[001]
junovalkyrie
Current Version
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"Dragon Age II was notorious for the huge PR disaster that was part 2011 chain of video game disappointments. But when Bioware ignite the flames by supposedly banning a user for harsh criticism. The game was metacritic bombed to oblivion (downvoting to the same rating that Gamespot gave to Chou Jigen Game Neptune), mocked the moderator who did this and became Bioware\\\'s enemy number 1.\\\"
What happened was that Dragon Age II bombed and received several negative Metacritic reviews. David Gaider (one of Bioware\\\'s lead writers) posted a comment claiming that 4chan was responsible for the constant references to the poor Metacritic scores on the Bioware Social Network (and implying they were responsible for the low Metacritic scores as well). See Gaider\\\'s post at http://social.bioware.com/*http:/social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6436625/3 near the top of the page.
\\\"We\\\'re well aware of what the 4chan folks are up to and they\\\'re desperation to sound more important/numerous than they are. I mean, is there any wonder why multiple people have suddenly been running here going \\\"OMG look at the Metacritic user reviews!\\\" when nobody has ever done that before? Seriously.
Which is too bad, as it certainly makes those with legitimate, constructive criticisms harder to pick out amidst the dross. Be that as it may, we will listen to feedback and come to our own conclusions-- it will be all the feedback, however, and not just that provided by those determined to be the loudest and/or most obnoxious.\\\"
This claim was posted late at night on March 9, CST, based on the earliest instances I can find of it being quoted on other sites (BSN\\\'s own system is not very useful here, since it only states that the post occurred \\\"8 months ago\\\"). No evidence was ever presented to support it, and judging by subsequent threads about it (eg this one: http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6450160/1), even on the BSN very few posters appeared to buy the story that 4chan was linked to the poor user scores on Metacritic.
In a separate, unrelated event, a BSN forumite posted \\\"Have you sold your souls to the EA devils?\\\", implying that EA\\\'s acquisition of Bioware was responsible for many of the commonly-disliked design decisions in Dragon Age II. Stanley Woo, a BSN moderator, banned him - not just from the forums, but from being able to play his legally-purchased copy of Dragon Age II at all. Woo later defended this decision, citing the EA community terms of service (see the picture here: http://imgur.com/VkbXH), but after a day or two in which numerous gaming websites reported on this with much outrage resulting among gamers and consumer rights advocates, EA recanted, claiming a glitch in their system was responsible for the whole mess (http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/03/15/dragon-age-2-access-returned-to-banned-forumite/). This was reported on numerous sites starting almost as soon as Woo posted his response, and the earliest timestamp I can find for it is March 10 after 9 AM CST.
To sum up, the actual events aren\\\'t as depicted on the trope page and don\\\'t seem to actually fit the trope for two reasons: first, the supposed manipulation of Metacritic scores by 4chan was never shown to have actually taken place. Second, the low scores on Metacritic were already present *before* the user was banned.
What happened was that Dragon Age II bombed and received several negative Metacritic reviews. David Gaider (one of Bioware\\\'s lead writers) posted a comment claiming that 4chan was responsible for the constant references to the poor Metacritic scores on the Bioware Social Network (and implying they were responsible for the low Metacritic scores as well). See Gaider\\\'s post at http://social.bioware.com/*http:/social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6436625/3 near the top of the page.
\\\"We\\\'re well aware of what the 4chan folks are up to and they\\\'re desperation to sound more important/numerous than they are. I mean, is there any wonder why multiple people have suddenly been running here going \\\"OMG look at the Metacritic user reviews!\\\" when nobody has ever done that before? Seriously.
Which is too bad, as it certainly makes those with legitimate, constructive criticisms harder to pick out amidst the dross. Be that as it may, we will listen to feedback and come to our own conclusions-- it will be all the feedback, however, and not just that provided by those determined to be the loudest and/or most obnoxious.\\\"
This claim was posted late at night on March 9, CST, based on the earliest instances I can find of it being quoted on other sites (BSN\\\'s own system is not very useful here, since it only states that the post occurred \\\"8 months ago\\\"). No evidence was ever presented to support it, and judging by subsequent threads about it (eg this one: http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6450160/1), even on the BSN very few posters appeared to buy the story that 4chan was linked to the poor user scores on Metacritic.
In a separate, unrelated event, a BSN forumite posted \\\"Have you sold your souls to the EA devils?\\\", implying that EA\\\'s acquisition of Bioware was responsible for many of the commonly-disliked design decisions in Dragon Age II. Stanley Woo, a BSN moderator, banned him - not just from the forums, but from being able to play his legally-purchased copy of Dragon Age II at all. Woo later defended this decision, citing the EA community terms of service (see the picture here: http://imgur.com/VkbXH), but after a day or two in which numerous gaming websites reported on this with much outrage resulting among gamers and consumer rights advocates, EA recanted, claiming a glitch in their system was responsible for the whole mess (http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/03/15/dragon-age-2-access-returned-to-banned-forumite/). This was reported on numerous sites starting almost as soon as Woo posted his response, and the earliest timestamp I can find for it is March 10 after 9 AM CST.
To sum up, the actual events aren\\\'t as depicted on the trope page and don\\\'t seem to actually fit the trope for two reasons: first, the supposed manipulation of Metacritic scores by 4chan was never shown to have actually taken place. Second, the low scores on Metacritic were already present *before* the user was banned.
