While it mentions malice in the first few words, I would argue many of their examples are not malicious, including the one given about the first known use of the phrase:
One of the first appearances of the term “review bomb” was in a 2008 Ars Technica article by Ben Kuchera describing the effect in regards to Spore, in which users left negative reviews on Amazon citing the game’s perceived lackluster gameplay and digital rights management system.
based on this article I’d say it has more to do with the organized nature of reviews. It even says:
Review bombing is a similar practice to vote brigading.
What other purpose for reviews is there than signaling to others whether or not they should buy the game?
Do you think the negative reviews for No Rest For The Wicked don’t have the intention of making it not sell as well? And if not, why do you think players leave them?
While it mentions malice in the first few words, I would argue many of their examples are not malicious, including the one given about the first known use of the phrase:
based on this article I’d say it has more to do with the organized nature of reviews. It even says:
I would argue the first use was malicious and that it spawned even worse instances after. It is a known favorite tool of gamergaters and right wingers
Giving a game bad reviews because of “lackluster gameplay” and DRM is malicious?
With the intent of tanking review scores so the game does not sell as well is, yes.
What other purpose for reviews is there than signaling to others whether or not they should buy the game?
Do you think the negative reviews for No Rest For The Wicked don’t have the intention of making it not sell as well? And if not, why do you think players leave them?