I mean I’m the sense that they shouldn’t be penalized, sure
But if the exploit gets fixed, they don’t have a right to complain about that. With some exceptions. If it makes a game iconic or something, that should at least have a way to play with that.
But crying because your game breaking glitch is patched and now you lost one way to just have easy mode is just not a valid critique to make.
That’s a Steam issue with automatic updates. I much prefer games that distribute on their own and let you download any of the old versions you want. I’m not the type of person who plays old versions to exploit bugs in a single player game, but I don’t have any issue with people who want to do that.
And again that’s fine, but fixing the game to fix actual technical issues or unintended mechanics isn’t a good reason to rate a game down. People always like playing with certain broken mechanics, but fixing the actual game should be call for pause, instead of neglect.
Again, maybe with certain exceptions. Sometimes the issue can make a game iconic as hell. But usually it just makes a game easier.
But unless it breaks the game, which nothing here seems like it’s that severe.
I was under the assumption this game was single player only. For multiplayer games, I am not saying anything, because exploits and bugs should be fixed. Below defending part of this reply is about single player games, which does not apply to this game.
But for single player games, if someone wants to cheat or abuse an exploit, it should be their decisions. And there is no need to shame anyone for doing so. That is like hacking a game and doing whatever you want (well its not the same off course). My point is, if it does not harm anyone, then they have the right to get upset for patching that out if it was part of what was fun to them. Off course getting upset over patching an exploit is just silly. And its even more silly to downvote a game for. But still, I can understand, because they had fun with it.
Sure, but if the dev wants to patch out unintended behavior or mechanics, they can do that as well. If the player wants to play with broken mechanics, install mods like the rest of us.
I see. Then in this case, its only fair to remove exploits. I always thought this game is offline single player only (never played the previous game, despite being in my library… oh boy the pile of shame). In this case I agree with you fully and there should be no reason for “review bomb”.
The first game was single-player only, and I was pleasantly surprised when the new one had multiplay. It’s why I got back into it: jump onto a voice call and hang out with my friends in a game we’re all playing.
To be fair, its a single player game. If the player wishes to exploit bugs to play the game that way, then the player should be able to.
I mean I’m the sense that they shouldn’t be penalized, sure
But if the exploit gets fixed, they don’t have a right to complain about that. With some exceptions. If it makes a game iconic or something, that should at least have a way to play with that.
But crying because your game breaking glitch is patched and now you lost one way to just have easy mode is just not a valid critique to make.
In an early access game, no less. The game isn’t even done. This should be expected by the players.
That’s a Steam issue with automatic updates. I much prefer games that distribute on their own and let you download any of the old versions you want. I’m not the type of person who plays old versions to exploit bugs in a single player game, but I don’t have any issue with people who want to do that.
And again that’s fine, but fixing the game to fix actual technical issues or unintended mechanics isn’t a good reason to rate a game down. People always like playing with certain broken mechanics, but fixing the actual game should be call for pause, instead of neglect.
Again, maybe with certain exceptions. Sometimes the issue can make a game iconic as hell. But usually it just makes a game easier.
But unless it breaks the game, which nothing here seems like it’s that severe.
I was under the assumption this game was single player only. For multiplayer games, I am not saying anything, because exploits and bugs should be fixed. Below defending part of this reply is about single player games, which does not apply to this game.
But for single player games, if someone wants to cheat or abuse an exploit, it should be their decisions. And there is no need to shame anyone for doing so. That is like hacking a game and doing whatever you want (well its not the same off course). My point is, if it does not harm anyone, then they have the right to get upset for patching that out if it was part of what was fun to them. Off course getting upset over patching an exploit is just silly. And its even more silly to downvote a game for. But still, I can understand, because they had fun with it.
Sure, but if the dev wants to patch out unintended behavior or mechanics, they can do that as well. If the player wants to play with broken mechanics, install mods like the rest of us.
It’s a multiplayer game.
Not to legitimize the review bombers.
And it is cooperative.
Ok, fair I guess. Does it have player vs player mode? That was what I was thinking off.
There are leaderboards and daily challenges.
I see. Then in this case, its only fair to remove exploits. I always thought this game is offline single player only (never played the previous game, despite being in my library… oh boy the pile of shame). In this case I agree with you fully and there should be no reason for “review bomb”.
The first game was single-player only, and I was pleasantly surprised when the new one had multiplay. It’s why I got back into it: jump onto a voice call and hang out with my friends in a game we’re all playing.
The multiplayer turned out great for me. It ended up being a big draw. My wife and best friend plays, and we have played together.
Drawing on the map for communication (and crude anatomical drawings) is such a nice touch.
I would still call that single player. Comparing scores doesn’t make it multi-player.
No no. There is realtime cooperative play. That was my first point.