I've heard some people are review bombing the game on various sites and giving it a 0/10 rating purely to drop the overall rating. Has anyone on the forums done that, and if so, why? Anyone who hasn't done that is free to speculate why someone would do that, of course.
Review bombing?
- Thread starter M_Rat
- Start date
I heard people are doing this because they are upset about each player profile on the switch not being able to have their own island and you can't have multiple islands per switch (if you had multiple game cards).
In my opinion I think it is a bit unfair to do this, and while it was not the best descion for Nintendo to make, people should of looked up this info before buying the game. ACNH is a really good game and the people review bombing it are being unfair as they are reviewing solely on one aspect of how to play the game vs the game itself or both if those combined aspects.
In my opinion I think it is a bit unfair to do this, and while it was not the best descion for Nintendo to make, people should of looked up this info before buying the game. ACNH is a really good game and the people review bombing it are being unfair as they are reviewing solely on one aspect of how to play the game vs the game itself or both if those combined aspects.
Last edited:
They're doing it because they're angry about the 1 island per Switch. Not only can't people with multiple players in a house have their own island, their experience if they aren't the first player is SEVERELY impacted negatively. Lots of angry people, and I can totally see why. I'm lucky enough not to be impacted as I don't have to share a Switch but I'd be pissed if I had to and I couldn't enjoy the game because player 1 gets all the choice and recipes etc. I love this game but I couldn't even defend Nintendo for this even if I tried. They kinda made a very terrible decision by making it this way.
This. I’m not a fan of review bombing, but this is an abysmal decision on Nintendo’s part and there is straight up no defending it.
Goo goo!
ThomasNLD
Keep the wolves away
I don`t really care about review scores anyways, they are just numbers assigned to a hopefully coherent story which details a game`s strengths and flaws. It does however makesme wonder what type of person would rate a game 0/10, purely out of spite. Its just sad really.
itscharles
Senior Member
LOL weird thing to do and ultimately won't accomplish any significant changes. very unconstructive, and i gotta imagine the people doing it are probably younger fans who think the impact will be bigger than it is. if they really think the game is only worth 0 stars then whatever, i think that should be respected. i don't think it's particularly harmful. animal crossing isn't a small business stuggling to keep afloat and a relative handful of kiddies being mad is completley harmless considering the feedback for the most part has been overwhelmingly positive. i think review bombing happens to almost everything
i wouldn't worry
i wouldn't worry
While I personally believe that review bombing in most cases is inexcusable, since its usually over something completely unrelated to the quality of the game, I don't entirely blame people for this. This feature can and will be a massive deal-breaker to a lot of people. I dont think people should have to do deep research on the ins and outs of how a game saves/works on a console before buying each game :'O
It's one thing to not allow other profiles to have their own island, but due to the nature of how the switch saves games, there's no buying multiple cartridges like you could with New Leaf, so your only resort is to buy a separate console. Forcing each profile to share an island is a method that is old and outdated which was proven by New Leaf. Even if New Leaf had the ability to save to the cartridge, they still gave each cartridge the option to add a player to the town. I dont see why they couldnt simply treat each profile like it's own "cartidge"
It's one thing to not allow other profiles to have their own island, but due to the nature of how the switch saves games, there's no buying multiple cartridges like you could with New Leaf, so your only resort is to buy a separate console. Forcing each profile to share an island is a method that is old and outdated which was proven by New Leaf. Even if New Leaf had the ability to save to the cartridge, they still gave each cartridge the option to add a player to the town. I dont see why they couldnt simply treat each profile like it's own "cartidge"
thelonewanderer
Senior Member
I don't think this is unfair at all, Nintendo got too greedy. Sure no AC games has multiple profiles so far
but that was due to the limitation of the console. That not the case this time around. Nintendo got greedy and
very anti-consumer.
thelonewanderer
Senior Member
I want it to accomplish significant changes. This issue pisses me off. I want multiple islands. I already support Nintendo by
buying multiple copies of NL and this it he reward we get? I will never support Nintendo. Look at what they
got away with in Pokemon Sword and Shield. Review bombing is the best way to get Nintendo attention!
Change don't happen if you don't make it happen. I fully support all the review bomber!
itscharles
Senior Member
i don't know if it is! game companies can and will do what they want. review bombing, especially at this scale, is a tiny splash in a massive ocean. the only thing it accomplishes is making you look silly for overreacting and not being taken seriously by whoever you're trying to prove your point to
Last edited:
Mokuren
Nature Nuts 🐿️
I think it's just unfair. It's one feature. ONE. Nobody can tell me a game deserves a 0 score because one thing is not liked by someone. Sure I also would love more Islands per switch! Would be absolut awesome but I would rate the game with a 8. I love it for what it is, I have fun and can't understand people who give it a 0 LOL Just stupid sorry, the people should grow up. It's just a game after all.
They are simply giving the game a review based on fact that mutiple people can't own an island. They are not actually reviewing the content of the game just a multiplayer feature. In addition they could combine the rating of the game its self and multi player in their review but they purposely did not do that to bring the score down. That is unfair to the game. That's like a teacher or professor saying they don't like a certain small part of your essay/paper so they are going to give you an F even though the rest is great.
Think about this would that be fair for your teacher/professor to do?
Last edited:
ForbiddenSecrets
Senior Member
I kind of don't blame people for being pissed off. Even the ones that knew and accepted that it was going to be one island per console didn't have a way to know just how limited the second+ player's experience would be. They might not be giving the whole game a review, just the one feature, but that one feature was enough to ruin the game for people who don't have the means to just pop down another 360$ (or more depending on the players in the family) just so everyone could have equal gameplay.
EvilTheCat6600
Senior Member
Review bombing is done under two circumstances: 1. People not liking a certain aspect of a game and 2. Haters. When Astral Chain released die-hard Anti-Nintendo Gamers decided to review bomb the game merely because it was a good game and therefore "had no right to be on a garbage system by a garbage company."
Nintendo cut content out of New Horizons. They watered the game down. It's a shell of the massive, content filled greatness that it could be. BUT it's still a good game. It still has that traditional Animal Crossing charm and desire to pay off your house that keeps you coming back for more. Judge the game on what it has, what existing features could be done better (such as crafting the bridges and inclines, instead of paying for them) and what content, if added in could improve the overall experience.
I give the game a 5 out of 10 with a verdict of "Eye Of The Beholder." It's going to be a good game, but because of choices Nintendo made, it won't be for everyone. As such, my opinion is that each individual user should judge the game based on their own personal experiences. Buy a copy and try it out. Or make an account and an islander on friend's Switch to try before you buy.
TL;DR: Review bombing needs to be stopped. Anyone who reviews a game MUST submit proof that they have played the game before they can be allowed to review it. Believe it or not, many review bombings happen from people who never played the game.
Nintendo cut content out of New Horizons. They watered the game down. It's a shell of the massive, content filled greatness that it could be. BUT it's still a good game. It still has that traditional Animal Crossing charm and desire to pay off your house that keeps you coming back for more. Judge the game on what it has, what existing features could be done better (such as crafting the bridges and inclines, instead of paying for them) and what content, if added in could improve the overall experience.
I give the game a 5 out of 10 with a verdict of "Eye Of The Beholder." It's going to be a good game, but because of choices Nintendo made, it won't be for everyone. As such, my opinion is that each individual user should judge the game based on their own personal experiences. Buy a copy and try it out. Or make an account and an islander on friend's Switch to try before you buy.
TL;DR: Review bombing needs to be stopped. Anyone who reviews a game MUST submit proof that they have played the game before they can be allowed to review it. Believe it or not, many review bombings happen from people who never played the game.
thelonewanderer
Senior Member
I don't disagree with you but this one limit doesn't exist in any Nintendo Switch game. There is literally no
reason for this limit to exist other than greed. A better example would be the teacher or professor gave you
an F for plagerism despite the fact it was only a small part (one paragraph) of your entire 5 pages essay.
Ok, so as far as I've read, it seems to be how they handled multiple residents, correct? Even ignoring it is just one feature (a 0 should represent multiple failings, not just one), this issue was talked about, by reviewers, before the game came out. And if you really cared about the game, you would have known this. So why are some people acting surprised by the features?
