Why are the steam reviews so good?

Users who are viewing this thread

Ogagon

Knight
WB
Please explain it to me, i just cant understand it.

Bannerlord Steam Reviews
A lot of people enjoyed the game.
It's lacking, but it's really not a bad game to spend a 100+ hours on.
And any game you can spend a 100+ hours on is a game worth the retail price.

And 95% of the players didn't even know what was promised for this game, read the dev blogs, or religiously followed any news regarding the development of the game, so they're not that attached to it. In my opinion, they're more objective than the disgruntled minority.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant
Because this forum is incredibly negative compared to the community at large. A lot of people in this forum are the vocal minority. It doesn’t mean their points hold less merit, just that they aren’t the majority.
 

xGreedo

Recruit
The game is really good. WE on the forum know that this game can be so much more! and it seems like we hate it but we really don't.
 
So do i understand you correct, you say all the bugs and all the canceled features are ok and doesnt mean anything to the how you called "majority" meanwhile such problems some years ago would have created a big ****storm?

I am the onlyone who thinks that this game series got in 2020 a huge growth on players wich had/have no idea about M&B before at least 2019?
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight

Why are the steam reviews so good?​

They're not though,

🏳️‍🌈My overall impression is possitive but that doesn't mean there are not a lot of issues with the game.
🐞Are there bugs? Yes. Does it have issues?

🛠️HOWEVER, PLEASE FIX THE AI PATHFINDING FOR SIEGES. The AI just don't know how to use ladders and siege equipment
:poop:small penis, no girlfriend and no will to live.

^these are all single lines of reviews standing out at a glance in order of the page OP linked, these are garbage reviews, they're not good and nobody wants thier product associated with this. Even at a glance you can see the game has problems and/or the reviewer is just **** posting.
As an adult gamer with parental responsibilities
^Then there's crap like this, that seems positive but just rambles on, I would have to "read more" then his 2 paragraph vagina monologue to see what/if he ever even says anything of substance.

OP, why do you think any of the reviews you linked are good? nevermind you don't.
 

Lazregamesh

Sergeant
WB
With all the bugs and all this canceled features, really?
Apparently, the people have spoken!
I do want them to work on the bugs before moving on to anything though. It is a shame to have bugs to this day.
As for canceled features, i think they were brainstorming a lot and when it came to actually implementing them, it was too difficult for them.
Lets focus on what we have, not the what ifs
I am not saying it is the best it could be right now, but i can see the light at the end of the tunnel
Light_at_the_end_of_the_tunnel_2751021278-1-1024x731.jpg
Ps: i want bread back too D:
 

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
The opinions and views that are seen in this forum, and it's users, may not actually represent the majority view of casual gamers. I mean, I see Youtube channels constantly loving the game with hundreds of thousands of views.

More likely this forum represents the views of a harder core of gamer, who wants to be a part of a scene, has a long history with TW and a set of expectations. Therefore the idea that Bannerlord is flawed in major ways, may be common in this particular social bubble, but not representative. Communities can do that - make an idea seem more normal for their members than it actually is. (Yay Q-Anon) For others the flaws we have may seem minor, or be contextualised within the expectations of EA.
 

Aurex

Veteran
WB
Please explain it to me, i just cant understand it.

Bannerlord Steam Reviews
I will try my best to do so, but I'm afraid I will hurt a lot of feelings in doing so.

The average Steam user is as follows: fifteen to twenty-five years old. Male. Wealthy background. American or european. Doesn't work or has an extremely relaxing and low-intensity job, doesn't have to worry about much. Has zero sense for objective value, the attention span of a hamster and lives for instant gratification. Has an extremely high tolerance for low quality products, misinformation and downright fraud (see the morons still defending Star Citizen) while also defending these practices because it's what the "cool kids" do. Will unashamedly buy 250 games a year and play 15% of them for 1 to 20 hours without even touching the others. Will notice there's some clout through criticism (but more through being a contrarian towards whoever seems to be more articulate and intelligent than he is) surrounding a product and enjoy defending it like some kind of old-school internet forum troll. Also has an average IQ of 85 and uses Twitter and Tik Tok everyday.

You can imagine why their positive reviews would overwhelm our negative ones. We are critic of something because we care and we... frankly, mostly know better - as clearly shown by how easily a lot of people amongst us can write extremely good constructive criticism without telling others to sod off, create wonderful mods and, if allowed, actively make an average game much better without asking for anything in return but a good gaming experience.

TL;DR=Moderately intelligent to extremely intelligent people with limited time on their hands don't particularly like the direction Bannerlord has been going towards. People with the attention span of a hamster who are probably entertained by farting and fidget spinners will love the game... probably just to be contrarians.
Go ahead and sue me, that's what I think.

Little edit: Take note how most negative reviews seem written by literate people while most positive reviews are, basically: "bUtTeRlOrD" and other stupid memes.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
I will try my best to do so, but I'm afraid I will hurt a lot of feelings in doing so.

The average Steam user is as follows: fifteen to twenty-five years old. Male. Wealthy background. American or european. Doesn't work or has an extremely relaxing and low-intensity job, doesn't have to worry about much. Has zero sense for objective value, the attention span of a hamster and lives for instant gratification. Has an extremely high tolerance for low quality products, misinformation and downright fraud (see the morons still defending Star Citizen) while also defending these practices because it's what the "cool kids" do. Will unashamedly buy 250 games a year and play 15% of them for 1 to 20 hours without even touching the others. Will notice there's some clout through criticism (but more through being a contrarian towards whoever seems to be more articulate and intelligent than he is) surrounding a product and enjoy defending it like some kind of old-school internet forum troll. Also has an average IQ of 85 and uses Twitter and Tik Tok everyday.

You can imagine why their positive reviews would overwhelm our negative ones. We are critic of something because we care and we... frankly, mostly know better - as clearly shown by how easily a lot of people amongst us can write extremely good constructive criticism without telling others to sod off, create wonderful mods and, if allowed, actively make an average game much better without asking for anything in return but a good gaming experience.

TL;DR=Moderately intelligent to extremely intelligent people with limited time on their hands don't particularly like the direction Bannerlord has been going towards. People with the attention span of a hamster who are probably entertained by farting and fidget spinners will love the game... probably just to be contrarians.
Go ahead and sue me, that's what I think.

Little edit: Take note how most negative reviews seem written by literate people while most positive reviews are, basically: "bUtTeRlOrD" and other stupid memes.
Seems like at least some of what you say is demonstrably wrong.


(this is just in the US, but I think that it is reasonable to assume similar distributions elsewhere)

I very much dislike Bannerlord in its current state and I don't hold much hope for improvement, but I don't think you are being objective about this.

Why are the steam reviews so good?​

They're not though,

🏳️‍🌈My overall impression is possitive but that doesn't mean there are not a lot of issues with the game.
🐞Are there bugs? Yes. Does it have issues?

🛠️HOWEVER, PLEASE FIX THE AI PATHFINDING FOR SIEGES. The AI just don't know how to use ladders and siege equipment
:poop:small penis, no girlfriend and no will to live.

^these are all single lines of reviews standing out at a glance in order of the page OP linked, these are garbage reviews, they're not good and nobody wants thier product associated with this. Even at a glance you can see the game has problems and/or the reviewer is just **** posting.
As an adult gamer with parental responsibilities
^Then there's crap like this, that seems positive but just rambles on, I would have to "read more" then his 2 paragraph vagina monologue to see what/if he ever even says anything of substance.

OP, why do you think any of the reviews you linked are good? nevermind you don't.
I also see similar cases of poor quality review on the negative side (I just saw one that was, and I quote, "z"). Unless someone sits down and sifts through all the reviews manually labeling them as "good quality" or "poor" we really have no way of generalizing what you are saying to all the reviews on Steam. The closest approximation that I can think of is limiting game time to 100+ hours, but if you do that the game still has "Very Positive" reviews. It was well received on Steam, that is just objectively true.
 
Last edited:

Aurex

Veteran
WB
Seems like at least some of what you say is demonstrably wrong.


(this is just in the US, but I think that it is reasonable to assume similar distributions elsewhere)

I very much dislike Bannerlord in its current state and I don't hold much hope for improvement, but I don't think you are being objective about this.


I also see similar cases of poor quality review on the negative side (I just saw one that was, and I quote, "z"). Unless someone sits down and sifts through all the reviews manually labeling them as "good quality" or "poor" we really have no way of generalizing what you are saying to all the reviews on Steam. The closest approximation that I can think of is limiting game time to 100+ hours, but if you do that the game still has "Very Positive" reviews. It was well received on Steam, that is just objectively true.
466 respondents is not a decent sample for a survey. Also, extremely dubious source.

And... no, I'm not being objective at all when it comes to certain things including Bannerlord, you're absolutely right. I only say certain things I believe to be right (and might not be, nobody's perfect.) But there are certain things that are objectively correct nevertheless. For example, the fact a large amount of the positive reviews... are not really reviews. They're either little funny stories or memes. I still have to find a decent amount of negative reviews that aren't, in some way or another, constructive - highlighting some flaw or another. And the game is still plagued by day-1 disastrous bugs, with others that are game-breaking, have been added well after release day and have been ignored (memory leak UI, siege AI, formation AI, broken quests.)
Also, yes. It was well received because it caters to casual, who are the overwhelming majority of Steam's whole userbase. As for the 100+ hours positive reviews, a good fifty percent (from what I've seen) of them is basically: "I rather enjoy the game, but..."
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
Seems like at least some of what you say is demonstrably wrong.

Lol did you buy an account to view that? Your link demands a "corporate account" to view whatever that graph is supposed to be. Or is it boomer proof? Whatever, evidence rejected!

I also see similar cases of poor quality review on the negative side
Nobody asserts that there is any quality to negative reviews either. The OP askes why steam reviews are Good, I say they're not, they're all :poop: !

Straw man me and I'll Burn it down and make you smoothy 🥛with it's ashes, drink up!
 

MadVader

Duke
M&BWB
Please explain it to me, i just cant understand it.

Bannerlord Steam Reviews
1. 86% is average for a Steam game, so Bannerlord's 87% is slightly above average compared to other games. Steam wants to sell games, so it won't call 87% "Average", but "Very Positive".
2. Steam's binary choice favors upvotes. They wouldn't dare to migrate to a finer scale, which is why Metacritic ratings are much more sensible.
Warband is 97% on Steam, but 78% (reviewers) and 8.9 (players) on Metacritic.
3. And there's user bias:
star_ratings.png
 
Last edited:

Cazbat

Regular
I do enjoy the game at times, but after joining the forums and seeing the various and detailed, discussions on how the game is lacking, I agree 100% that Bannerlord SHOULD be better.
There are many posters who make eloquent arguments for missing/incomplete features for Bannerlord.
IMHO: EA Bannerlord is not worth the price.
 

SOku

Sergeant
A lot of people enjoyed the game.
It's lacking, but it's really not a bad game to spend a 100+ hours on.
And any game you can spend a 100+ hours on is a game worth the retail price.

And 95% of the players didn't even know what was promised for this game, read the dev blogs, or religiously followed any news regarding the development of the game, so they're not that attached to it. In my opinion, they're more objective than the disgruntled minority.

Just like Cyberpunk 2077.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
466 respondents is not a decent sample for a survey. Also, extremely dubious source.
Fair enough, it's the only source I could find though. What is your source for the statements you made on the average Steam user?

I am not trying to pick a fight, to be clear. I am just not a fan of really strong statements that are spoken without a foundation to them.

And... no, I'm not being objective at all when it comes to certain things including Bannerlord, you're absolutely right. I only say certain things I believe to be right (and might not be, nobody's perfect.) But there are certain things that are objectively correct nevertheless. For example, the fact a large amount of the positive reviews... are not really reviews. They're either little funny stories or memes. I still have to find a decent amount of negative reviews that aren't, in some way or another, constructive - highlighting some flaw or another. And the game is still plagued by day-1 disastrous bugs, with others that are game-breaking, have been added well after release day and have been ignored (memory leak UI, siege AI, formation AI, broken quests.)
Also, yes. It was well received because it caters to casual, who are the overwhelming majority of Steam's whole userbase. As for the 100+ hours positive reviews, a good fifty percent (from what I've seen) of them is basically: "I rather enjoy the game, but..."
As I said, I don't disagree with you on the game itself. I am not even sure that I disagree with you on the reviews, but again what you are presenting is your opinion, not really a fact.

Lol did you buy an account to view that? Your link demands a "corporate account" to view whatever that graph is supposed to be. Or is it boomer proof? Whatever, evidence rejected!


Nobody asserts that there is any quality to negative reviews either. The OP askes why steam reviews are Good, I say they're not, they're all :poop: !

Straw man me and I'll Burn it down and make you smoothy 🥛with it's ashes, drink up!

It was showing without that for me when I linked it, now that thing pops up for me as well. Anyway, I wasn't strawmanning you. Your statement came off as you saying that positive reviews are crap, while negative reviews are well thought (which seems to be @Aurex's point, he said that minutes before you answered me). Your position seems to be that all Steam reviews are useless and therefore not worth being considered then. Do you think that applies to all Steam games, or just for Bannerlord?

1. 86% is average for a Steam game, so Bannerlord's 87% is slightly above average compared to other games. Steam wants to sell games, so it won't call 87% "Average", but "Very Positive".
2. Steam's binary choice favors upvotes. They wouldn't dare to migrate to a finer scale, which is why Metacritic ratings are much more sensible.
Warband is 97% on Steam, but 78% (reviewers) and 8.9 (players) on Metacritic.
3. And there's user bias:
star_ratings.png

Now this is a good point, especially since the "Yes" option is offered first and there's evidence that that by itself can induce a bias.


Still, out of roughly 170k reviews, 147k give it the thumbs up. I find it difficult to dismiss that as a product of survey-induced bias.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom