearly doesn't even out the negative spike or the graphs would not look that dramatically lopsided all of a sudden.

That's sort of the very premise of the thread. If the graph was even it wouldn't even be posted here for discussion. It's here specifically because of how lopsided it became in response to the roadmap marketing.

Also, the forum ate my first post. So this might become a duplicate. If both wind up posting mods can feel free to delete one.