"No such thing as bad publicity?”: Exploring the Relationship Between Paratexts and Review Bombing in the Video Game Industry

As the video game industry expands across consoles, phones, and computers, industry members continue to innovate advertising approaches. Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) presentations, which once served as the epicenter of the hype industry, are now a memory of a bygone era following the Entertainment Software Association's announcement of their permanent cancellation. While E3 presentations are now relegated to YouTube clips, every home console developer has created showcases to advertise their upcoming releases. These game showcases represent a singular element of a paratextual surround that accompanies most significant releases. Seiwald’s description of the paratexts surrounding the incredibly popular social simulation title Animal Crossing captures their extensive nature: “Besides official merchandising products, such as t-shirts, soft toys, and socks, fans have created many paratexts that are materially different from the game, such as comics, a trading website called Bookazon, and even a virtual talk show hosted on Twitch.” 1  Industry giants and consumers engage in conversations within this paratextual universe. Companies use paratexts, such as trailers and teasers, to promise innovations and breakthroughs; similarly, consumers create paratexts, such as reviews and memes, to express their frustration with a franchise’s direction or indignation at a broken paratextual promise. With paratexts, fans express their ire with industry-created content that does not align with their interpretation of a cherished game or franchise. 

Fan-Industry Relationship

 In his foundational work, Convergence Culture, Henry Jenkins once described fandom in the following way, “Fandom, after all, is born out of a balance between fascination and frustration: if media content didn’t fascinate us, there would be no desire to engage with it, but if it didn’t frustrate us on some level, there would be no drive to rewrite it or remake it.” 2  There is no shortage of fandom conceptualizations, but Jenkins perfectly captures the duality that can often characterize a person’s fandom. One can appreciate an aspect of a beloved franchise while simultaneously being disappointed, or even angered, by recent developments. Fan investment of resources such as time, money, and emotions can lead some to claim a sense of “ownership” over a media property. 3

Christopher A. Paul proposes that the relationship between consumers and producers is pivotal to the gaming industry. Paul explains the importance of this relationship: “Co-creativity is the belief that media products are constructed in the interactions between producers and consumers of content.” 4  To support this notion of co-creativity, Paul highlights how companies request consumer feedback through hiring practices or beta testing. Early Access on Steam exemplifies co-creativity. Consumers use early access to “get immediate access to games that are being developed with the community’s feedback.” 5  Consumers who pay for early access can provide developers with feedback and see how the game evolves during its development cycle. For example, developer Unknown Worlds Entertainment removed microtransactions, the use of real-world money for in-game virtual items or perks, from the strategy game Moonbreaker after fans expressed dissatisfaction with the game’s monetization. 6

Paratexts

The game previews, trailers, demos, and reviews discussed thus far have been classified by some scholars as paratexts. Consalvo argues that “Paratexts surround, shape, support, and provide context for texts. They may alter the meaning of texts, further enhance meanings, or provide challenges to sedimented meanings.” 7  Švelch summarizes previous research on paratexts, stating that three conceptualizations are utilized in gaming research: the original, expanded, and reduced definitions. 8  Jones posits that the appeal of the expanded view is that it “takes us beyond debates over whether video game paratexts are limited to canonical packaging, marketing campaigns, or preliminary load screens, or can also include wikis, discussion boards, or fan art.” 9  This expanded interpretation aligns with Jones's earlier assertion that most “popular video game[s] are always already predominantly paratextual.” 10  Jonathan Gray, another advocate of the expanded definition, argues in Dislike-Minded: Media, Audiences, and the Dynamics of Taste that we can encounter paratexts at any time: “they may come to us two years before the film, for example; they may pop up on our internet browser or at bus stops; ‘director’s cuts’ may follow a film sometimes many years later.” 11  These paratexts, regardless of when we encounter them, can shape our understanding of a work. 

 A paratext can gain further significance if it is the only exposure a consumer has to a work. For instance, consider a consumer who decides not to purchase a new game after reading negative reviews or watching a mediocre trailer. As these consumers are unlikely to have firsthand experience with the product, paratexts serve as their sole source of meaning-making for the title. Paratexts generated by the gaming industry, such as trailers, can lead to review bombing when fans believe perceived paratextual promises have gone unfulfilled. 

Review Websites

Online reviews are one of many paratexts in the gaming industry. Previously, game reviews were primarily found in prominent video game magazines or on respected video game websites. However, consumers can now write reviews on popular platforms such as Steam and the review aggregator Metacritic. Valve Corporation, the publisher of blockbuster titles such as the first-person shooter Half-Life and the Multiplayer Online Battle Arena Dota 2, launched Steam in 2003 primarily as a tool to provide online updates for its published games. 12  While consumers could always purchase Valve titles through the Steam Store, titles from third-party publishers became available only in 2005. 13  Since 2013, users on the Steam platform have been able to write reviews for any title associated with their Steam account, and these reviews automatically include information on the number of hours the reviewer has spent playing the game. 

In addition to Steam, the website Metacritic represents the other giant in the video game review business. Beyond Steam’s more direct connection to a gaming publisher, there are a few other significant differences between the platforms. Metacritic is not a digital marketplace; users can write reviews for any title regardless of whether they own or have even played it. This lower barrier to entry makes it easier for individuals to review bomb a title on Metacritic. In addition, reviews on the Metacritic platform use a 0-10 scale, whereas Steam uses a binary yes-no option to assess whether you would recommend the title. User reviews are tabulated into an overall User Score listed on a game’s Metacritic page. Despite their differences, Steam and Metacritic have been sites of significant review bombing incidents. 

Review Bombing

Sandvoss defines fandom as “the regular, emotionally involved consumption of a given popular narrative or text.” 14  These emotions drive many instances of review bombing, as fans utilize review platforms to express their dissatisfaction with undesirable company policies or unfulfilled paratextual promises. Fans' emotional attachment to an upcoming release can stem from their experiences with other titles in a series, their familiarity with the developer's other games, and their exposure to promotional materials such as teasers and trailers. Research by Švelch indicates that while some fans remain skeptical of video game trailers, even labeling them “false advertising,” others may be more likely to accept trailer claims if the developer has a positive track record. 15  Thus, the paratextual network can foster emotional attachments and responses even before the specific work has been released. 

When a title does not meet their expectations, fans may express their dismay, distrust, and dissatisfaction in online reviews. Henry Jenkins, building on John Tulloch’s work, once argued that fans were “unable to alter the series content but actively reshap[e] the reception context through grassroots media production.” 16  While their work carefully examined the circulation of materials within the Star Trek community, the arguments regarding “reshaping the reception context” still ring true today. 17  When a game is review bombed, the conversation may shift from the game’s merits to the fans’ complaints. These negative reviews, serving as fan-created paratexts, ultimately become part of the textual universe surrounding a work, and fans may hope that their reviews spur positive change in the franchise or negatively affect sales. 

Review bombing has become a topic of mainstream conversation due to the furor surrounding two major film releases, Ghostbusters (2016) and Captain Marvel (2019), 18  but the discussion regarding review bombs began years earlier. According to Kaser, one of the earliest uses of the term review bomb was in an article by Ben Kuchera in 2008. 19  Kuchera’s piece examined the negative fan reaction to digital rights management associated with the hybrid life-simulation and strategy game Spore. The PC game allowed consumers to install Spore up to three times before they had to request an additional installation by contacting EA directly. 20  Fans were upset by the installation limitations, so they wrote negative reviews of the game on Amazon.

Dutton, Consalvo, and Harper investigated how news coverage of the game Mass Effect led to a review bombing, not of the game itself, but of a book unrelated to it written by psychologist Dr. Cooper Lawrence. 21  Mass Effect is a role-playing game (RPG) that places players in the shoes of Commander Shepard in their war against the Reapers. A Mass Effect playthrough features extensive customization as players have control over Commander Shepard’s appearance, gender, and romantic relationships. These romantic relationships were Dr. Lawrence’s chief concern, as she expressed concerns that the sexual content could have a deleterious impact. 22  The discussion of the romantic content in Mass Effect elicited a swift response from fans, including a review bombing of Dr. Lawrence’s book on Amazon. 23  Fans used the review bomb to simultaneously defend Mass Effect and express their dissatisfaction with Dr. Lawrence’s incendiary remarks, especially as she admitted she had not played the title.

Recent scholarly work on review bombing has proffered various definitions for the phenomenon. For example, Wildy asserts that review bombing involves “‘fans’ from the aforementioned segments of fandoms flood[ing] review aggregator sites, such as Rotten Tomatoes, with negative pre-release reviews in hopes of damaging ticket sales before a film’s release.” 24  While Wildy’s definition focuses on review bombing in the film industry, time is identified as one of the essential requirements for review bombing. However, review bombs can occur at any point in a work's life, as consumers may use them to respond to perceived grievances. For Joelsson, Hyrynsalmi, and Molenaar, review bombing is “a negative action where a large group of gamers rate a game negatively during a short period of time for some reason.” 25  While this definition does not limit review bombing to pre-release, it argues that review bombing involves negatively rating a game. Taqiuddin, Bachtiar, and Purnomo do not constrain review bombing to negative reviews as they write, “review bombing often occurs where users review only to drop or raise the image of a product instead of reviewing the product sincerely.” 26  While the case studies featured in this article are exclusively negative, the flexibility of Taqiuddin, Bachtiar, and Purnomo’s conceptualization can account for offsetting reviews in future work. 

Review bombs, like any other paratext, can happen at any point in a work's life. Fan dissatisfaction stemming from company policies, broken promises marketing, and unmet fan expectations resulted in review bombings of the following games: Borderlands 2 (2012), Helldivers 2 (2014), Apex Legends (2019), Cyberpunk 2077 (2020), Overwatch 2 (2022), Pokémon Sword/Shield (2019), and AI: The Somnium Files (2019). An analysis of these review-bombing incidents reveals how industry-created paratexts contribute to them. This survey will be followed by an investigation into how review platforms have tried, unsuccessfully, to mitigate the issue of review bombing.

Company Policies 

Whether through advertisements or press releases, companies' messages can familiarize consumers with new intellectual properties or highlight changes to beloved franchises. These announcements can provoke consumer indignation when they promote decisions perceived as anti-consumer. Consumers have responded negatively to many company decisions over the past decade, including exclusive contracts, required registrations to access games, and extensive microtransactions. 

The term “exclusive” once referred to a franchise that would only appear on consoles made by a single developer—consider Mario’s presence on every Nintendo console—but our understanding of the term has changed. Allen discusses how the term "exclusive" has become a marketing gimmick, encompassing console exclusives, timed console exclusives, retailer exclusives, and pre-order exclusives. 27  Although the “exclusive” label is more suitable for a late-night infomercial than gaming scholarship, companies often use the term. Despite companies’ positive attitudes towards exclusives, news reports indicate that Borderlands 2 was review bombed due to its exclusivity. 

The Borderlands series has players choose from a variety of treasure hunters, known as Vault Hunters in the games, as they seek unimaginable riches and battle corruption. Borderlands 2 is a hybrid role-playing and action game that was review bombed in 2019. The date of the review bomb is notable, as the game was released in 2012. Why was a 7-year-old game review bombed? Borderlands 2 was review bombed on Steam because Gearbox Software and 2K Games, the developers of the Borderlands series, signed an exclusive deal with the Epic Games Store for the first six months of the September 2019 Borderlands 3 release. 28  Epic Games, the developers of the mainstream hit Fortnite, launched the Epic Games Store in 2018. 

The exclusive deal with the Epic Store was accidentally leaked by the Borderlands X (formerly known as Twitter) account in a promotional video for the game. 29  When the Epic Games partnership was confirmed in an official trailer, the previous Borderlands entries were review-bombed. In this case, both the initial leak of the Borderlands 3 trailer and the official trailer served as paratexts not just for Borderlands 3 but for the entire Borderlands series. The flood of negative reviews attracted the attention of Gearbox developer Scott Velasquez, who reposted a photo of the review bomb with the following comment on his X account: “Not cool at all to misuse a system like this, and shame on @steam_games for allowing it.” 30  Ultimately, Steam removed over 4000 reviews that they believed were “largely unrelated to the likelihood that you would enjoy the product.” 31

Moving away from the exclusivity issue, the satirical third-person shooter Helldivers 2 was reviewed bombed in 2024. In Helldivers 2, players control soldiers who are trying to defend Super-Earth from alien attacks. The game was review bombed because Sony, the publisher behind the title, initially intended to require all players create a PlayStation Network account to access it. 32  Unfortunately, the PlayStation Network is not available in every country, meaning players in those regions would lose access to the title if the policy were enacted. In this instance, Sony’s policy announcement served as the paratext, prompting an influx of criticism toward Sony and the game’s developer, Arrowhead Game Studios. Park reports that the Steam listing for the game received “200,000 negative reviews in less than 48 hours.” 33  The backlash to the announcement was so swift that four days after revealing the policy, Sony shared the following statement on the PlayStation X account: 

Helldivers fans – we’ve heard your feedback on the Helldivers 2 account linking update. The May 6 update, which would have required Steam and PlayStation Network account linking for new players, and for current players beginning May 30, will not be moving forward. 34

The review bombing of Helldivers 2 allowed consumers to express their frustration with a policy perceived as anti-consumer, ultimately leading the involved companies to concede that consumer concerns were valid. 

On the surface, a free-to-play video game would ostensibly be far removed from the previously discussed anti-consumer policies. The free-to-play model enables companies to sell access to game levels, modes, or character skins on a piecemeal basis. The battle royale Apex Legends, developed by Respawn Entertainment, relies on selling battle passes and in-game cosmetics as revenue streams. In Apex Legends, the playable characters known as legends seek to win the Apex games for a variety of motivations, including fortune, fame, and exoneration. In previous seasons, players could purchase the battle pass using in-game currency they had earned, thereby limiting their need to spend real-world currency. A battle pass is a tiered reward system that features limited-time unlockable items such as different character outfits and voice lines. Even if players opted to buy the initial battle pass for $9.99, each pass provided enough in-game currency to purchase the next one without requiring additional investment. 

Electronic Arts (EA), the game’s publisher, posted an announcement on its website on July 8th, 2024, detailing plans to overhaul the battle pass significantly. The most noteworthy revisions to the battle pass system were restricting pass purchases to real-world currency and splitting the single-season pass into two battle passes per season. Furthermore, the battle passes were now divided into tiers, with the base battle pass costing $9.99 and the premium battle pass costing $19.99. Longtime players of the title, accustomed to earning all the cosmetics in a season for no required fee, now needed to spend $39.99 each season for the same satisfaction. 

An announcement on the EA website detailing changes to the battle pass sparked immediate backlash against Respawn and EA. Byll summarizes the fan perspective: "Much of this [fan dissatisfaction] stems from the sentiment that the developer and publisher have turned their back on players, choosing to implement systems designed to squeeze money out of their fans.” 35  Following these changes, the recent reviews left in the last 30 days are classified on Steam as “Overwhelmingly Negative.” 36  The resulting condemnation of the proposed changes was so ubiquitous across review platforms and social media that EA opted to backtrack less than three weeks after its initial declaration. EA’s response to the public castigation: “You’ve spoken and we’ve listened. With the release of Season 22 we will restore the ability to get the Premium Battle Pass for 950 Apex Coins. We recognize that we could have handled the Battle Pass changes better—that’s on us.” 37  This incident mirrors the public censure associated with Helldivers 2, in that public excoriation led to an immediate revision of the company’s policies for those titles. Conversations between companies and consumers can occur through paratexts, but bring about the change consumers desperately seek. 

Broken Promises Marketing

Siuda, Regula, Majewski, and Kwapiszewska introduced the concept of broken promises marketing in their exploration of the action role-playing game Cyberpunk 2077. 38  In Cyberpunk 2077, players control a customizable mercenary known as V as they navigate the fictional Night City and deal with the consequences of a corrupted biochip. The researchers define broken promises marketing as “a gap between how the game is positively portrayed pre-release and how it finally looks during its premiere.” 39  Importantly, this concept is sufficiently broad to account for paratexts created by the company, such as misleading trailers, as well as the valence of coverage by gaming journalists. CD Projekt Red, the developer of the universally acclaimed action role-playing game The Witcher III, first announced Cyberpunk 2077 in 2012, eight years before its release. The anticipation for the game reached a fever pitch after an E3 2019 trailer revealed that Keanu Reeves would serve as one of the main characters. It appeared Cyberpunk 2077 had the perfect recipe for success: a game produced by a critically acclaimed developer, an extended development window to perfect the game, and an A-list movie star as the proverbial icing on the cake. Švelch’s study on the representativity of game trailers even found that some consumers would give CD Projekt Red leeway for minor discrepancies between their trailers and the final product. 40  However, Švelch’s research was completed before the disastrous launch of Cyberpunk 2077 for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. This discussion of Cyberpunk 2077 will build on the work of Siuda, Regula, Majewski, and Kwapiszewska by highlighting specific instances of CD Projekt’s communication and expanding on the relationship between “broken promises marketing” and review bombing.   

   While the launch was undoubtedly nightmarish, the issues with Cyberpunk 2077 began with the described development window. CD Projekt Red initially targeted a release window in April 2020, but in January 2020 announced that the launch would be postponed to September 2020. The statement posted on CD Projekt Red’s Twitter (now X) account stated, 

We are currently at a stage where the game is complete and playable, but there’s still work to be done. Night City is massive – full of stories, content and places to visit, but due to the sheer scale and complexity of it all, we need more time to finish playtesting, fixing and polishing. 41

If this were the only delay, perhaps fans would have been more receptive to the title, but CD Projekt Red published another statement on the Cyberpunk 2077 Twitter (now X) account in June 2020, announcing a second delay. This statement highlighted the role of fan trust in the video game industry, 

‘Ready when it’s done’ is not just a phrase we say because it sounds right, it’s something we live by even when we know we’ll take the heat for it. At the same time, we are fully aware that making such a decision costs us your trust and trading trust for additional time is one of the hardest decisions a game developer can make. 42

CD Projekt Red openly acknowledges that the delay will result in the withdrawal of some goodwill from their reservoir. However, they consider this transaction worthwhile if it leads to a better product. A final delay in October pushed the game back an additional 21 days. The distinctive yellow background used for these apologies has become an internet meme. The Twitter (now X) user Foone created the website sorrypunk.com, where fans could issue mock apologies to anyone featuring the distinctive yellow background and Cyberpunk 2077 logo. This apology template is a fan-created paratext that modifies the reception context surrounding the title. Instead of evaluating the game's merits, the template serves as a stark reminder to consumers of the failed promises made throughout the game’s developmental cycle. 

Ultimately, the frequent delays had exhausted some fans, but a successful launch would have allowed the company to recoup goodwill. However, the launch of Cyberpunk 2077 on PS4 and Xbox One drew more negative coverage. Within 24 hours of the game’s release, the PlayStation 4 version had a Metacritic user score of 1.9, based on over 1,400 reviews. 43  Time has not healed all wounds regarding Cyberpunk 2077 on the PS4, as it currently holds a 3.8 user score on Metacritic, based on over 10,000 reviews. According to Duckworth, the gripe expressed most commonly was “the sheer amount of bugs in Cyberpunk 2077, ranging from devastating frame rate drops to game-breaking bugs and everything in-between.” 44  One particularly acerbic review on Metacritic read,

This game is an unplayable mess on the original PlayStation 4 with framerates constantly dropping to below 20 and bugs throughout the experience (in extremely low resolution). The entire marketing around this game was deceptive, as CD Projekt Red never showed the way [the] game works on the original PlayStation 4, but assured gamers that it works ‘surprisingly well’. Avoid at all costs. 45

 Another review reads, “False advertisement, the game does NOT work properly on old generation of consoles, it should have never been released on PS4.” 46  These consumer reviews highlight the role of paratexts, specifically trailers with game footage, in raising expectations for the title. 

Cyberpunk 2077 trailers went from marketing genius to joke material seemingly overnight. Within a week of the game’s release, multiple fan-produced videos combined dialogue from the previous trailers with glitches captured during gameplay. As of this writing, there are four different glitch compilations on YouTube, each with over a million views. Undoubtedly, these viral videos exacerbated the conversations surrounding Cyberpunk 2077. These glitch compilations, user-created paratexts featuring in-game footage, were ubiquitous on social media. Within the first week of the game’s release, Sony was bombarded with refund requests from incensed consumers due to the aforementioned technical glitches. 47  In an interview with Axios, Jim Ryan, the former CEO of Sony Interactive Entertainment, argued Sony’s decision to remove Cyberpunk 2077 from the PlayStation store resulted from a need “to act in the interests of the PlayStation Community, and not knowingly sell a game that might result in a bad experience for them.” 48  The game was delisted within a week of its release and resurfaced on the PlayStation Store nearly six months after its initial release date. Cyberpunk 2077 may ultimately reach a state of playability on older consoles, but one final review illustrates that it may be impossible for CD Projekt Red to replenish its goodwill reservoir with some consumers:

I literally pray that this game fails harder than any video game has ever failed I’m not talking about sales, I’m talking about reputation. No other company has insulted me more with their lies and promises, than CdProjectRed [sic]. I’m saying all this as someone who has been playing video games over 20 years. Cyberpunk 2077 broke me and that’s something no movie or video game has managed to do until now. 49

This fan attempts to legitimize their emotional response by highlighting their gaming credentials. With their gaming bona fides established, the fan avows that the Cyberpunk 2077 experience “broke” them. This fan’s experience demonstrates that the term “broken promises marketing” is exceedingly apt, as some fans view trailers as a promise, and breaking that promise is simply unforgivable.  

Speaking of broken promises, the first-person shooter Overwatch 2 was review bombed for its inability to live up to the claims featured in its original announcement. The Overwatch games are classified as hero shooters, as they allow players to select from a roster of heroes to engage in 5-on-5 or 6-on-6 team-based combat. The Overwatch games are set on a fictional Earth where the consequences of a robot uprising, known as Omnics in the series, significantly impact global affairs. Blizzard released Overwatch 2 in 2022, a direct sequel to the award-winning 2016 release, Overwatch. Upon its release, Overwatch was inundated with awards, including Game of the Year from the D.I.C.E. Awards and journalist Geoff Keighley’s The Game Awards. Fans were enamored with the original title but expressed trepidation at the announcement of a sequel, believing Blizzard would continue adding characters to the original title rather than developing a direct sequel. However, the initial announcement of Overwatch 2 at BlizzCon 2019 justified the need for a sequel, specifically in the form of cooperative missions that would expand on the lore featured in the first title. These cooperative missions would allow players to level up their heroes in what the trailer labels “highly replayable co-op.” 50  This storyworld expansion was the crowning jewel of this public reveal, although new competitive modes and stages were also mentioned. When Overwatch 2 was released on Steam in August 2023, it became “the worst user-reviewed game on the platform ever.” 51  Aaron Keller, the current director of Overwatch 2, posted the following commentary on Overwatch’s website: 

Many of the reviews on Steam mentioned the cancellation of the much larger component of PvE that was announced in 2019 as one of their primary reasons for dissatisfaction with the game. I get that. That announcement was about an ambitious project that we ultimately couldn’t deliver. 52

Tressler’s article, detailing the lack of story content in Overwatch 2, succinctly captures fan feelings of betrayal with the following subheading: “Overwatch 2 made a promise it wouldn’t keep.” 53  The initial Overwatch 2 announcement, the company-created paratext in this scenario, promised fans an unforgettable story and character modification. Ultimately, consumers were left with a stylish trailer featuring novel ideas that could not be implemented. The launch of Overwatch 2 was so disastrous that, in February 2026, Blizzard rebranded the title Overwatch. This effort to rechristen the title was complemented by major changes to the gameplay, the hero roster, and the narrative. Whether this rebrand is a long-term success remains to be seen, but the “debut” of Overwatch Season 1 saw the title double its Steam player record. 54

Unmet Expectations

Consumer expectations are not always the result of misleading advertisements, but they can lead to dislike of a media object. Gray’s analysis of disliked media objects focused on film and television, but the following quotation is still illustrative: “But then I turn to a formulation that was far more prevalent in our interviews, namely, a discourse of unmet expectations, in which the object of scorn was something from which the audience member desperately hoped for more.” 55  The examples provided in Gray’s work addressed issues such as representation in the media and ethical news coverage, whereas the games highlighted in this section deal with different expectations. Fan expectations contributed to the negative conversations that clouded the releases of Pokémon Sword/Pokémon Shield and AI: The Somnium Files.

Perhaps the most publicized review bombing occurred for the release of Pokémon Sword and Pokémon Shield. The main Pokémon titles, developed by Game Freak, are RPGs that require players to capture and train creatures to engage in combat. The ultimate goal of the Pokémon Sword and Shield titles is to win the Champion's Cup by defeating your in-game rivals in combat. Pokémon Sword and Pokémon Shield marked the first mainline titles to be released for a home console. Given the increased capabilities of the Nintendo Switch as a hybrid console, one that could be played while connected to a television or on the go, fan expectations soared. In addition to the Nintendo Switch's increased processing power, fans of the Pokémon titles had over two decades of games and merchandise that promised they could catch them all. However, the game’s presentation at the Nintendo Treehouse event at E3 2019, one of the many paratexts used to market these games, dampened fan hype. Two moments from this press conference shaped many early conversations surrounding Pokémon Sword and Shield.

The gameplay of Pokémon Sword and Shield at the Nintendo Treehouse event, a promotional event demonstrating gameplay for upcoming titles, featured many trees. However, a screenshot of a single tree served as ammunition for some tirades against Game Freak. So why did this tree become (in)famous? The tree roused fan ire because the resolution was comparable to games released 20 years ago. These low-resolution trees were considered an indictment after a meme compared the trees in the 1998 action-adventure classic The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, with the tree featured in the trailer for the 2019 release Pokémon Sword and Pokémon Shield. 56  

One might think that fans would forget about the trees when the game was ultimately released; however, a mod created within a week of the game’s release introduced hi-res trees. 57  This mod is another fan-created paratext that impacts how players view the Pokémon Sword and Shield games. The mod may have left some fans wondering, “What is preventing a billion-dollar company from creating aesthetically appealing foliage if fans can do it on their computers?” While plenty of conversation surrounded graphics, the Pokédex issues were also a point of contention during the entire lead-up to the game’s release.

During the Treehouse event, it was revealed that some Pokémon would not exist in the Sword and Shield universe. This marked the first time in the series' history that fans were unable to complete the National Pokédex. Donaldson explains that in previous entries in the series, the “national Pokédex . . . could be filled in by trading Pokémon over from other games set in other regions.” 58  For longtime fans, playing each entry in the series posed the challenge of capturing every Pokémon in the ever-expanding Pokémon universe. Before the release of Sword and Shield, the Pokémon universe contained over 800 Pokémon. Pokémon Sword and Shield ultimately removed more than 50% of the roster from the base version of the game, launching with 400 returning Pokémon to complement the creatures unique to the Galar region. Regions are one of the defining characteristics of the Pokémon titles, with each one having unique Pokémon native to that area. Each region found in a Pokémon title is inspired by real-world locales. Freidly notes that the “Kalos region of Gen 6 was inspired by France, Alola’s archipelago was based on Hawaii, and Galar is the Pokémon equivalent of the United Kingdom.” 59  A clever comment on YouTube captured the disappointment of fans with the disappearance of beloved Pokémon in the Galar region: “When people asked for Pokémon Snap, this is not what they asked for.” 60  For those unfamiliar, this fan comment simultaneously references the Nintendo 64 title Pokémon Snap and the Thanos snap in Avengers: Infinity War, which wiped out half of the universe's population. This exodus was branded “dexit” by some fans of the series. One review highlighted by McFerran stated: “Bugs, no endgame, half pokedex, mediocre graphics, less features than previous games . . . should I keep talking.”  61  Another review identified by McFerran avowed: 

You will see many negative reviews here, none nearly as lengthy as my diatribe. However, recognize that these negative reviews, like mine, come from a place of love and passion for the Pokémon series, and a sense of heartbreak and betrayal over seeing what it has become. To us, we love Pokémon, and in order for it to improve, there needs to be a place for criticism. This is it. 62

This fan’s emotional attachment is evident in the communication of their status as a long-time fan and their sadness over the series’ direction. Although this fan is writing a negative review, it can be interpreted as tough love instead of a desire for the Pokémon franchise to fail. 

While Pokémon is one of the best-selling video game franchises in the world, the next release to deal with backlash over fan expectations is the lesser-known AI: The Somnium Files. AI: The Somnium Files is a visual novel in which players must uncover the perpetrator behind a series of murders. AI: The Somnium Files represents an outlier, as we know the number of individuals involved in the review bombing. Perhaps the term “individual” is more fitting, as a single person took responsibility for the review bombing in a discussion thread on ResetERA. 63  The user’s reasoning for the review bombing was twofold. The primary motivation was to demonstrate how easily the scores could be manipulated; however, they also admitted to being frustrated with the development of the game’s narrative. 64

Before the game’s release, a character named A-set was featured in promotional videos that resembled vlogs. These promotional videos, paratexts designed to introduce one of the key characters, showcase A-set’s singing ability and taste in food. According to Denzer, the fan “admitted to crushing on the character” and was frustrated with her treatment in the game’s narrative. The fan argued, “it [the game] basically ignores everything said videos were trying to build up.” 65  One fan’s resentment over the perceived mistreatment of a beloved character led to a review bombing that dropped the game's user score from 8.2 to 1.9 in a single day. 66

The titles examined in this section share little in common except for their review bombings, which stem from unfulfilled fan expectations. However, these examples do not align with the concept of broken marketing promises, which highlights a discrepancy between news coverage or advertising claims and the actual product. In the case of Pokémon, the unfulfilled expectations stem from the introduction of a new console and prior Pokémon products, rather than from any deceptive marketing of Pokémon Sword/Shield. Similarly, the advertising videos developed by Spike Chunsoft to promote one of the characters featured in AI: The Somnium Files made no promises about the character’s fate in the narrative. Broken-promises marketing is undoubtedly a helpful lens for examining misleading coverage of a game; however, even the most “honest” paratexts can provoke fan anger due to the subjectivity of perception. 

Industry Response

The potential of review bombing to shape the reception context has led review platforms to develop various approaches to address this significant issue. The review bombs highlighted in this manuscript occurred between 2019 and 2024; however, Valve, the company behind the Steam platform, has been seeking ways to address this issue for a more extended period. In September 2017, Valve outlined several reasons why games are review-bombed beyond game quality, including the developer's political beliefs and discrepancies between the Steam version of the game and its console release. 67  Valve detailed potential pathways forward, which included removing all reviews and restricting when reviews can be submitted, ultimately concluding that a histogram of all available data would enable consumers to make informed decisions. 68  Providing this data to consumers enables them to identify potential discrepancies by examining the overall dataset.

However, providing consumers with the entire dataset only served as a temporary solution. In 2019, Valve released a second commentary that stated their new policy: “We’re going to identify off-topic review bombs and remove them from the Review Score.” 69  Importantly, Valve does not delete the reviews, but rather eliminates their impact on the game’s overall rating. The determining factor for whether a surge of negative reviews is classified as a review bomb is the relevance of the reviews to the overall game. For example, if the issue addressed in a review is unrelated to the gameplay, it would be classified as an off-topic concern. Valve still provides consumers with options, as they can include “review bomb” reviews in the overall review score by modifying their account settings. 70  Valve’s multiple approaches to review bombing demonstrate the perceived importance of this issue.

While Steam considered a review moratorium before removing the influence of review bombs on the overall score, Metacritic has opted for a review freeze for new releases. According to Lyles, Metacritic’s new policy requires consumers to wait 36 hours after a game’s release to publish their online reviews. 71  Consumers who attempt to write a review before the 36-hour freeze is complete are met with the suggestion, “Please spend some time playing the game.” 72  There is a certain irony in review websites needing to remind consumers to play the game before passing judgment, particularly given the backlash against Dr. Cooper’s comments, which were made without having played the game. 

As companies grapple with addressing review bombs, their actions intersect with concerns about the ephemerality of digital media. Pesce and Noto aver, “The life of a film or a TV series—based on the affections it produces and the meanings it conveys—can change direction depending on the variability and ephemerality of the materials surrounding it, including pop-up ads, online commentaries, short-lived announcements, and replaceable merchandise” 73 . If review scores are modified it becomes more difficult for video games scholars to “follow Consalvo’s strategy of using paratext as a critical strategy to recover the ephemeral, and to shed light on the overlooked.” 74  This endeavor to recover the ephemeral relies on news coverage of a review bombing. Without news coverage, scholars may be unaware that a review bombing occurred if the overall review score is modified. Scholars examining older titles would have an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of the reception context for a particular work. The actions of review companies may stem from their desire for “accurate” review scores, but these attempts also reshape the reception context to suit their needs. 

Scholars should explore how fans perceive the credibility of online review platforms, especially concerning their efforts to combat review bombing. Stanfill once asserted that “fans are more important to media industries than ever, and they are increasingly seen as a resource to be managed whenever possible.” 75  Fan responses to media products are encouraged, managed, and susceptible to disappearance. Consider the fan who allegedly review-bombed AI: The Somnium Files to illustrate the system's vulnerabilities. In contrast, if review bombs persist unchecked, these paratexts may exert excessive influence on reception and sales. Future scholarly work should investigate how gaming developers and consumers assess the actions of review platforms. 

Conclusion 

Kaser contends that review bombs will be a part of gaming’s future as “reviews are both a tool and a weapon. And when gamers use them offensively en masse, it often leads to massive changes — both for good and for ill.” 76  The games featured in this analysis were review bombed due to furor over new company policies, inaccurate marketing, or unmet consumer expectations. Park proclaims that “review bombing is a sharp weapon for minor offenses,” 77  which is why scholarly work should continue to examine why gamers engage in review bombing. Understanding the nature of these “offenses” allows scholars to provide insight into a cultural phenomenon that has shaped the conversations surrounding many releases. For example, consider the surprise review bombing of the action game Death Stranding, triggered by items linked to Cyberpunk 2077. 78  Consumers should welcome gaming collaborations, but perhaps a disliked media property can overshadow perceptions of a liked franchise.

Another avenue of research could examine whether consumers distinguish between officially authorized paratexts and leaked information. For example, consider how leaked spoilers impacted the launch of the action-adventure game The Last of Us Part II on PlayStation 5. In April 2020, two months before the game’s official release, a fan leaked significant story spoilers for The Last of Us Part II, hoping that this would expedite the game’s release date. 79  The spoilers were so problematic that Naughty Dog, the creators of the series, posted the following plea to their Twitter (now X) account: 

Do your best to avoid spoilers and we ask that you don’t spoil it for others. The Last of Us Part II will be in your hands soon. No matter what you see and hear, the final experience will be worth it. 80

 In an era of data mining and high-profile leaks, spoilers can affect fans in ways not accounted for in this exploration. 

Paratexts can become profound sources of meaning-making for consumers. In our media-saturated environment, paratexts serve as robust frames of reference before, during, or even after completing the latest hit title. Fan attachment, fan expectations, and perhaps even feelings of fan ownership can develop from first exposure to a (para)text. Releases unable to fulfill paratextual promises or satisfy consumer expectations may be review bombed. The perceived violation of their trust can incite fans to unleash their displeasure online. Review bombs will remain, but examining the (para)texts can provide a window into the underpinnings of fan disappointment and dislike. 

Footnotes

• 1

  Regina Seiwald, “Beyond the Game Itself: Understanding Authorial Intent, Player Agency, and Materiality as Degrees of Paratextuality,” Games and Culture 18, no. 6 (2023): 731, https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120231181193 

• 2

  Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (New York University Press, 2006a), 25. 

• 3

  Henry Jenkins, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green, Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture (New York University Press, 2013), 59-60. 

• 4

  Christopher A. Paul, The Toxic Meritocracy of Video Games: Why Gaming Culture is the Worst (University of Minnesota Press, 2018) 66. 

• 5

  Valve Corporation, “Early Access Games,” Steam Store, Accessed April 30, 2026, https://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq/?snr=1_200_200_Early+Access 

• 6

  Vikki Blake, “Subnautica Devs Totally Remove Microtransactions from their New Strategy Game Following Player Complaints,” Gamesradar, October 29, 2022, https://www.gamesradar.com/subnautica-devs-totally-remove-microtransactions-from-their-new-strategy-game-following-player-complaints/ 

• 7

   Mia Consalvo, Cheating: Gaining Advantage in Videogames (MIT Press, 2007), 182. 

• 8

  Jan Švelch, “Paratextuality in Game Studies: A Theoretical Review and Citation Analysis,” Game Studies 20, no. 2 (2020): https://gamestudies.org/2002/articles/jan_svelch  

• 9

  Steven E. Jones, “Response: In and Out of the Game, As Usual,” Games and Culture, 17 no. 3 (2022): 8, https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120211030096 

• 10

   Steven E. Jones, The Meaning of Video Games: Gaming and Textual Strategies (Routledge, 2008), 43.

• 11

   Jonathan Gray, Dislike-minded: Media, Audiences, and the Dynamics of Taste (New York University Press, 2021), 33. 

• 12

   Tapani N. Joelsson, Sami Hyrynsalmi, and Sabine Molenaar, “The Role of Prosumers in the Evolution of a Software Ecosystem: Case Steam,” (paper presented at Software-intensive Business: Start-ups, Ecosystems, and Platforms, Espoo, Finland, December 3, 2018), 76. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2305/paper06.pdf 

• 13

   Joelsson, Hyrynsalmi, and Molenaar, “The Role of Prosumers,” 77. 

• 14

  Cornel Sandvoss, Fans: The Mirror of Consumption (Polity Press, 2005), 8. 

• 15

  Jan Švelch,  “Exploring the Myth of the Representative Trailer,” Kinephanos 7, no. 1 (2017): 19, https://www.kinephanos.ca/Revue_files/2017_Svelch.pdf 

• 16

   Henry Jenkins, Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture (New York University Press, 2006b), 138. 

• 17

   Jenkins, Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers, 138. 

• 18

  Jake Coyle, “Why the Success of ‘Captain Marvel’ Is a Defeat for Trolls,” PBS, March 13, 2019, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/why-the-success-of-captain-marvel-is-a-defeat-for-trolls 

• 19

  Rachel Kaser, “Game Review Bombs Are Here to Stay – So Let’s Use Them for Good,” The Next Web, March 4, 2019, https://thenextweb.com/gaming/2019/03/04/game-review-bombing-steam-good-bad/ 

• 20

  Ben Kuchera, “Gamers Fight Back Against Lackluster Spore Gameplay, Bad DRM,”Ars Technica, September 8, 2009, https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2008/09/gamers-fight-back-against-lackluster-spore-gameplay-bad-drm/ 

• 21

  Nathan Dutton, Mia Consalvo, and Todd Harper, “Digital Pitchforks and Virtual Torches: Fan Responses to the Mass Effect News Debacle,” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 17, no. 3 (2011): 287-305, https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856511407802 

• 22

   Dutton, Consalvo, and Harper, “Digital Pitchforks,” 290. 

• 23

   Dutton, Consalvo, and Harper, “Digital Pitchforks,” 289-290.

• 24

  Caron Wildy, “Rukmini Pande, Squee from the Margins: Fandom and Race,” Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge 35, (2019): doi:10.20415/rhiz/035.r06   

• 25

   Joelsson, Hyrynsalmi, and Molenaar, “The Role of Prosumers,” 81. 

• 26

   Rafif Taqiuddin, Fitra A. Bachtiar, and Welly Purnomo, “Opinion Spam Classification on Steam Review Using Support Vector Machine with Lexicon-Based Features,” Kinetik: Game Technology, Information System, Computer Network, Computing, Electronics, and Control 6, no. 4, (2021): 270, https://doi.org/10.22219/kinetik.v6i4.1323 

• 27

  Joseph Allen, “Demystifying Exclusive Games – A Glossary of Terms,” Techraptor, June 9, 2018, https://techraptor.net/gaming/guides/demystifying-exclusive-games-glossary-of-Terms.  

• 28

  Owen S. Good, “Review-bombed Borderlands 2 Is the First to Have User Scores Thrown Out by Steam,” Polygon, April 6, 2019, https://www.polygon.com/2019/4/6/18298215/epic-games-store-review-bombs-steam-borderlands-2/ 

• 29

  Wesley Yin-Poole, “It Looks like Borderlands 3 PC Will Launch as an Epic Games Store Exclusive,” Eurogamer, April 2, 2019, https://www.eurogamer.net/it-looks-like-borderlands-3-pc-will-launch-as-an-epic-games-store-exclusive 

• 30

  Scott Velasquez (@const_ptr), “Not cool at all to misuse the review system like this and shame on @steam_games for allowing it.” Twitter (now X), April 5, 2019, https://x.com/const_ptr/status/1114134816528699396 

• 31

   Good, “Review-bombed Borderlands 2.” 

• 32

   Morgan Park, “Steam Review Bombing Is Gaming’s Most Powerful Method of Protest: 3 Takeaways from Helldivers 2’s Weekend Meltdown,” PC Gamer, May 7, 2024, https://www.pcgamer.com/games/third-person-shooter/steam-review-bombing-is-gamings-most-powerful-method-of-protest-3-takeaways-from-helldivers-2s-weekend-meltdown/ 

• 33

   Park, “Steam Review Bombing.” 

• 34

  PlayStation [@PlayStation], “Helldivers fans -- we’ve heard your feedback on the Helldivers 2 account linking update. The May 6 update, which would have required Steam and PlayStation Network…” X, May 6 2024, https://x.com/playstation/status/1787331667616829929 

• 35

  Brett Byll, “Apex Legends Now Has ‘Overwhelmingly Negative’ Reviews On Steam,” Game Rant, July 18, 2024, https://gamerant.com/apex-legends-overwhelmingly-negative-review-bomb-steam/ 

• 36

   Byll, “Apex Legends Now Has.” 

• 37

  Electronic Arts, “Apex Legends Battle Pass Updates,” July 24, 2024, https://www.ea.com/games/apex-legends/news/battle-pass-update (page no longer available)

• 38

  Piotr Siuda, Dariusz Regula, Jakub Majewski, and Anna Kwapiszewska, “Broken Promises Marketing. Relations, Communication Strategies, and Ethics of Video Game Journalists and Developers: The Case of Cyberpunk 2077,” Games and Culture 19, no. 5 (2024): 650-669. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120231173 

• 39

  Siuda, Regula, Majewski, and Kwapiszewska, “Broken Promises Marketing,” 653. 

• 40

   Švelch, “Exploring the Myth,” 24. 

• 41

  CD Projekt Red (@CDPROJEKTRED), “We have important news regarding Cyberpunk 2077’s release date we’d like to share with you today. [Image attached]” Twitter (now X) January 16, 2020, https://x.com/CDPROJEKTRED/status/1217861009446182912 

• 42

  Cyberpunk 2077 (@CyberpunkGame), “An important development update. [Image attached]” Twitter (now X) June 18, 2020, https://x.com/CyberpunkGame/status/1273647385294626816 

• 43

  Joshua Duckworth, “Cyberpunk 2077 Metacritic User Scores Are Insanely Low,” Game Rant, December 11, 2020 https://gamerant.com/cyberpunk-2077-reviews-bad-bugs/ 

• 44

   Duckworth “Cyberpunk 2077 Metacritic User.” 

• 45

  Boskee. December 11, 2020. Comment on Cyberpunk 2077 PS4 Metacritic page. https://www.metacritic.com/game/cyberpunk-2077/critic-reviews/?platform=playstation-4 

• 46

  Gekon. December 11, 2020. Comment on Cyberpunk 2077 PS4 Metacritic page. https://www.metacritic.com/game/cyberpunk-2077/critic-reviews/?platform=playstation-4

• 47

  Chandler Wood, “Jim Ryan Says Removing Cyberpunk 2077 from the PlayStation Store Was ‘Tough Decision,’ No Update on What It’ll Take to Return,” PlayStation Lifestyle, June 11, 2021 https://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2021/06/11/jim-ryan-removing-cyberpunk-2077-PlayStation-store-tough-decision/ 

• 48

  Stephen Totilo,“Exclusive: Sony’s PlayStation Boss Moves Past Console Wars,” Axios, June 11, 2021 https://www.axios.com/2021/06/11/ps5-jim-ryan-interview-mobile-cyberpunk-sony 

• 49

  Cyberbug2020. December 11, 2020. Comment on Cyberpunk 2077 PS4 Metacritic page. https://www.metacritic.com/game/cyberpunk-2077/critic-reviews/?platform=playstation-4

• 50

  PlayOverwatch, “Overwatch 2 Gameplay Trailer,” YouTube, November 1, 2019, video, 1:18-1:21, https://youtu.be/dZl1yGUetjI?si=KItxKQ9YMY4yL7nS 

• 51

  Adam Bankhurst, “Overwatch 2 Director Responds to Steam Review Bombing,” IGN, August 20, 2023, https://www.ign.com/articles/overwatch-2-director-responds-to-steam-review-bombing 

• 52

  Aaron Keller, “Director’s Take – Looking Beyond Overwatch 2: Invasion,” August, 18, 2023, https://overwatch.blizzard.com/en-us/news/23988667/director-s-take-looking-beyond-overwatch-2-invasion/

• 53

   Bill Tressler, “If Overwatch 2’s Story Missions Are Really Dead, Then the Game Has Broken Its Biggest Promise,” GameRant, March 24, 2024, https://gamerant.com/overwatch-2-pve-story-missions-dead-promise-content-meaning-plot/ 

• 54

  Vikki Blake, “Overwatch Season 1 Debut Sees Blizzard's Relaunched Hero Shooter Double Its Steam Player Record,” IGN, February 11, 2026, https://www.ign.com/articles/overwatch-season-1-launch-sees-blizzards-relaunched-hero-shooter-double-its-steam-player-record 

• 55

   Gray, Dislike Minded, 68-69. 

• 56

   Iggy, “People Are Comparing How Trees Look Like in Pokémon Sword and Shield and Ocarina of Time,” Nintendo Soup, June 17, 2019, https://nintendosoup.com/people-are-comparing-how-trees-look-like-in-pokemon-sword-and-shield-and-ocarina-of-time/ 

• 57

  Francesco De Meo, “Pokémon Sword and Shield New Mod Introduces Hi-res Trees,” Wccftech, November 19, 2019, https://wccftech.com/pokemon-sword-and-shield-new-mod-trees/ 

• 58

  Alex Donaldson, (2019, June 14). “Pokémon Sword & Shield's Producer Explains Cutting the National Pokedex from the Game,” VG247, June 14, 2019, https://www.vg247.com/pokemon-sword-shield-national-dex-interview  

• 59

   Damien Freidly, “Pokémon: Every Real-World Country That's Technically Canon,” Screenrant, March 5, 2022, https://screenrant.com/pokemon-real-world-countries-canon-america-india-locations/ 

• 60

   JonSnow-re7gl. 2019. Comment on “Pokemon Sword and Pokemon Shield Gameplay – Nintendo Treehouse: Live E3 2019.”  https://youtu.be/TmWu-f6L0Mo 

• 61

  Damien McFerran, “Of Course Pokémon Sword and Shield Is Getting Review-bombed,” Nintendo Life, November 15, 2019, https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2019/11/of_course_pokemon_sword_and_shield_is_getting_review-bombed 

• 62

   McFerran, “Of Course Pokémon Sword.” 

• 63

   TJ Denzer, “AI: The Somnium Files Review Bomb Backfires, Becomes Top  User-Reviewed Switch Game,” Shacknews, February 13, 2020, https://www.shacknews.com/article/116321/ai-somnium-files-review-bomb-backfires-becomes-top-user-reviewed-switch-game 

• 64

   Denzer, “AI: The Somnium Files Review Bomb.” 

• 65

  Ryan Pearson, “Report – AI: The Somnium Files Review Bombed By ResetEra User Obsessed with A-Set ‘Testing’ Metacritic,” Niche Gamer, February 11, 2020, https://nichegamer.com/2020/02/11/report-ai-the-somnium-files-review-bombed-by-resetera-user-obsessed-with-a-set-testing-metacritic/ 

• 66

   McFerran, “Of Course Pokémon Sword.”

• 67

  Valve Corporation, “User Reviews,” Steam Community, September 19, 2017, https://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1448326897426987372?snr=2_groupannouncements_detail_ 

• 68

   Valve Corporation, “User Reviews.” 

• 69

  Valve Corporation, “User Reviews Revisited,” Steam Community, March 15, 2019, https://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1808664240333155775

• 70

   Valve Corporation, “User Reviews Revisited.” 

• 71

  Taylor Lyles, “Metacritic Stops Letting You Review Games on the Day They’re Released,” The Verge, July 17, 2020, https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/17/21328597/metacritic-user-reviews-delayed-review-bombing 

• 72

   Lyles, “Metacritic Stops Letting You.” 

• 73

  Sara Pesce and Paolo Noto, “The Politics of Ephemeral Digital Media: Permanence and Obsolescence in Paratexts,” in The Politics of Ephemeral Digital Media: Permanence and Obsolescence in Paratexts, ed. Sara Pesce and Paolo Noto (Routledge, 2016), 1. 

• 74

  Alan Galey, “Introduction: Reconsidering Paratext as a Received Concept,” Games and Culture 18, no. 6, (2023): 712, https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120231184280

• 75

  Mel Stanfill, Exploiting Fandom: How the Media Industry Seeks to Manipulate Fans (University of Iowa Press, 2019), 3. 

• 76

  Kaser, “Game Review Bombs Are Here.” 

• 77

   Park, “Steam Review Bombing.” 

• 78

  Alex Santa Maria, “Death Stranding Gets Review Bombed After Cyberpunk 2077 Crossover,” Screen Rant, December 17, 2020,  https://screenrant.com/death-stranding-review-bomb-cyberpunk-2077-crossover/ 

• 79

  Charming Holiday, 2024, “Naughty Dog Identified The Last of Us 2 Leaker and Found Out Why They Leaked the Footage,” Gamerant, February 4, 2024 https://gamerant.com/the-last-of-us-2-leaker-naughty-dog-found-reason-why/ 

• 80

   Naughty_Dog (@Naughty_Dog), “A Message from the Studio: [Image Attached] Twitter (now X) April 27, 2020, https://twitter.com/Naughty_Dog/status/1254840504182665219