安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Your "Maybe" can be translated into a "Yes/No, but..." and addressed by the actual text, which the current system supports.
The text is the most valuable part of the whole, not the thumb's direction.
so that's your problem then
That is, everyone who isn't writing a review, is neutral about the game, in my opinion. :P
The only ones to suffer from this change will be already released and review games that have their rating already.
Your right, the text is a valuable part of somebodies feedback but I'm sure a large number of people are guilty of passing by a game based on thumb's direction alone, without taking time to read the explanations.
I feel like if the mixed/maybe view was added people are more likely to look at the reasons before dismissing a game.
Your Stars comment makes no sense. Virtually every single site that allows reviews uses a sliding scale. IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, MetaCritic ALL use sliding scales because ART is not binary.
And frankly, everyone using their own "standards" to rate a game makes the rating system even more pointless. The point of having a system is that everyone understands the rules of said system and generally follows them. If you have people just doing things how they want, there's absolutely no cohesion as to why anything is getting done. At least with a sliding scale there's more room for consensus on what each rating means.
It's amazing the attitude people seem to have. "Valve does it, it HAS to be right". Like there's never any room for improvement or that they can't make poor choices. This rating system is a poor choice for consumers and a great one for corporations.
I think adding another option will make people read even less reviews than they do now. It might even act like another "Bad" option:
"Oh look, this game has 500 Good, 1500 Mixed and 350 Bad reviews. Guess' better not bother with it..."
The only way it could be worse would be with scores.
The question is not abt how good the art is. The question is do you like the art or not.
The aggregate score works just fine.
You are not forced to write reviews. It is voluntary not mandatory. You are choosing to write reviews and in turn engaging with the system.
Steam already has a "mixed rating" for games.
Valve have the system THEY want and have chosen not to alter it.
Secondly you cannot improve "shrug" which neutral is as it is non-committal.
1) Did you enjoy the meal sir? Shrug.
2) Will you be paying by cash or card? Shrug.
3) Did our service meet your needs sir? asks the hotel manager. Shrug.
You did not shrug when it came to Cyberpunk 2077 (recommended) and neither did you shrug at Starfield (not recommended), you went into detail why you chose A or B and in turn you answered the question asked of you. "Would you recommend this game to others players".
Recommend: to endorse (or not).
Secondly this is a "discussion forum" where others can have a different opinion and not affirm if they disagree with the premise of neutral (non-committal) reviews.
Every day for the last 5 years or so, a group of 300 fake accounts are pushing scam asset flips into temporary trending, so don't tell me the system is working fine when anyone who is following the rules has a massive disadvantage, even if people don't buy them, they pile up on the normal games making them easier to miss.
In a perfect world the context of the review is more important than a blue or red color, but most people won't read your review beyond the first 2 sentences. Steam reviews for the most part are a dump of memes, award farmers, and opinions with no context.
I would use the neutral review personally, because I generally want to help the developer without offending them, but also leaving a review because I paid for the game and have the right to express my opinion in the official manner and not just leave feedback in the forum.
But that is just me, I think people that make reviews too objective are the reason all these review websites are so unpopular. The few game reviewers on youtube I respect tend to talk about games from an academic point of interest, because they have passion for games, not because they want to tell you what you should do.
Beyond that, what you buy is your responsibility, people often like to act like it's not
There are still games that I wouldn't have given a thumb up (or thumb down) if there was a middle option -- in those cases, it's more a case of "is it a thumb up/down? Not really. Is it a thumb down/up? That's a bit too much, so I'll still give it a thumb up/down.
3 options would be nice, 5 options would be even better. Even more... not so sure. The more options you have, the less obvious the difference between them.
You can also think about it from a slightly different perspective: anyone if a decent number of games under their belt will probably be able to pick two thumb-up games where they would describe one as "great" and the other one as "ok...".
But, on Steams rating system, they are the same.