Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

37
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
70% confidence
Moderate manipulation indicators. Some persuasion patterns present.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content

Source preview not available for this content.

Perspectives

Both Red and Blue Teams concur that the content exhibits minimal manipulation, characterizing it as standard indie game promotion with transparent commercial intent. Blue Team's high-confidence evidence of verifiable transparency (e.g., UTM tracking, Steam page alignment) strongly outweighs Red Team's lower-confidence note of mild FOMO, justifying a score significantly below the original 36.7 as manipulation concerns are unsubstantiated and disproportionate to the evidence.

Key Points

  • Strong agreement: No evidence of emotional coercion, fallacies, or hidden agendas; mild hype is proportionate to marketing norms.
  • Transparency confirmed: UTM-tracked Steam link openly discloses commercial purpose, aligning with legitimate practices.
  • Standard language: Game descriptors and 'don’t miss out' CTA are invitational and verifiable, lacking high-pressure tactics.
  • Context supports authenticity: Ties to developer's organic timeline without inauthenticity markers.
  • Low manipulation overall: Beneficiaries limited to developer, no broader psyop or divisive elements.

Further Investigation

  • Verify Steam page content matches promo descriptions (e.g., icy waters, puzzles) for factual accuracy.
  • Examine TomorrowHead Studio's posting history and playtest timeline for consistent organic promotion.
  • Trace 'twitterYeldar' UTM source to confirm it links to a legitimate account or campaign.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 3/5
Presents no extreme either/or choices; just a casual wishlist prompt.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 3/5
No us vs. them dynamics; neutral invitation to experience a game adventure.
Simplistic Narratives 3/5
No good vs. evil framing; focuses on neutral positives like 'icy waters' and 'puzzles' without moral binaries.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Timing appears organic following the game's playtest ending January 5, 2026, with no ties to major news like Microsoft outages or Trump lawsuits from January 22-25 searches, or upcoming hearings.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No similarities to known propaganda like Russian IRA tactics or state disinfo; searches confirm standard indie game marketing unrelated to psyops.
Financial/Political Gain 2/5
Benefits indie developer TomorrowHead Studio financially via wishlists tracked by UTM parameters, but shows no political gain, hidden funding, or disguise as non-promo content.
Bandwagon Effect 3/5
No suggestions that 'everyone' is wishlisting or agreeing; simply invites individual action without social proof.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
Lacks pressure for quick opinion change; no evidence from X searches of trends, bots, or astroturfing pushing this narrative suddenly.
Phrase Repetition 2/5
X and web reveal varied posts (e.g., trailers, Japanese coverage) without identical framing or clustering; normal organic spread for a 2026-release game.
Logical Fallacies 3/5
No arguments or reasoning to contain fallacies; purely descriptive promotion.
Authority Overload 3/5
No experts, authorities, or endorsements cited.
Cherry-Picked Data 3/5
No data, stats, or selective evidence presented.
Framing Techniques 3/5
Uses hype-positive language like 'captivating storyline' and 'don’t miss out' to favorably frame the game, but transparently as advertising.
Suppression of Dissent 3/5
No mention of critics or labeling of dissenters.
Context Omission 3/5
Omits specifics like developer name, exact release date, or price, but this is typical for a concise promo linking to Steam page.
Novelty Overuse 3/5
No unprecedented or shocking claims; uses standard descriptors like 'Navigate icy waters and solve engaging puzzles' typical for adventure games.
Emotional Repetition 3/5
No repeated emotional triggers; the short text varies positive adjectives without hammering any single emotion.
Manufactured Outrage 3/5
No outrage or facts to disconnect from; purely promotional hype without controversy.
Urgent Action Demands 3/5
It includes a mild suggestion to 'Wishlist on Steam and don’t miss out' without demands for immediate action or threats of consequences.
Emotional Triggers 3/5
The content promotes excitement with phrases like 'deep and atmospheric adventure' but contains no fear, outrage, or guilt language.

Identified Techniques

Appeal to fear-prejudice Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Straw Man Causal Oversimplification

What to Watch For

Notice the emotional language used - what concrete facts support these claims?
This content frames an 'us vs. them' narrative. Consider perspectives from 'the other side'.
Key context may be missing. What questions does this content NOT answer?

This content shows some manipulation indicators. Consider the source and verify key claims.

Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Analyze Something Else