Rose Nov 26, 2013 @ 1:35am
Problem with the review system.
Who knew Valve letting players reviews be public for rating wouldn't cause a hellstorm on games like this where people have an extreme Bias regardless of how long they have played the game...
Last edited by Rose; Nov 26, 2013 @ 1:57am
Showing 1-15 of 55 comments
< >
The doctor is in Nov 26, 2013 @ 1:56am 
lol yeah i liked the one who said its a huge pay to win game cause you have to buy guns
Rose Nov 26, 2013 @ 1:57am 
Originally posted by The doctor is in:
lol yeah i liked the one who said its a huge pay to win game cause you have to buy guns
I like the fact that most of them haven't even played a single minute of the game lol
The doctor is in Nov 26, 2013 @ 2:06am 
yeah do you see all the 0 hours of gameplay

lol another saying that the game was removed from steam twice. once was not enough, but twice. i guess i missed the second time...

the reviews are so funny im going to spend the day tomorrow trying to read them all..

check out the ones for cod, even funnier...
Last edited by The doctor is in; Nov 26, 2013 @ 2:18am
The doctor is in Nov 26, 2013 @ 2:24am 
oh and wow you can write reviews for early access games!

that should be interesting... lol

no surprise early access games will be full of negative reviews from people who have played the games for 0 hours
Last edited by The doctor is in; Nov 26, 2013 @ 2:49am
Rose Nov 26, 2013 @ 2:29am 
Originally posted by The doctor is in:
oh and wow you can write reviews for early access games!

that should be interesting... lol
lolz that's not good...because well alot of them are really bad at this stage :S and people are impatient
Last edited by Rose; Nov 26, 2013 @ 2:29am
The doctor is in Nov 26, 2013 @ 2:35am 
exactly....

overall reviews are a good thing, but even amazon has had to censor/delete reviews because of the trolls. and the theyve had trouble with authors/publishers paying for reviews / review services. actually if you search web there is a whole industry of shell companies that do nothing but write reviews for products and services. its quite a profitable business that has grown around gaming reviews and review sweat shops who pump out the actual reviews. so it should be interesting. i guess in a way steam looks to profit from the new selling opportunity. companies creating fake customers so that their would be fake reviews. sort of the gaming of gaming... in the same way i guess when a company brings a game into steam they get to give out a chunk of keys to existing customers at no cost. so i guess developers/authors can use the opportunity and access to bunch of keys to make sure there are nothing but happy reviews up front at no additional cost... sort of simcity 2013 ea/maxis style

i wonder if its not to late to turn back on your change your hammerpoint key to a steam key for free... ;)
Last edited by The doctor is in; Nov 26, 2013 @ 2:51am
Rose Nov 26, 2013 @ 3:38am 
Originally posted by The doctor is in:
exactly....

overall reviews are a good thing, but even amazon has had to censor/delete reviews because of the trolls. and the theyve had trouble with authors/publishers paying for reviews / review services. actually if you search web there is a whole industry of shell companies that do nothing but write reviews for products and services. its quite a profitable business that has grown around gaming reviews and review sweat shops who pump out the actual reviews. so it should be interesting. i guess in a way steam looks to profit from the new selling opportunity. companies creating fake customers so that their would be fake reviews. sort of the gaming of gaming... in the same way i guess when a company brings a game into steam they get to give out a chunk of keys to existing customers at no cost. so i guess developers/authors can use the opportunity and access to bunch of keys to make sure there are nothing but happy reviews up front at no additional cost... sort of simcity 2013 ea/maxis style

i wonder if its not to late to turn back on your change your hammerpoint key to a steam key for free... ;)
People just need to look at the hours played which is a good thing Valve also put that in there.
datCookie (Banned) Nov 26, 2013 @ 3:45am 
People should only be able to write reviews on games they own and have played a certain amount of time, let's say 1 hour.

This way, people can actually give a proper review of a game and not some nonsense review with information that is either really off or is just plain wrong.
Rose Nov 26, 2013 @ 3:49am 
Originally posted by datCookie:
People should only be able to write reviews on games they own and have played a certain amount of time, let's say 1 hour.

This way, people can actually give a proper review of a game and not some nonsense review with information that is either really off or is just plain wrong.
Certain games like this one for example need waaaaay more than an hour of playtime to get a good judgement of how good or bad a game the game is.
datCookie (Banned) Nov 26, 2013 @ 4:07am 
Originally posted by Brendyrose:
Originally posted by datCookie:
People should only be able to write reviews on games they own and have played a certain amount of time, let's say 1 hour.

This way, people can actually give a proper review of a game and not some nonsense review with information that is either really off or is just plain wrong.
Certain games like this one for example need waaaaay more than an hour of playtime to get a good judgement of how good or bad a game the game is.

The 1 hour was just an example. But a lot of people are able to form pretty good opinions in an hour or so of play.

This game would take roughly that time in my opinion. It doesn't have that many features and each feature isn't complex, they are more basic.
Rose Nov 26, 2013 @ 4:12am 
Originally posted by datCookie:
Originally posted by Brendyrose:
Certain games like this one for example need waaaaay more than an hour of playtime to get a good judgement of how good or bad a game the game is.

The 1 hour was just an example. But a lot of people are able to form pretty good opinions in an hour or so of play.

This game would take roughly that time in my opinion. It doesn't have that many features and each feature isn't complex, they are more basic.
I can't believe you are serious but whatever you say. I think developers should be able to choose based on how long or big their game is. Like here's an example.

Choose how long a player can review your game.

- Can Review directly after playing
- Can Review after 1 hour of playing
- Can Review after 10 hours of playing
- Can Review after 20 hours of playing.

and so on but 50 hours being the max and they would have to give a reason to why they think a player should only be able to review the game after a certain amount of time in which a Valve employee will go over this and allow this or not or recommend a shorter or longer time.
Rose Nov 26, 2013 @ 4:16am 
Personally I think this game needs at least 20 - 30 hours of play before you should be able to review it.
datCookie (Banned) Nov 26, 2013 @ 4:18am 
Originally posted by Brendyrose:
Originally posted by datCookie:

The 1 hour was just an example. But a lot of people are able to form pretty good opinions in an hour or so of play.

This game would take roughly that time in my opinion. It doesn't have that many features and each feature isn't complex, they are more basic.
I can't believe you are serious but whatever you say. I think developers should be able to choose based on how long or big their game is. Like here's an example.

Choose how long a player can review your game.

- Can Review directly after playing
- Can Review after 1 hour of playing
- Can Review after 10 hours of playing
- Can Review after 20 hours of playing.

and so on but 50 hours being the max and they would have to give a reason to why they think a player should only be able to review the game after a certain amount of time in which a Valve employee will go over this and allow this or not or recommend a shorter or longer time.

Developers shouldn't choose. Yes, Valve can make the ultimate decision but hey, we know they can be manipulated. Otherwise this game simply wouldn't be here.

I can definitely agree that there has to be a limit, but you can't make it too high or too low. If you make it too high you risk having biased opinions, because those people more than likely love your game, hence why they keep playing it. Have it too low and you get people making bad judgements after not experiencing the game in its entirety.


It's a difficult system to get right, even though the idea seems simple enough. But overall it SHOULD be different for each game.

Don't be surprised though if Valve don't do something like this. Since it's a big platform with lots of games, more than likely they will just trust the playerbase to do the right thing and review it appropriately.
Rose Nov 26, 2013 @ 4:20am 
Originally posted by datCookie:
Developers shouldn't choose. Yes, Valve can make the ultimate decision but hey, we know they can be manipulated. Otherwise this game simply wouldn't be here.
That's the only BS thing I could find here but alrighty.
Last edited by Rose; Nov 26, 2013 @ 4:21am
Rose Nov 26, 2013 @ 4:22am 
Other than that I say the hour thing wouldn't be a bad idea because I look at games that I hated in a few hours of playing but if I play a bit longer and figure things out I learn to love it and that goes the same way for this game. Alot of players either don't play the game at all or don't give the game any chance at all when they start playing in the first place.
Showing 1-15 of 55 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Nov 26, 2013 @ 1:35am
Posts: 66