If everyone in the world suddenly created a video game and 99.999% of them are garbage, but 0.001% of them were good, that’s still 8,000,000 good games.

Vastly increasing the number of video games released undoubtedly leads to more good games. The problem at that point is more finding them rather than questioning whether or not they exist.

I agree, and lowering the cost of entry to the game development market means more games and better games for all of us.

I’ll straight up admit that I can’t compete in most pvp titles; and I don’t want to be a loot goblin for the high school kids who are going to 360 no-scope headshot me from across the map and then tea bag my corpse.

I could get info that game either. It looks amazing. I’m sure the experience is great, but it never really grabbed me.

StarCraft 2 is the bomb, just download it and play the campaigns, it’s worth it. Probably the best RTS campaign IMO.

I would create ten different accounts to play a game that’s the quality of rdr2.

I mean I want a modern version of it with the jank removed, but I want the same systems, same story ya.

Oblivion and Skyrim constantly disappointed me with the simplification of the RPG systems.

I should be able to cast a jump spell that sends me to the moon; and the spell runs out before I reach the moon, where I die terribly.

I thought the EU already evaluated this and gave some cookie cutter gaming industry shill of an answer…?

Unless you’re Skyrim you can’t just reskin a thing and release it. I think the problem is there’s either poor marketing, or nothing new here.

In order to oust a competitor, and take their audience you need to be a more than a little better than the previous game. You need to be A LOT better for people to leave behind the familiarity, the time invested, and the community.

But then who would lie to the share holders about “fun” and “exciting” new games that the kids are going to love.

Joe Biden deported 35% of detainees for no reason? What an absolute piece of garbage.

It just needs time to find its tone and audience.

I agree with what you said but I’m kind of confused about this… Like the audience is there, its been there for 30 years. Why would you want to find a new one.

But there aren’t any equal amount of overseas bots pushing the other direction?

All I want from Value is for them to continue to destroy everything that greedy game CEOs want to shove down gamers throats to pump their stock prices.

Mobile gaming indeed feels like taking a go-kart on the interstate, except the go-karts steering wheel is replaced with playdough.

Well I find it concerning because I really would love a new Star Trek that’s on the level of TNG, or Voyager, or DS9.

Ultimately does it effect me? Nope, but it’s disappointing when producers feel that such a departure is a good thing or even necessary to stay relevant with the times; when in reality those changes make the entire show irrelevant.

You’re saying that any rejoinder offered to any criticism that might have been levied to by a right winger is de facto an accusation of review bombing and an assertion of the show’s popularity in spite of such?

No. I’m not saying that.

The video OP posted was talking about specific nonsense positions put forward by specific nonsense people.

Which might not be stated but I feel is a defensive response to the negative reviews.

Is this video about MAGA response?

Are the negative reviews most likely from MAGA style viewers?

Yes? Then the two are absolutely connected.

You seem very concerned with how popular this show is.

I’ve answered this multiple times. Low viewship and high review bombs clearly indicate a disconnect between production and what’s expected by the audience. Sure they can produce whatever they want, but if Ford Motors starts producing coffee, then don’t be surprised when their customer base says “WTF, we don’t want this, we never asked for this”.

why hide behind numbers at all?

Oh, okay let’s keep spending millions per episode so a few thousand people can enjoy the show. That’s absolutely how show business works.

Numbers are critical and a key indicator of mainstream success.

As I’ve stated multiple times already low viewer count combined with high review bombs indicates a disconnect between what’s being produced and what the audience wants.

You seem to be arguing that the show is bad because it’s unpopular.

The premis of the thread seems to be that the show is getting review bombed because of MAGA. I pointed out that filtering out the United States still gives abysmally low scores.

If you look at viewer count (low) and review bombs (high), it seems to indicate that the producers are wildly out of touch with what the majority of the Star Trek audience is about.