Review system feature request

[Aceramic]

I read a lot of reviews before I buy (or don't) a game. It gives me more information about the game, so I can decide if it's something I might enjoy. However, there are always an abundance of reviews from people who have played a game for all of 30 minutes and put up a review saying it's the best/worst game they've ever played, and you should either buy it right now/shoot yourself before you buy it, depending on their opinion. I think the review system would be far more useful if we had the ability to sort reviews by time played. If somebody has put 500 hours into the game and says they would not recommend it, they probably have a good reason, and will explain in the review (IE: a recent patch broke a major game function, and the developer has no plans to fix it any time soon, which I HAVE seen happen).

[Start_Running]

No body wgho would give a game a negative review is likely to have more than ten hours in a game.. Also the time tracker isn't accurate. Many games can be launched in offline mode or without the steam launxche . In those cases the game's time will not6 be recorded.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

No body wgho would give a game a negative review is likely to have more than ten hours in a game.. Also the time tracker isn't accurate. Many games can be launched in offline mode or without the steam launxche . In those cases the game's time will not6 be recorded.

These are arguments against playtime being displayed at all, though. I mean, Valve currently displays it, so we can assume they think it's relevant information one way or another. Not that you're in any way obligated to agree with Valve of course; the point is, if it's relevant information, then people should be allowed to use it to sort reviews. If it's not relevant information, it should be removed entirely.

[Start_Running]

Gus the Crocodile님이 먼저 게시:

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

No body wgho would give a game a negative review is likely to have more than ten hours in a game.. Also the time tracker isn't accurate. Many games can be launched in offline mode or without the steam launxche . In those cases the game's time will not6 be recorded.

These are arguments against playtime being displayed at all, though. I mean, Valve currently displays it, so we can assume they think it's relevant information one way or another. Not that you're in any way obligated to agree with Valve of course; the point is, if it's relevant information, then people should be allowed to use it to sort reviews. If it's not relevant information, it should be removed entirely.

There's no harm, in displaying it. but again when steam did that it probably made certain assumptions about the pklayer base that in likely knows to be incorrect.

All I have pointed out are why such an idea would likely lead to a positive bias. As said. Only people who like the game will play it beyond a certain time mark. and heck people who really dislike the game as In people who refunded, won't even get as much as 2 hours but strangely these might be the most telling of the game itself.

[Ztarman]

Are you kidding me? I've seen users with 1000 hours of playtime and they haven't even STARTED playing the game yet. There's also card farming which users do by letting the game remain idle for hours to get some cards. Would their opinion still be valid?

Some games are also released on other platforms before arriving on Steam so a low playtime review could be considered valid as long as they provide a good explanation of the game overall. But wait, this is the same site that allows mo-rons that don't even explain a single thing about a game to be the top most helpful review.

[Start_Running]

Ztarman님이 먼저 게시:

Are you kidding me? I've seen users with 1000 hours of playtime and they haven't even STARTED playing the game yet. There's also card farming which users do by letting the game remain idle for hours to get some cards. Would their opinion still be valid?

Some games are also released on other platforms before arriving on Steam so a low playtime review could be considered valid as long as they provide a good explanation of the game overall. But wait, this is the same site that allows mo-rons that don't even explain a single thing about a game to be the top most helpful review.

The community upvotes these people. Once againt the problem starts and ends with the Steam Community. :P

[Ztarman]

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Ztarman님이 먼저 게시:

Are you kidding me? I've seen users with 1000 hours of playtime and they haven't even STARTED playing the game yet. There's also card farming which users do by letting the game remain idle for hours to get some cards. Would their opinion still be valid?

Some games are also released on other platforms before arriving on Steam so a low playtime review could be considered valid as long as they provide a good explanation of the game overall. But wait, this is the same site that allows mo-rons that don't even explain a single thing about a game to be the top most helpful review.

The community upvotes these people. Once againt the problem starts and ends with the Steam Community. :P

That's my point. Playtime makes no difference when you have a mo-ronic community that trolls non-stop. The negative reviews that ARE helpful get removed by the developer/publishers request or downvoted unfairly while the positive ones mostly get downvoted for actually providing a well thought out explanation vs. trolololo mcdumb-ass who complains about running out of tissues, closing/hiding the game or some Engrish nonsense that makes no sense.

[Start_Running]

Ztarman님이 먼저 게시:

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

The community upvotes these people. Once againt the problem starts and ends with the Steam Community. :P

That's my point. Playtime makes no difference when you have a mo-ronic community that trolls non-stop. The negative reviews that ARE helpful get removed by the developer/publishers request or downvoted unfairly while the positive ones mostly get downvoted for actually providing a well thought out explanation vs. trolololo mcdumb-ass who complains about running out of tissues, closing/hiding the game or some Engrish nonsense that makes no sense.

And this is why smart people use the negative and positive filters. That way yopu can view the most helpful nefgative review by themesleves regardless of how downvoted they are.

[Tontus314a]

One thing I've learned about the steam communuty - any idea that wouldn't negatively affect anyone always gets shot down. It doesn't matter if it's a good idea or not. People always want to shoot it down for some reason. In this case, adding a way to sort reviews by time played wouldn't affect anyone that doesn't want to use it and would be usefull in my opinion.

[Start_Running]

Tontus314a님이 먼저 게시:

One thing I've learned about the steam communuty - any idea that wouldn't negatively affect anyone always gets shot down. It doesn't matter if it's a good idea or not. People always want to shoot it down for some reason. In this case, adding a way to sort reviews by time played wouldn't affect anyone that doesn't want to use it and would be usefull in my opinion.

Ideas get Shot dowmn so better ones can take their place. As is we've actually mentioned that it is actually likely to hurt the very people who would use it. The biggest problem with gamers these days is that they really don't think enough about the information. They make speculative assumptions on one 'good information' is and tunnel vision on it. As said. This suggestion would lead the buyer to overlook many reviews due to play time. Most of which would be negative.. There's alsio thart short play time shown has no correlation to time actually spent playing. Someone can have klots of hours but verylittle actual pla time due to card idling or shut down glitches. And someone with a lot of playtime can have low recorded hours because they may have played the game on another platform, played in offline mode or played without using the steam launcher.

This basically just creates more blind spots than anything else.

[Gus the Crocodile]

If reported playtime has no correlation to time played (can I see the data for that assertion?) then it's useless information that is misleading people by being presented.

[Start_Running]

Gus the Crocodile님이 먼저 게시:

If reported playtime has no correlation to time played (can I see the data for that assertion?) then it's useless information that is misleading people by being presented.

You can try it yourself. Launch a game in offline mode for an hour and see if it reflects on your playtime.. Also try running a game without the steam launcher and see if the time spent adds to your timer. Then there's simple idlers. You can leave a game open at the title screen alt tab or walk away from the pc and it still tracks hours. and There are more than a few games that have reported shutdown issues. I ie the game closes visibkliy but the process remains active . The WH40K:DOW series is actually quite famous for this.

The first two examples are where time played is higher than the time recorded and the latter two are examples are where time recorded is going to be higher than time played.

There's also the cases of where a game has been played via another distribution. Say you had the retail CD Of Doom3 or so , I for one Have the CD of Blood and it's a game I've played the bejeebus out of in the day. i recently bought it on STeam. My time in the steam version will not account for the weeks worth of hours I've spent in the game over the years,.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

You can try it yourself. Launch a game in offline mode for an hour and see if it reflects on your playtime.. Also try running a game without the steam launcher and see if the time spent adds to your timer. Then there's simple idlers. You can leave a game open at the title screen alt tab or walk away from the pc and it still tracks hours. and There are more than a few games that have reported shutdown issues. I ie the game closes visibkliy but the process remains active . The WH40K:DOW series is actually quite famous for this.

The first two examples are where time played is higher than the time recorded and the latter two are examples are where time recorded is going to be higher than time played.

Yes, I'm aware of all of these ways in which recorded playtime can differ from "actual" playtime. But being aware that those differences exist is not at all the same thing as there being no correlation between the two variables. That's a statistical relationship, a trend visible across the population, and it's absolutely normal for correlations - even very strong correlations - to exist despite the variables having different values at the individual level. Indeed if you knew the variables not to differ, there'd be no reason to even talk about their correlation.

Now, perhaps you were only using "correlation" in a layman's sense - perhaps you were only talking about the individual level, pointing out that there is a difference between the recorded and actual. If so that's fine, but it'd also mean that such a statement isn't an objection to the suggestion, since it makes no statement about the overall, statistical correlation.

[Start_Running]

Gus the Crocodile님이 먼저 게시:

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

You can try it yourself. Launch a game in offline mode for an hour and see if it reflects on your playtime.. Also try running a game without the steam launcher and see if the time spent adds to your timer. Then there's simple idlers. You can leave a game open at the title screen alt tab or walk away from the pc and it still tracks hours. and There are more than a few games that have reported shutdown issues. I ie the game closes visibkliy but the process remains active . The WH40K:DOW series is actually quite famous for this.

The first two examples are where time played is higher than the time recorded and the latter two are examples are where time recorded is going to be higher than time played.

Yes, I'm aware of all of these ways in which recorded playtime can differ from "actual" playtime. But being aware that those differences exist is not at all the same thing as there being no correlation between the two variables.

Your correlation exists based on the assumption that if the application is running through the steam launcher it is actively in use. As I have shown by citing real world and in two cases, common use scenarios, that can and do result in this disjoint. I think at this point you would be hard pressed to prove there is a correlation. As well I'd like to see what correlation exists between playtime and better reviews.

[NS Plover]

I think there are some games on steam that you can tell are crap within 15 minutes and these deserve poor reviews. The person describing this in their review should not be penialized for telling the truth because they haven't "enough" playtime.

I also think that anyone who plays a game for 500 hours and then gives a bad review is a little odd.

Some games are short - doesn't mean they aren't enjoyable. Doesn't mean they don't deserve good reviews. But the person buying should be aware upfront that this is a short game.

The whole issue whould be easier if the developers would tell us upfront what the "expected" or "average" playtime for the game is likely to be. Still won't tell you if the person was sitting in the options screen - but one hour playtime for a three hour game is quite different than 1 hour playtime for a 50 hour game...

[Ztarman]

NS Plover님이 먼저 게시:

I think there are some games on steam that you can tell are crap within 15 minutes and these deserve poor reviews. The person describing this in their review should not be penialized for telling the truth because they haven't "enough" playtime.

I also think that anyone who plays a game for 500 hours and then gives a bad review is a little odd.

Some games are short - doesn't mean they aren't enjoyable. Doesn't mean they don't deserve good reviews. But the person buying should be aware upfront that this is a short game.

The whole issue whould be easier if the developers would tell us upfront what the "expected" or "average" playtime for the game is likely to be. Still won't tell you if the person was sitting in the options screen - but one hour playtime for a three hour game is quite different than 1 hour playtime for a 50 hour game...

Of course you can tell. The stupid reviews are usually the ones that have people leaving the game idle/card farming just to make their "review" more credible with inflated total gameplay time. There's a lot of idiots with over 100+ hours of gameplay yet they can't explain a single thing about the game.