Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ-IcS7mRSk
You should watch it, Turbo. Have a laugh.
It looks to me like you're as poor at being logical as you are at grammar and making quote edits.
Here you either don't follow the topic (which wouldn't be surprising since each successive post you've made has demonstrated that you didn't read it before making ignorant comments about it) or you're attempting to shift it so that you don't have to face the fact that you don't have ground to stand on.
The topic is not who is entitled to leave a review. That has never been the topic of discussion at any point in this thread. So, your entire spiel there is irrelevant to this thread and is just more abject nonsense.
The topic is that the solicitation of reviews from a certain demographic (specifically, those who keep playing a game) skews the overall review consensus and rating that is presented on Steam game store pages. A sound or logic-based argument that it doesn't hasn't yet been made in this thread.
No. That is yet another ridiculous scenario and idea coming straight from your own confused mind.
I have little clue as to what you're imaging to be my position and argument because what you're saying is just nonsense and I can only imagine how disorganized your thoughts must be to have come up with whatever strawman you're currently envisioning yourself attacking.
Hopefully, you take this as a lesson to in the future make sure you understand what a topic is about before commenting on it.
Since only owners can review games, and only once, it is not possible for owners of a game to "skew" reviews....by leaving a review.
Logic!
Leaving a review doesn't skew a review because it is a review?
Enough with the nonsense. Let's try some actual logic:
The thing that becomes skewed is not "reviews" (and if you were better with English maybe you would have explained whatever you mean by "reviews" in a less ambiguous manner). It's the presentation of review consensus and the overall review score which is the aggregation of all submitted reviews that becomes skewed. And since those things inform individual spending and purchases, it is not a victimless offence when those things become skewed.
When the goal is to get an accurate picture of impressions but the only demographic that is solicited for input is the one that is overwhelmingly most-likely to respond a certain way, then that skews the final result and creates a bias. Welcome to polling 101.
If you don't understand that, then please don't go into polling or politics. When a pollster questions who will become the next elected politician in a riding but only contacts the supporters of a certain politician, then the results become biased and rigged, and the poll is regarded as fraudulent. And if it isn't exposed that the survey was conducted in a fraudulent manner, then the impression influences other people's decisions unjustly. The same thing happens when there is solicitation for reviews for a game and only people who continue to play the game are solicited to give their review.
That is some actual logic for you. I hope you study it well so that you might learn something about engaging logic.
And I hope you don't plan to go into politics because the last thing any place needs is another corrupt politician who thinks that a fake poll that reached out to only their supporters to create a false consensus is acceptable.
The difference is important. They're all recent players.
The part bolded on my former sentence is why you're seeing a stream instead of a spike and why it's happening to multiple games. Its why the volume has increased instead of being a sudden surge quickly decreasing.
There's always going to be people hitting the review triggers as long as there's people playing the games.
It's not moving the overall score that much in the grand scheme of things. And sales especially big ones on holidays always see a spike. The ones "most vulnerable" didn't have very many reviews in the first place so a few 100 (yes it's basically just a few 100 to show up as a massive spike on the graph) is enough to skew things. But if the games are as terrible as you seem to want them to be eventually that will level off over time. Just like how launch reviews are worthless because dozens of people with no playtime going "gudgaem" or "worsteveromg".
Instead of whinging so much did you actually look at some of the review that started coming in on the 30th? Some of them are actually really detailed and way more useful to prospective buyers than your obsession with the "recent %".
Did you ♥♥♥♥♥ this much about the "0/10 my phenom 2 can't run it", "lulbadgaem", "hurrr buy the witcher instead" reviews in the past? Those are way worse. This "uptick" is only a problem if you don't take a few minutes to actually read peoples' opinions and thoughts.
Have you used the new library to sort by metacritic any? I have and let me tell you it clearly showcases just how atrocious metacritic is.
Did you know Dark Souls 2 (the original) is one of the highest scoring games? That Nancy Drew collection scores way higher than a number of things? That some games that are generally by gamers to be considered meh receive the same exact score as "timeless classics"? That Fallout 4, Fallout New Vega, Just Cause 2, Mortal Kombat X (known for it's terrible awful launch and bugs), Nier Automata, Final Fantasy 9, Crysis Warhead, Nioh, Spore, Trine 2, Spacechem, and Saints Row the Third all have the same exact score? And that they all are ranked below Dawn of War 2, Sam & Max 204, Nancy Drew the Haunted Carousel, Far Cry 2, And The Witcher Enhanced Edition (the first witcher game). Evolve Stage 2 the Dead game is sitting at a 77 outscoring a lot of titles. Two Worlds 2 outscores Prey and dozens of other games that are way more quality.
Metacritic is awful, and more than anything metacritic doesn't give a window into the current state of the game and it's pricing... Metacritic is a window into what a bunch of people that can't play games very well thought during the launch window.
A related thread about this: https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/10/350543738454721262/?ctp=27
Furthermore what you want to know as potential buyer is the reviews of people similar to yourself. A lot of the people who reviewed the game are however not similar to you. So their reviews may not be useful. Games in a certain niche may appeal to only a very small amount of players and if they are the only ones who buy the game then the rating of the game is useless for most players. It is important to figure out what the reviewers of a game expect from the game.
On top of that the reviewers are not actually representative of all buyers of the game. The group of reviewers has to be a random sample of all buyers to be representative of all buyers. This is basic statistics and clearly this is not the case.
Thanks. Yes, I accept that the Steam library review prompt is most probably behind the recent surge in positive reviews.
Which again is why people should actually read what people say instead to get a feel for where people are coming from and what they are evaluating by rather than going by the % or whatever.
You seem to have a hard time understanding that contextual meanings of words are different from their dictionary part. In case of reviews, that certainly is the case.
User reviews aren't professional reviews. User reviews aren't written by journalists or by people who adhere to certain formats. User reviews are written by average Joe and should held to *that* standard.
The one rambling in this thread is still you. You create an issue that is not there (skewing of reviews) and try to create the narrative and evidence around it. You are suffering from confirmation bias.
Not true. If 100% of the accounts owning the game have reviewed it, you have the actual complete picture. That then represents the actual, accurate picture when it comes to recommendation %.
Your issue is that you don't like the outcome of that, as it won't match what you think it should be. Your OP and all your talk afterwards shows that.
Sadly we won't get that complete picture, as with most games there are many copies unplayed and many people not interested in leaving a review.
And why does it matter whether someone makes a review out of themselves or is asked to write one? In both cases the person enjoys it, so why is it bad to know that? How does that, ever, skew anything?
Considering that I have said before that an 80% positive rating on Steam does not equal an 8/10 quality wise, you are false in your assumption.
Says the person fooling themself when it comes to Steam ratings. That's rich.
It's actually already lifted some games out of a Mixed rating solidly into a Mostly Positive rating within just one month. So, it is definitely making a big impact.
I don't know where you get an idea that I want games to be terrible from. I guess you're being just another troll who doesn't read or consider what they've read before posting flame-bait about it.
I certainly have perused the new reviews and whether they're detailed or not isn't an argument.
Using the example I made of a fraudulent poll on political candidates a couple of post ago, what you're saying would be like someone claiming that using a biased demographic of one candidate's supporters to account for the large-majority of poll information isn't a problem so long as all that candidate's supporters given detailed answers. It's still a biased demographic that leads to an artificial result.
I would say the whingers are those who are faced with accurate information and aim to rationalize it away rather than simply accept that there is a real change here and it is significant and it is leading to a particular outcome that could negatively impair the integrity of Steam reviews.
Now you have to know that's a ridiculous comment. Did you ♥♥♥♥♥ this much about The Witcher not being able to run on your Phenom 2? And what do the kind of reviews people were writing for some specific game that released in 2007 have to do with this topic? It has nothing to do with the topic, it's just lashing out.
The issue potentially posed by the the system's review trend is not down to what people write in their review, but is down to the selectivity of who is solicited to write those review. That shouldn't have to be restated at this point as it's been emphasized many times already.
I'm more comparing the Metacritic professional review scores, which appear on Steam pages, to Steam's. There are differences between them, sometime bigger ones, but they regularly share some similar weight.
The user Metacritic scores do not compare to how Steam's user reviews have been.
Forget the %, when I'm buying I'm looking for the opinions of those that have actually played the game and played it lately. Not the guy that played it 3 hours and decided "oh ♥♥♥♥ I can't refund this". Worth noting too just cause someone is forced into a thumbs up or thumbs down does not mean the written reviews don't carry criticisms while being positive and compliments while being negative. You're forced to pick one or the other whether you just slightly feel it's worth it or just slightly feel it's over the line of not worth it.
Trying to shift a binary option into being this nuanced "guide" is totally ridiculous.
I was talking about the professional metacritic scores In my tirade. Re-read it again. It has nothing to do with user scores on Metacritic at all.
In the new library you can filter by the "big" metacritic scores... and it's an absolute trainwreck and the scores relative to one another are BS. Also since metacritic doesn't care how many people review a title you can end up with a situation where something barely reviewed scores much higher or lower than it would if it had widespread coverage.
Did you know that my last official grading in English put me well within the top 1% of comprehension for all people for my native English-speaking region? Of course you didn't. But what you're saying is nonsense and you're trying to cover for your English ineptitude by passing it off as somebody else's.
I've used the words correctly, and in proper context. If you are tripped up by them and how they've been used, it's you who is confused about how those words are properly used.
Extending from that comment, you're going to want to re-read what I posted. I said that if you find the words or how I've used them confusing then it's *you* who doesn't understand them and therefore your arguments that depend on using the words correctly are not based in truth and are just ramblings.
Not at all. There is an actual change happening and I have correctly identified it and when it started. I have also provided explanation of how the process to selectively solicit reviews stands a good chance to bias review scores and there is evidence of it happening. These are real things. But you just want to play apologist and rationalize it.
The person creating a narrative and suffering confirmation bias is the one whose comments have not been based on actual evidence and fact, but who is trying to downplay evidence and fact to say that nothing's changed and it doesn't matter anyway - when literally something has changed and what's changed is the topic of discussion.
If you don't want to discuss the topic of discussion, then why are you here? I certainly don't post in threads where I have no interest in the topic. You're creating issues where none existed and then making huge deals while trying to rationalize against reality.
That isn't a "not true" response to what I said, and what I said is true.
I didn't say that not soliciting current players for reviews would results in having the full picture. I said that soliciting only recurring players for reviews results in a less-accurate picture than the previous situation.
And obviously I don't like the outcome if the review consensus and score ends up being a skewed picture.
You can't be serious with that rationalization. You're asking what's so bad or skewed about readers potentially not having accurate information so long as the writer enjoyed writing their review. The question contains its answer.
I've already said this but the purpose of reviews isn't to be inclusive but to give an accurate portrayal of a product. Reviews aren't firstly for the people writing them, but for the people reading them.
You mean you said that? I think you're as incorrect there as you've been about many other things so far having to do with the Steam scoring system.
Here's the thing many people miss, an important nuance, recommending, doesn't mean liking. You can recommend siomething you don't like and like something you wouldn't recommend. Especially when the thing uis 90% subjective.
I love "Dead Alive" but I would be hesitant to recommend it because it even pushed my limits for grossout gore. I love curry flavoured ice cream, I would not recommend it to others. COnversely I did not like titanic. but I would recommend it to others. I did not like FF6, but i would recommend it to others.
So basically you're free to come up with your own X/Y scale when reviewing and ask your self where on that scale would you recommend again. FOr one person they will recommend anything above a 5/10, and another person will only recommend something 8/10 and above.
This is why STeam doesn't use a numerical scale, because at the end of the day the most telling question is, would you recommend it to someone else.
Hence why the system will highlight and prioritize the reviews of friends.
If no friends have played the game, well then you're free to read the commentary with the reviews to see if what they mention matches what you like and look for.