Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

10
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
70% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content

Source preview not available for this content.

Perspectives

Both Red and Blue Teams agree the content is a standard, low-pressure indie game promotion with minimal manipulation indicators, featuring mild hype and a transparent Steam link; Blue Team emphasizes stronger verification evidence for authenticity, while Red notes typical omissions as non-deceptive, leading to very low suspicion overall.

Key Points

  • High agreement: No coercive tactics, urgency, fallacies, or tribal elements; purely invitational promo.
  • Transparent Steam URL enables easy authenticity verification, favoring Blue's low-manipulation view.
  • Mild emotive language ('emotional odyssey,' 'gripping story') is proportionate and genre-standard, not exaggerated.
  • Omissions (e.g., release date) are common in early wishlist campaigns, not deceptive withholding.
  • Blue's evidence of verifiable game page outweighs Red's cautious notes on hype, supporting lower score.

Further Investigation

  • Verify Steam page details: Check developer (TomorrowHead Studio) history, any prior releases, funding sources, or user reviews/wishlists.
  • Cross-check for coordinated promotion: Search for similar posts across platforms/timelines to assess organic vs. astroturfing.
  • Assess game legitimacy: Look for trailer footage, dev socials, or indie database entries (e.g., itch.io, Discord) for consistency.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No binary choices or extremes presented; open wishlist invitation without ultimatums.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
No us-vs-them dynamics or group conflicts; neutral game description without social splits.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
Basic adventure tease without good-vs-evil binaries; focuses on story and scenery neutrally.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Timing appears organic as standard indie promo for a 2026 release with prior playtests in Dec 2025; no correlation with major Jan 22-25 2026 events like Trump lawsuits or outages, and no recent X spikes or historical disinfo patterns.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to propaganda like state-sponsored campaigns; searches show unrelated game-disinfo examples (e.g., anti-misinfo games), but this lacks manipulative tactics.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
Benefits only the indie developer TomorrowHead Studio via Steam wishlists for visibility; self-funded with no political ties, controversies, or external actors per searches.
Bandwagon Effect 2/5
No claims of 'everyone agrees' or widespread popularity; just individual promo without social proof pressure.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No urgency or manufactured trends; searches reveal no hashtags, bots, or sudden amplification pushing opinion change.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Unique phrasing with no identical framing across sources; X and web searches find no coordinated posts or verbatim repeats recently.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
Straightforward promo without arguments or flawed reasoning.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts, endorsements, or authorities cited; purely self-promotional.
Cherry-Picked Data 1/5
No data or stats presented, so no selective use.
Framing Techniques 3/5
Biased positive language like 'emotional odyssey' and 'gripping story' frames as must-experience adventure; promotional hype over neutral description.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No critics mentioned or labeled; no dissent context at all.
Context Omission 3/5
Omits game details like release date, price, or full mechanics, focusing only on hype and link; crucial context like developer background or demo availability absent.
Novelty Overuse 2/5
Descriptive terms like 'breathtaking northern scenery' are promotional but not overclaiming 'unprecedented' or 'shocking' uniqueness. Common for game ads without exaggeration.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
No repeated emotional words or triggers; single mentions of 'emotional' and 'gripping' without looping emphasis.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage language or fact-disconnected anger; purely positive promo without controversy or victimhood claims.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
Simple suggestion to 'Add to your wishlist' without demands, deadlines, or pressure for immediate response. Appears as standard invitation rather than urgent call.
Emotional Triggers 2/5
Mild emotional appeal in phrases like 'emotional odyssey' and 'gripping story,' but lacks fear, outrage, or guilt triggers. No intense language pressuring negative emotions.

Identified Techniques

Appeal to fear-prejudice Loaded Language Appeal to Authority Name Calling, Labeling Causal Oversimplification
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Analyze Something Else