iQuit Feb 15, 2014 @ 8:45am
Reviews need more sortings...
Heya,

I would like to see a sorting of the reviews of games by for example numbers of people "who where helped" or the "time" the author spend on the particular game.

I do not need to get a review of a somebody, who has written a review (either way good or bad), if the total playtime sums up to 1.0h... this is pointless and has no significance.

Still this review might be presented as "recent" review and 1k people say "yes" or "no" to the content simply because it is on top of the reviews. While the reviewer has not been playing the game to the extend it is worth writing a review.

Thank you for reading.
Showing 1-7 of 7 comments
< >
Jawaka Feb 15, 2014 @ 10:14am 
I agree with one exception, games that are given a bad review because they keep crashing and are unplayable. Otherwise I also pretty much ignore positive reviews for games that have less than an hour play time
Dalimyr Feb 15, 2014 @ 1:26pm 
Originally posted by iQuit:
I do not need to get a review of a somebody, who has written a review (either way good or bad), if the total playtime sums up to 1.0h... this is pointless and has no significance.

Still this review might be presented as "recent" review and 1k people say "yes" or "no" to the content simply because it is on top of the reviews. While the reviewer has not been playing the game to the extend it is worth writing a review.
There actually are some games where an hour is more than enough to write a review (30 Flights of Loving, for instance, takes about 10-15 minutes to beat so you can probably complete the whole thing about 5 times in an hour before writing a review on it), but equally time Steam's recorded you 'playing' means sod all because you might not have been playing at all - after all, how many people have left games running idle while they get Steam trading cards?

It'd be nice to be able to have suitable options for filtering reviews. If I know the game had a large update a month ago, I might want to filter out any reviews that are older than that as they're less likely to be relevant to the game in its current state. If I'm looking at an RPG I definitely want to see opinions of people who've spent several hours playing it rather than ones who've given up after 10 minutes so filtering by time played would be useful there.


I'd also like to see Valve making an effort to limit dev abuse of the review system. I can remember looking at a game's reviews a few weeks ago (not a good game and one that has justifiably had a lot of negative press) and saw a couple of negative reviews that were hidden because the dev had flagged them as 'abusive'. I clicked to show the reviews' contents (mostly because I thought it might be funny seeing sweary rants about the game). The first literally just said "Nope" and the second said "Nope.avi". Such disgraceful, hardcore abuse
Black Blade Feb 15, 2014 @ 1:59pm 
Originally posted by Dalimyr:
It'd be nice to be able to have suitable options for filtering reviews. If I know the game had a large update a month ago
You can already cut out some older... you can take for the last week a mouth ago... and so on
(Exmple from PayDay 2 review can be found HERE)
Last edited by Black Blade; Feb 15, 2014 @ 2:00pm
crunchyfrog Feb 17, 2014 @ 10:40pm 
I disagree for much of the reasons the first and second posters said - hours playtime is not something that can be used as any meaningful general rule. Games can vary in playtime drastically. Some games deliver the tools to you in a drip-fed manner, others don't.

Also, there's the other point that Steam's playtime calculator and display is far from perfect. There's a couple of reviews I've done where the displayed time is about 1 hour, when I've played far in excess of that.

Also, there may be those of us who have many platforms - what about games I've completed but also have on Steam? Looking at the playtime as a basis would give you false information there.

Although, now we have a wealth of reviews generally available, and some kind of sorting might be nice (I can't say off the top of my head what though), hours played is not one of them that is effective to any great degree.
iQuit Feb 18, 2014 @ 4:19am 
I understand all your point of views and thank you very much for the feedback so far.
Focusing on playtime is maybe a little bit one-way from my side.
Still there need to be more filtering-features for the reviews.
A lot more sorting is needed for all purposes.
Mr.Shaggnificent Mar 1, 2014 @ 4:50pm 
I'd like to be able to sort player reviews by hours played. I prefer to read negetive reviews first because I find they tend to be a bit more honest than overly fanboy-ish and/or rationalizing* positive reviews. The only problem is finding ones with more than a few hours of play time. Sorting by "most helpfu", isn't always that helpful.


*By that I mean like when someone buys a new car, but it ends up being in the shop more than on the road, but they still swear it's the best car they ever owned. They force themselves to believe it's good to rationalize their bad decision.
Jeff Kaos Mar 2, 2014 @ 9:24am 
You can't judge a review based on time spent playing the game. A lot of times the amount of time displayed doesn't synch with actual play time. And there's also a lot of ways that someone can play a game that doesn't have anything to do with Steam. For example someone gave me a copy of Postal 2 when it first came out. I thought the game was just stupid and I could easily give it a negative review on Steam with 0 hours played. Unless I stated that I played it off Steam I'd get a ton of hate for not having enough time in it. And as far as time played in relation to a negative review goes: I only need to be kicked in the testicles once to know that I don't like it. So if a negative review has less than an hour invested in the game that's fine with me.
Showing 1-7 of 7 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Feb 15, 2014 @ 8:45am
Posts: 7