Steam Reviews by Hours on Record, A Helpful Sort

所有討論 > Steam 討論區 > Steam Discussions > 主題細節

Entloch 2016 年 5 月 29 日下午 2:54

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.

< >

目前顯示第 1-15 則留言，共 34 則

FPS 2016 年 5 月 30 日上午 6:34

Why not sort by games owned? A person who has a lot of games can really compare. Or sort by account creation date - generally older account means older person with more experience.
What i'm trying to say is the only thing that matters is review itself - how well it is written, how good with the words is it's author. No statistical data can compensate that

BlackSpawn 2016 年 5 月 30 日上午 7:34

Also by date of review (chron and reverse chronology).
I want to be able to discover and read older reviews from the Steam store.
Some are nowhere to be found.

最後修改者：BlackSpawn; 2016 年 5 月 30 日上午 7:34

B l u e b e r r y P o p t a r t 2016 年 5 月 31 日上午 4:49

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.

BlackSpawn 2016 年 5 月 31 日上午 5:07

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.

Ack, id settle with 30 mins.

Some/many games dont have that kind of longevity/replayability.

laff 2016 年 5 月 31 日上午 5:12

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.

Time restrictions have been suggested before and all people would do is idle at the menu screen.

FPS 2016 年 5 月 31 日上午 5:14

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.

That would make people idle and then make dumb reviews. Also people don't automatically grow smarter after dumping 50 hours into a game

CANIS_CORAX 2016 年 5 月 31 日上午 11:03

Also, Steam does not record time played in Offline Mode. I have played the Fallout games I have on Steam for many hours than what is recorded, because I tend to play them when I don't have internet access.

Bob 2016 年 5 月 31 日上午 11:09

引用自 laff □：
Time restrictions have been suggested before and all people would do is idle at the menu screen.

Idlers can easily be detected and discarded.

Jolly Devil 2016 年 5 月 31 日上午 11:44

The review system will continue to be bad until Valve does something about the people who play the game for 0.2 hrs and then post a review on it. There is no way someone could do a review after play for 15 mins. IDK how they would fix it, because there are always work around for these trolls, but until it is fixed, the steam review system will continue to be a joke.

 KARR™ 2016 年 6 月 1 日上午 5:20

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.

You can complete MANY MANY games 10 times over in that time. Why should someone have to sit and play it through 10 times to say "it's not a good game, the controls are a pain to use, cant be redefined, voice acting is terrible, it moves at 4 frames per second on my TitanX and it's not an enjoyable experience".

In fact why should they have to play hours and hours if that is the experience and it's noticeable in the first 10 minutes?

#10

Entloch 2016 年 6 月 7 日下午 11:18

There's some intersting points made in this thread, but Hours on Record is a piece of data that's collected and it's just one more way that reviews can be sorted.

If just one paying customer found it useful to sort reviews by that piece of data and that one customer spent money on a product because they read a positive review based on that sort... Doesn't it make good business sense to include that sort?

Is it a monumental task to code such a sort? That would surprise me.

Is Valve afraid of trolls staying logged in just to bump up their review hours, without actually playing the games? From an advertising standpoint, that seems like another good reason to include the sort!

I'm not saying that Hours on Record is a hard and fast measure of all opinions for every game. Just some games, and just for some reviewers. As a customer, I'm just looking for another way to sift through the ocean of data. After all, there's a lot of garbage and not all of it is dirt-cheap.

#11

Puggles123654 2016 年 6 月 8 日上午 9:35

I wouldn't be helpful. If this was the case, then it would only show people who actually like the game, and also make a dumb review.

#12

Jolly 2016 年 6 月 8 日上午 9:47

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).

Overall the review system is pretty bad. Way too many joke (or feeble attempt at humor) reviews (I farted, 10/10 would play again kind of things), way too many reviews by people who never played enough to have any clue at all (I did the tutorial, man this game is epic!), and so on.

As with the advertiser owned "pro" reviews you can only glean so much from steam reviews. I tend to use a mix of reviews, youtube gameplay, forums, and anything else I can muster if I'm questionable on potential game purchase.

引用自 FPS：
Why not sort by games owned?

All this means is that the person has a lot of money to spend on games, it doesn't mean they have good taste in games or anything else pertinent.

#13

FPS 2016 年 6 月 8 日上午 9:58

引用自 Jolly：
引用自 FPS：
Why not sort by games owned?

All this means is that the person has a lot of money to spend on games, it doesn't mean they have good taste in games or anything else pertinent.

Yup, and a person who has spent a lot of time in a game automatically grows smarter, gets a better taste in games, aquires a literary talent, etc.

#14