Aaron Keller pledged to improve the game for “players who are playing now.”

  • 520@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Yes it is. It’s perfectly valid.

    It says that the changes in Overwatch 2 are unpopular with the reviewer.

    If the changes were positive or even unnoteworthy, that review wouldn’t be there

    • Primarily0617@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      if you’re reviewing specific things you don’t like, that’s reviewing a product

      leaving a negative review because “OW1 was killed off” isn’t doing that

      if you want to discuss specific things you don’t like, please provide some that would reasonably justify OW2 being literally the worst reviewed game on steam rn

      • 520@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        leaving a negative review because “OW1 was killed off” isn’t doing that

        Leaving a review because “OW1 was killed off” and the intended transition route was a drastically inferior product, is in fact reviewing a product.

        Context is actually an important part of reviews. Orcarina or Time looks like a shit game today, and needs the context of being a late 90’s innovator to fully appreciate it. Likewise, a BoTW clone would look fantastic, a game changer, even…if a certain 2017 game hadn’t already set the benchmark.

        Calling something an inferior version of its predecessor, which was cynically shut down to push people to this inferior product, is worthy review information. It tells people that a superior product existed, and all this new product is, is the enshittification of it.