Was that low-rating bombing truly an unfair evaluation?

I actually think that deep down, they are already bored and looking for reasons to quit.

Wiles just died on his own.

What’s wrong with rating garbage as garbage?

Monster Hunter will continue even with low ratings, right?
If you give a low rating to Bandai Namco’s games, they really suffer.

If you give a high rating to a poor work, then more poor works will come out next time…

Did the self-promotion end?

If you’re going to die from this, it’s better to die now.

I can understand if it’s something where the continuation of the series is uncertain, but with Monster Hunter, they’ll definitely come out with another one no matter what…

By the time someone leaves a low-rating review, they probably no longer have enough interest to provide any further information.
I will change my rating to high because it has improved! Not many people are that attentive.

It’s okay to have a low evaluation if you buy it.

I don’t care about low or high ratings, I only look at sales.

Upon closer inspection, it was an image from a thread admitting that the current Wiles is incomplete.

Amateur reviews are only useful for whether you can recommend them to friends or not.
Do not become a thing to lament.

Monster Hunter won’t end just because it received a slightly low rating.

A low rating or indifference after playing for 100 hours is far better than that.

I think it’s good to contribute to sales by purchasing and then sharing honest feedback.
As long as there are sales, the next work will likely be considered regardless of its reputation.
As a result of the discussion, if it becomes the next work, they will likely incorporate the feedback.

I’m not playing, but it turns out Wiles really was no good after all.

In other words, you can just hit the like button and then criticize as you please.

I understand the feelings of wanting to say something against unfair criticism, but it’s all justified.

I think it’s important to give proper low ratings on Steam, as it can be a trigger for manufacturers to take action.

Koeteku, which deleted Japanese as a bug, received a wave of low ratings from Chinese users and hurriedly restored it.

Negative ratings are valid opinions after all.
After saying all those harsh things, I still love this series… and want to support it forever… but when you act like an abuser, it’s tough to handle.

Stop releasing expansion packs with insufficient content just because you want to sell them.

I don’t want to give a high rating to that thing that went through that UI.

It’s undeniable that there is a lack of volume.
It’s the first time I’ve achieved a trophy completion in Monster Hunter this fast.

Is Capcom really the kind of company that cares about low ratings?

If it were a small-scale development, it would be one thing, but for Monster Hunter to sell that well and still get so many low ratings… there’s no way they’ll stop making sequels…

The basic Monster Hunter is always like this, but there are too many newcomers.

Stay still in my memories.

Well, if we’re talking about bombing… it’s fair to evaluate boring things as boring.

Overly worried…

Are you the type of player who thinks that the evaluation of Monster Hunter is a reflection of your own evaluation?

It’s become such a tradition since Monster Hunter 3 for people to voice various opinions about the early stages of a new game that I recognize it as just that kind of noise.

It’s just right to start Monster Hunter when the G-rank equivalent comes out.

At least when it comes to Steam, only those who have bought and played can provide evaluations, so the validity is likely higher.

Since Wiles left, I only have the image of believers and anti-fans battling here, but has it been dismissed with low ratings in the public eye as well?

I don’t think it deserves to be criticized that harshly, but there are many reviews that give low ratings after actually playing it, and the content being divisive seems reasonable…

Even with such a result, the series continued with 4G, right?
In other words, there’s no problem with pressing the dislike button.

It is necessary to convey what was not good.
It’ll be over if it turns into something like Gaharu.

There are too many responses about sea urchin… How about stepping on the brakes a little?

Wiles is self-destructing, isn’t he?
It would have been good to improve the good points and fix the bad points.
You’re cutting out the good parts and amplifying the bad ones in a ridiculous way.

Is it a sin to say that a game that wasn’t fun is not fun?

This way of thinking is no good because it will sell anyway.
Rather, if you’re satisfied with this level, things will only get more and more haphazard.
It was like that with the hammer too.

Aren’t manufacturers looking at sales rather than evaluation scores?

Rank leveling was tedious, so I give it one star.
The update shouldn’t be related, so it will stay as it is.

If you think something is not good, you should properly give it a low rating.
I think it’s not good, but giving it a high rating is just foolish.

If you don’t say that something is bad, the next work will be like this too, you know?

There are many people who express their love for Monster Hunter in long negative reviews, and my only impression is that they will probably buy the next installment.

Wiles was interesting, but I don’t play it anymore.

Wasn’t the response to complaints about the hammer too slow, considering it has been an issue since the World era?
It’s better than doing nothing, but…

The Monster Hunter series won’t stop just because of a careless Steam rating.

Night rain is fun!

What’s the point of continuing to release series after series when doing the same thing in Monster Hunter?

Rather, if they were promoting this as highly rated, Capcom would think, “Oh, so this is how it’s supposed to be.”
It’s obvious that it’s going to be like this from now on, so shouldn’t I give it a low rating to mean that you should have solidified it at the stage of release?

I feel that having a time-limited release to keep players engaged for longer doesn’t really suit Monster Hunter, especially now that there’s an overflow of various content.

Evaluation and whether to buy the next work is a separate issue.

Wiles had a rating of 4.5 on the PS Store, so I think it might be simply due to the PC version’s system requirements and unstable performance…

There are more fans who will defend Monster Hunter and Pokémon no matter what terrible game they release.

I wonder if the people who bomb it with low ratings want to kill the series.I don’t really understand bombing either.
It’s just a story that many people put “it can’t be done” because they think it can’t be done.

Let me play everything from the start.

No matter what happens afterward, the fact that the initial gaming experience was poorly rated remains unchanged.

According to an anonymous insider on the forum, it seems they wanted to release it in time for the financial results, which is why it ended up being so lacking.

Wiles’ evaluations of having nothing to do or lacking volume vary because it depends on the pace of progress and what each person considers as tasks.
What are you thinking with the deterioration of the environmental summary?

Even if you say it will be fixed with an update, by the time it gets fixed, I’ll have moved on from the game, so there’s no point in redoing the review, right?

Even if they received low ratings for Street Fighter 5, they still released the next one, so it should be fine.

It’s a series where everyone is always grumbling and tense except right before and right after the release, so it’s fine, do as you please.

It’s normal to forget about something once you give it a low rating.
Even after leaving a low rating, continuing to follow updates is generally seen as obsession.

Well, since we set the fastest and best record, don’t you think Capcom would see this as a good thing?
To put it another way, Tsujimoto from Bonbon is…

My brain has transformed to prefer social media battles over games.
Give up.

I hope you won’t be arrogant.

Even if it gets fixed in an update, it was boring when I played it, so it will remain low-rated.
If you don’t like it, then just do it properly from the beginning.

I want the series to continue, but I don’t want it to be thought of as good enough as it is.
What should I do?

I don’t know anything about future updates.
Whether it is interesting at this moment is everything.

Those who are giving high ratings to that mediocre work are the real series haters.
Are you hoping for the series to end by continuing to produce garbage?

I feel like the field was better than the world.
I don’t really understand why I feel that way.
I think that if we stop using the narrow passage for dogs, we won’t have the chance to see that scenery.

If you don’t encourage reflection with low ratings, nothing will get better.

Regardless of Amazon or Google Maps, Steam can only be rated by purchasers, and since playtime is also visible, it seems fairly justifiable.

The decline in MW’s reviews is a reaction to the update being too disappointing.

Given the state of Dogma 2, and since Monster Hunter is like this, I will unreservedly give it a low rating.

If you’re going to recommend this, I would say it’s better to buy IB or SB while they’re on sale.

The Wiles timed style is fine, but the additional timing for the time to exhaust it is too long.
I think adding it every other week would be good.

You should have a greater sense of danger since you lost to the world in concurrent viewers.

Half of the employees are involved in animation-related stuff, so it’s hopeless!

Some people who like gunlances say not to make them too strong.

It would be troubling if you just reused the flaws as they are in the next work.

It would be better to end it than to continue releasing worthless things spoiled by indulgence.

When I look at the replies to X’s official posts, I feel like there are a lot of troublesome players…

Punishment for underestimating users.

I’m aware of things like reputation and balding, pretty much.
Trying to make excuses or explaining that it’s not by team, even though.

It’s not like Monster Hunter will collapse just because of low ratings.
It’s better to use methods that clearly convey that something is crap.

Whether to provide feedback is up to the manufacturer, and it’s their choice how to evaluate it.

You have to speak out loudly to convey that something is not good.
The result of neglecting that was the tragedy of the hammer.

If similar evaluations come from multiple people, it is worth considering that it is a valid assessment.
Just because the majority is right doesn’t mean they can be ignored, after all.

This time, I really understood that the number of monsters is what defines justice.

I have no image at all of the Monster Hunter development team sincerely fixing what they’re told is wrong.

Seeing people endlessly fixated on just one game makes me feel that there are more and more impoverished individuals.

It’s already decided that additional DLCs like IB and Sunbreak will be released anyway, so it won’t change anything even if you give it a low rating.

A series dies when it stops selling.
The reason it’s not selling is that the game is boring.

The chaotic feel was more appealing to users than realism.

If I continue to support the manufacturer with thoughts like those in the thread image,
They abandoned it because they were ignoring the fundamental issues and taking users for granted.

I have my doubts about the new system development, but since it’s highly rated, we will implement it in the next work!

Even though you were mocking it by calling it “rice with meat.”

“Don’t fall behind on the trends, make sure to buy a new PC too!”
Compared to the terrible games we’ve had so far, this one is definitely more enjoyable.

Well, Rise is no good either.
The evaluation increased from Sunbreak.

I think it’s a bit unfair that Monster Hunter has opportunities for redemption.

If we give it low ratings, the series might get canceled… So even if it’s boring, let’s give it a high rating, okay?
This is more of an anti-activity than being an anti.

There isn’t much benefit to making it a high-spec PC as requested, you know, Wiles…

Wiles has really good places.
I hope you put in the effort to make it a great game like Iceborne did after its improvements.

Even though they say it’s heavy, it’s just that the village is seriously inexplicably heavy.

Well, Capcom’s stock price continues to rise.

Perhaps it would have been better to wait about another year before releasing it?

I dislike those who do things from a supporter’s perspective.
For others who buy it, it’s just praise from the believers.

P3 was a very interesting and rare Monster Hunter even without G.
I wanted P3G…

Isn’t it best to delay the release of the world and improve its quality?
But then PC users would complain a lot, wouldn’t they?

The negative reviews on Steam are mostly just opinions that are pretty much the same in content, except for those related to Chinese spam and changes between paid and free.
You can tell the playtime and achievements.

Based on experience, titles that push for PC upgrades are generally bad games, so unless you want to satisfy short-term bragging rights, you should avoid them.

I played Iceborne and Sunbreak for 200 hours within a month of their release and got bored, so I haven’t played them since.
Even if they say it ultimately got better, I always wonder why it couldn’t have reached the final state sooner.

To be honest, I think it’s already an incredibly enjoyable game as it is, but I do wonder what kind of expectations those who are complaining have.

I realized that Capcom’s end-of-year games, like Dogma 2, are quite risky, so I think Bio is also in trouble.
That’s in February next year, right?

By turning off the eye-straining effects on mid-range PCs and installing UI improvement and lightweight stabilization mods, I was able to enjoy gaming comfortably without needing to upgrade.
Why are people who switched to high-spec systems suffering while playing without applying mods as the official says…

When my favorite game was poorly ported, I gave it a low rating.

In the beginning, there were strong opinions that Wyles would eventually gain more recognition, but hasn’t the evaluation been getting worse day by day?

Isn’t the review rating something that should be written from the perspective of whether it can be recommended to other users?

The perspective of the review is free.

In the past, there were additions to quests in event quests, but the elements themselves were complete from the beginning.

I think Wyles is just getting low ratings normally, not because of bombing or anything like that…

In the case of Wails, it’s not so much that the game itself is bad, but rather that the response from the developers is poor, which has contributed to its low ratings, making the situation complicated.

Hammers are good, right? Just take a look at the light bowgun.

Isn’t it a problem that most games are considered bad if they lack volume after playing for several dozen hours?

I haven’t tried the light bowgun; what is it like?

At the time of the demo, I could see that Wiles was going to be crazy, so I ignored it, but back then, saying this would have gotten me heavily criticized.

I dislike when strange intentions are mixed into review ratings, not just in games.