安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
此主題已被鎖定 
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
It very much does not.
Exactly, they are not.
I guess those things are not using the merriam-webster dictionary definition, then. Which makes your insistence on pushing it even more asinine.
Valve loves making money.. and I'm sure they are doing this to make money.. there are many 'unpublished' mind tricks and other such bull that Valve employs.
They know what they are doing.. and they don't care about me anymore... hell . if *EVER*.
You would think that a company that makes all the money they do .. wouldn't be doing all in their power, and at the detriment of the end users, to make boatloads more.
Its not like they are a listed exchanged corporation.. if they were I could understand them wanting their 'stock' to rise all the time.
When is enough money enough.. I guess never.
The dictionary definition literally does state that critiquing or evaluating anything is given a review.
What you're doing is exactly like arguing that because a dictionary doesn't include the mention of a Blue Jay when giving examples of Birds by saying 'such as a Robin, a Black Bird, or the like', that Blue Jays are therefore not birds. Anyone with a grade-2 level of English comprehension should be aware of the cartoonish fallacy of such an argument.
You apparently don't have a basic understanding of how dictionaries or the English language works. And so you're coming off as comically ridiculous.
No point in helping them out... other than hoping that whatever defense is offered is going to help valve to not go out of business taking all the games with em.
I for one really don't care anymore if they stay in business.. and I certainly hope they either
A. Stop what they are doing..
B. Go flush their business down the john , which they are doing slowly and systematically.
I bet they were not doing all that good.. and they *HAD* to employ all this recent bull crap to sap money out of people
Maybe you should look up in a dictionary what the word "literally" means.
Can I see this dictionary definition of "bird" you're talking about? No, you don't get to say "It was just an example". Everyone can make up examples - even me, and you do not want me to start that.
So really. Stop pushing the narrative that Steam reviews are something that they are very much not.
I'm not one for face-palms, but you might get me started on them.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/review
Review:
- a general survey
- an act or the process of reviewing
- judicial reexamination
- a critical evaluation
- a retrospective view or survey
There are innumerable subjects which the word Review can be applied to. Dictionaries do not cover the range of nouns which another word can be applied do. Their examples are but a couple of demonstrations out of hundreds of thousands of possible applications. For the typical person, they're all that is needed.
Clearly, it's another word that I understand and which you apparently don't.
I literally gave an example saying "What you're doing is exactly like arguing that...". And the example I gave should have illustrated to you how fallacious you're being concerning the definition of Review. Your particular confused state of reading comprehension is surreal and I have to believe that there is a strong element of wilful denial in it.
Because you spewed and trolled a bunch of ludicrous BS, I should stop saying things which are true about Steam's review system? It this more of your patented style of 'logic'? You are wrong about everything you've claimed about English, and I'm correct about what I've claimed about Steam's review system.
Ah, now we are getting there. You openly acknowledged that dictionary definitions don't cover the range of whatever they can be applied to.
From here, there's only one more step to openly acknowledging that there is more to what a "Review" is than the specific things listed in the dictionary definition.
Not according to your own logic, you're not.
What it should be, or what it is meant to be, are a different subject.
No, it's not. It's a question asking about personal preference. It can be about quality, but that's not implied in the question.
The aggregate is not about quality, but about the recommendations. Again, personal preference.
A picture of whether people recommend it. Again, personal preference, not quality of the game.
We're having this debate because you keep on implying that the current system and it's aggregate scores reflect the quality of the game, when it does not. The system also hasn't changed simply because of the review prompts. The question asked is still the same, what the aggregate score represents is also still the same.
We're having this debate because you have a hard time understanding that Steam review rating does not reflect what you (or I for that matter) want them to be.
The moment you realise that the Steam review rating only shows how many people recommend it instead of it reflecting the quality assessment of the game, this debate is over.
I disagree that anything changed because of the library prompts and I disagree with you what the Steam review rating represents. I don't disagree on what it *should* be.
Who in the world do you think you're fooling? Trust me: You're fooling nobody and are only embarrassing yourself further.
You went from rejecting the rudimentary fact that the word Review applies to video games like it does anything else, literally saying:
"[The definition of Review] Says nothing about video games, or any kind of an interactive experience, so congratulations, you just defeated yourself with your own pedantry."
And:
"Video games are not like books, plays, or recitals, so your link is useless."
To suddenly doing a 180 and saying:
"You openly acknowledged that dictionary definitions don't cover the range of whatever they can be applied to.
From here, there's only one more step to openly acknowledging that there is more to what a "Review" is than the specific things listed in the dictionary definition."
I am the person who pointed out to you from the beginning that the definition of the word Review applies to anything the action of reviewing is done upon, and you denied it claiming it exclusively applies to mediums which a dictionary specifically mentions - an astoundingly silly claim.
And now you think you're going to pretend that you were arguing the opposite of what your actual original and repeated argument was? Please.
:rolleyes:
You screwed up all on your own. I only pointed it out.
Yes, I knew exactly what I was doing. I even told you straight that I was going to out-pedant your pedantry, so no need to act so shocked.
So yes, dictionary definitions are more "including but not limited to" thing than a strict rule.
That means your own posted definition of "Review" does not necessarily exclude what you insisted that it should exclude, and you need to acknowledge that if you want to remain consistent with your own logic.
Ergo, you must accept that Steam reviews are not necessarily a critique or description of quality.
And you brought yourself to this point.
My arguments are how far off from what it should be and is supposed to be it actually is. The two are intertwined and nit-picking over your opinion of what it currently is is besides everything I'm talking about and of no interest to me.
That is false. Steam literally describes the aggregate as being a summary of the reviews for the games, not the recommendations for the games, and the definition of a review is an evaluation. The recommendation itself is based on an evaluation which is the Steam review.
No. I say it doesn't reasonably reflect the quality of experience people are having with the games when it previous did more accurately, and that Steam should be moving towards increased accuracy and not further away from accuracy.
False. The system includes a new variable, which is the review-prompts. And that new variable is drastically changing the outcome of the review rating to make that rating less informative than it was before.
False. I have no trouble admitting that the review rating, which is described in Steam as an aggregate of a product's reviews, is inaccurate, and that's what I'm criticizing.
It's acknowledged and agreed that the review score is inaccurate. So, what's the debate?
False. The Steam store page doesn't describe the review system as showing how many times a game is recommended, but describes it as being an aggregate of how positive the reviews are - and reviews are evaluations of the products and therefore reflect the quality of people's experiences with the products.
Then you are wrong: Most-all games on Steam moving towards an 80 - 90%+ positive review rating is a change.
You're saying you were wrong about everything and ultimately conceded that I was correct to prove something about my own "pedantry", which it seems did not exist since you weren't able to prove anything about it but just confirmed that I knew what I was talking about? Rather than pointing out any pedantry, your absurd fallacious comments are what brought out further corrections to them. Showing a person that they grasp basic things which you don't isn't showing them to be pedantic, it's showing yourself to be... well... dumb.
In other words, you made yourself out to not understand things and to be disproved repeatedly... because that's getting me somehow?
Your pretend-ruse would rank among the worst 'I'll show you' plans ever conceived, if that's what it actually was. But I think you actually just made a dumb argument and after having it disproved you're trying to save face by pretending it was some master plan. But it's not a go. Wow.
Are you drunk or stoned? The examples of what a definition can be used in context with are not limited to the examples in a dictionary. A few given examples are not a definition. And a definition is not a mere example, it's a definition.
What a review is is precisely what I've said it is.
And you clearly don't know the definition of Definition just as you didn't know the definitions of Review, Literally, or how dictionaries work.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/definition?s=t
Definition:
- the act of defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/example?s=t
Example:
- one of a number of things, or a part of something, taken to show the character of the whole
- a pattern or model, as of something to be imitated or avoided
No matter how many times you repeat any of this, it won't become true. It'll be easier to accept you just got a schooling in rhetoric than to keep trying to invent all these stories in which you're 100% correct all the time.
Meanwhile, I'll be over there, chilling with my QED beer :)
Ah. So, you're taking your literally being wrong on multiple fronts and then trying to squirm out of admitting that you were wrong by attempting to pass it off as some master that didn't actually accomplish anything for you as a victory. Interesting tactic, but I think it just makes you look worse since your being wrong is only you being wrong... there's not a victory in that.
And it's pretty clear that you've been chilling with quite a few drinks for a while now.
I recommend reviewing the difference between a definition and an example, which I've helpfully edited into my previous post for you. That will be 4 words which you didn't grasp the meaning of an hour ago that you (hopefully) do now, thanks to my "pedantry".
What can I say. I have decades of experience when it comes to rhetoric devices. And yes, feints and deception are among those devices.
I've done my part here, the rest is up to you, grasshoppa.