Steam Reviews by Hours on Record, A Helpful Sort

[Entloch]

I like that Steam is trying to find ways to improve their review system. It's still missing one key sort feature, however. Hours on Record.

While I scroll (sometimes for quite a while), I'm looking for reviews with 20+ Hours on Record. I really don't care about players with less time than that, who bother to write reviews. It isn't that these short-timers don't have constructive things to say; it's that if a game doesn't have a good amount of reviewers who play for at least 20+ hours, I'm very unlikely to purchase it. Also, I can be sure when someone plays a game for 20+ hours, their feedback is more valuable than someone who plays for 2-3 hours.

An Hours on Record sort would reveal such information very quickly. Perhaps that's why it doesn't exist? Who knows, but until that feature gets created, there's probably a lot of games I won't even consider buying.

[ KARR™]

引用自 Jolly：

I agree with this, or something like it. I'd actually rather see reviews restricted UNTIL someone has played a minimum amount of time. It's pretty rare for a game to provide under 20 hours of gameplay and be worth buying (definitely some exceptions though, so you could kind of scale this with game cost).

So i could review 33 out of 800 games.

As i said before, if the game is BAD why would they want to play it for 20 hours? You're just limited reviews to people who keep playing games they like. I've played 19 hours of Zombie Trilogy, i've finished it once, i've played multiplayer - i think i have an idea about the game being good or bad.... but i can't review it because i'm not at 20 hours.

Are we saying that people should have to play 20 hours of Bad Rats JUST to say it's not very good.

[OneMore]

I hate the whole discussion about a minimum hours on record.

If the game gains popularity then the good reviews typically get featured. Also there is a ton of games that I can tell are bad within an hour or less.

Also as previously stated, time isn't tracked off time. There is many games I have like 4 hours in when in reality that number is much bigger.

What about time off steam? I played games before they came to steam to death....do I have to put in another 20 hours of a game I have no lifed it just to review it?

I think minimum time is dumb. Reviews aren't ganna change in quality just because of the hours on record required to post a review.

[Entloch]

It's just a request for one more way to sort. You wouldn't code a spreadsheet program without the ability to sort every column, right?

Why not provide the ability to sort by any piece of collected data? This is not a request to force reviewers to play a minimum amount of time, this is a request for a feature to assist the customer.

I'm beginning to think it's because Valve doesn't want you to have a way to easily see just how short or or how bad a game is.

I admit, there are exceptions; not every game has to last 20 hours to be good. But the games that I like to spend money on (and I'm certain many other customers agree with me) do last more than 20 hours.

[Puggles123654]

引用自 Entloch：

It's just a request for one more way to sort. You wouldn't code a spreadsheet program without the ability to sort every column, right?

Why not provide the ability to sort by any piece of collected data? This is not a request to force reviewers to play a minimum amount of time, this is a request for a feature to assist the customer.

I'm beginning to think it's because Valve doesn't want you to have a way to easily see just how short or or how bad a game is.

I admit, there are exceptions; not every game has to last 20 hours to be good. But the games that I like to spend money on (and I'm certain many other customers agree with me) do last more than 20 hours.

Well, to have it as a option, will make both sides win. So why not i guess. But i disagree on changing the whole thing to just hours played.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

I like this idea.

Usually people propose cutting off the ability to post reviews before some amount of play time, sucb as a few hours. This doesn't work right with shorter games.

However, the idea proposed here allows the user to select the timeframe themselves, so it can be tailored to the needs of each specific game and user.

[shs]

Am I the only one who would use this filter to cut off every reviewer with over twenty hours logged in a game?

The reason being that the more time you spend with the game the more complacent about its faults you either become, or have been from the outset to be able to put up with them for so long.

Fresh perspectives are better.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

引用自 shs：

Am I the only one who would use this filter to cut off every reviewer with over twenty hours logged in a game?

The reason being that the more time you spend with the game the more complacent about its faults you either become, or have been from the outset to be able to put up with them for so long.

Fresh perspectives are better.

You might get some people who are longtime fans but then disagreed with some major update, though.

[shs]

引用自 Quint the Globular Springtail：

You might get some people who are longtime fans but then disagreed with some major update, though.

Good point, I was zoning in on positive reviews with heavy hours. I have seen a few reversals like you said, some in Early Access games. Most Recent sorting does help with that too.

My gist was that searching positive reviews by greater time played is asking the choir. You're much more inclined to get some meaningful criticism from somebody less devout.

[Mivo]

I'd like to filter our reviews from players who didn't pay for the games they review. At least they are flagged as such now.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

引用自 Mivo：

I'd like to filter our reviews from players who didn't pay for the games they review. At least they are flagged as such now.

Do note that whether someone got a game for free is entirely voluntarily self-reported.

[NS Plover]

引用自 Jolly：

I agree with this, or something like it. I'd actually rather see reviews restricted UNTIL someone has played a minimum amount of time. It's pretty rare for a game to provide under 20 hours of gameplay and be worth buying (definitely some exceptions though, so you could kind of scale this with game cost).

I totally disagree with statement that "It's pretty rare for a game to provide under 20 hours of gameplay". Most of the hidden object games are geared for 4-5 hours play time at the most and are priced accordingly. It would be pretty unfair to make someone have to play it 4 times before they could do a review.

To be honest, hours of play time means zip-all. If I'm playing a game that doesn't have a timer or anything that kills me off and the phone rings - I get up and answer it. I may forget I left it running and do something like go shopping or go to work. Yet it all counts as game time. So just because the number is large doesn't mean anything at all. Person could be just sitting on the options screen for the weekend because they forgot to turn it off. Big deal, don't see why anyone else would care.

Also with some of the older games, a person may have had it before and played many hours but their old media doesn't work with windows 10. They find it on steam all fixed up to work and buy it on sale and want to tell other people how much they like it. Their steam account will not reflect their true experience with the game.

[BubblestationCPH]

its only few "good" games, AAA-titles or PvP that requires 20-50h of gameplay for you to get an idea of the game.
Try install some clickergame. You know if you like it or not within few hours. Or just any game with a liniar storymode. If it captures you then its good, if it doesnt, then its not.. pretty simple tbh.
I also know peeps who plays a game at friends house or they have borrowed it, then go buy it on Steam cus they want to support the devs. Its actually quite often that happens. Like several times a year

Wouldnt be bad to add the feature tho. I love filters when searching. Its just not always true you cant tell if you like a game or not based on few hours.

Small checkboxes with all sorts of filters wouldnt be bad; games owned, reweivs written, helpfull reweivs written, age of reweiv etc etc etc.. a million small helpers to get what you look for.

oh yea tyvm

[Naota]

It's a good idea.

I remember when EGM gave Drakan The Ancient Gates a 3/10

The reviewer said the cover art was deceptive because there was "no dragon in the game".

After getting thousands of complaints, they issued an apology, and the reviewer admitted, he had only played the game for 30 minutes.

[TNTQc]

I agree to add a hours played sort feature in the game reviews. I was searching for it and can't understand why it's not there yet. I don't agree with the hours played restriction to add a review. Everybody should have the chance to give it's own review.

[Count D'Cinamon]

引用自 B l u e b e r r y P o p t a r t：

I like the steam reviews by hours you put into a game, but I wish that would go a bit farther and be 50-100 to make a review. Would stop a bit of people from making dumb reviews if you can even call most that.

If that's the case then there will prob no such thing as negative review unless that game screw up a bit later.

There are games that are just plain awful in terms of optimization or server to the point where people just want a refund. Those people's input are valuable for potential costumer to let them know that such problem exist. If 50-100 hrs to make a review policy exist we won't get informed or get those kind of review.