安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
You are asked if you recommend the game or not. A simple Yes or No answer. I personally don't want a "meh" answer, a virtual shrug of the shoulders. Thats not helpful.
If you want to say no, you can put why not. If you say yes, you can put why. If you have no idea if you do or not, then don't hit yes or no. It can always wait till you are more sure of your answer.
I like the idea, as do some of the regulars around here.
Other regulars around here don't.
It mostly comes down to whether you want the review to give you information and perspective, or whether you want the review to give you a recommendation to nudge you one way or the other. I'm on the first side, but to be honest, I don't see why the other side objects so much given that they can still get that information since the old reviews aren't going away and the old rec options aren't going away either.
No one knows what Valve is thinking, though speculation abounds on both sides.
Take a stance! Make up your mind! Take ownership! Would you recommend your friends to spend the x dollars on the game, yes or no?!
Yeah, see here's the gist of the problem.
Alice: "You should get this game."
Bob: "But why? How do you know my tastes? Why don't you instead tell me inside info about this game and let me decide?"
Carol: "This game is good for this and this and that reasons, but it is less good for this and that and that reasons."
Daniel: "Okay, so would you buy the game or not? Just give me a simple answer."
And you want to change it into....
Bob: Should I get this game?
Alice: "meh"
Bob: "ok never mind, I won't bother with it."
Or
Bob: "Should I get this game?"
Alice: "I don't know".
Bob: "Why don't you know?"
Alice: "you should read my review"
Alice's review: "its got good points, and its got bad points, I don't know if its worth getting or not"
Bob: "well that was a royal waste of my time, thanks for nothing."
Alice: "Go read other peoples reviews then."
OP when reviewing, imagine if you're sending the message back in time to yourself before you purchased the game. Would you tell your past self to buy the game, or buy a different game?
Some howw I doubt you'd tell your past self. I'm not sure.
The review system is intended for people to post a review for a game even if it has its own flaws. You are being asked to answer a simple question which is "Do you recommend this game?" You answer "Yes" if you believe the game is good or has potential, or you answer "No" because you believe the game is not worth someone's time due to it having too many problems, lacking in the story, functions, etc...
In nowhere would a neutral vote be considered a valid review. Furthermore, an overwhelming amount of neutral votes would confuse more people than it would help. If the reviews are mixed, then it appears as Mixed on the store page. Adding neutral votes has yet to show any use. A problem with a product because it does not work properly warrants a review? I am going to say no. Until you have completed the game you purchased a licence for, you need to keep yourself from posting a review. If you were unable to get the game to run, it does not warrant a review either, since you never got to play anyway, therefore you're better off refunding the game at this point.
Another thing, if your point is to show that a game is broken to some extent (like it was the case with Rainbow Six Sige with its net code, which was poor when it launched), then you wait for it to be fixed, or you should make a thorough review with the pros and cons and eventually edit your review once the bugs have been ironed out.
Under no circumstance have I posted a review in my entire life just because of one little thing that bothered me. In addition, if you cannot be bothered to write a proper review, do not post at all.
It is not the case in every country. For instance, in my country (France), the two candidates for the second round could be people you do not like, and therefore you are free to either not vote or insert a blank vote, which is a right (and I know not every country has this right), but then, one of these two will be elected President. Be that, people can act out of philosophy, measure what is good from what is bad and vote accordigly. You should never be forced to vote for somebody if you do not want to.
There is nothing wrong from purchasing a licence from a place that offers discounts as long as it is a trusted reseller. I agree that out of all the games I bought, some were not worth the full price (e.g. Resident Evil 7, while a very good game, does not match the length of its predecessor, and therefore should cost less. I bought it for half its price on Amazon for my PS4 for instance.), however, people still have their rights to review a game (just remember: trusted resellers only).
However, one point I disagree with is this.
People reviewing a game to only put
Another example is
In conclusion, the review system is fine the way it is. You are asked whether the game is wroth it or not. If you have technical issues, report them to the developers directly on their forums or contact their Support, but not review a game based on that.
Most online retailers differ from your statement.
I'm not sure how you're so easily confused, but I can certainly use neutral votes to tell whether a product is polarizing vs. not exciting the fanbase.
It has "yet" to show any use because it hasn't been implemented yet.
Steam currently allows people to post reviews if they have only a small amount of playtime on the game, something less than half an hour. What would you say this is "intended" to do? Because it doesn't seem to line up with what you want from the review system, yet here you are telling someone how you want them to use it.
Technical issues with a game are a perfectly fair topic to cover in a review.
Reviews are also timestamped, and most recent edits to reviews also have a separate timestamp.
Under no circumstance have I posted a review in my entire life just because of one little thing that bothered me. In addition, if you cannot be bothered to write a proper review, do not post at all.
I think that what headline review score is displayed should be something the user can choose -- Steam purchases only, key redemptions only, or both Steam purchases and key redemptions.
Doesn't seem to be fine for your demands the way it is, considering that as of right now it allows people to post "11/9 IGN" or "I GOT HIT IN THE ANUS BY A TANK CALLED HITLER LOLOLOLOLOL" as a review, and also doesn't force people to finish games before reviewing them.
I don't like those spam reviews either, and I think it's reasonable to ask that someone play through the whole game before posting a review (assuming they can get it to work -- which is not certain and nor are bug fixes guaranteed). But I don't think that the system works fine, and I have supported a minimum character limit (something like a tweet length at least).
...neutral votes do not help me make my mind up. If it helps you, then great, but to me, neutral does not connect to polarizing or not exciting. It looks more like Yes/No.
True, it has 'yet' to be implemented, but it is not going to happen. The amount of requests did not make Valve add "Neutral", so why will it change now? Some people are against the idea of seeing it, but I am not against reading/hearing what other people have to say.
Actually, perhaps I should rephrase what I tried to say. Every game is different in terms of length (Fallout 4 has a high replayability value than say Half-Life 2), hence people should first fully play the game before posting a review and add their technical issues they faced in the review. I do, however, understand some games are annoying to play, and some people will not keep playing and post a review. In that instance, I am not against it.
And I am not opposed to that. All I'm trying to say is that the technical issues should not be the only thing appearing in a review.
Yeah, sure, but I'm not entirely sure why would someone post
I am all for a minimum character limit, however, the system works fine. People not liking the way it works is a different from something not working at all.
By "polarizing" i mean when you can tell the difference between something that people are rather "meh" about vs. something that is a love-it-or-hate-it thing. First one would have a lot of yellow, if you put it on a red/yellow/green bar or pie chart, while the latter would have very little yellow.
But anyway, you can also personally consider all the yellows to be reds, to save yourself some money and be more selective, if you don't feel like looking through them. Or if you're feeling generous, consider them greens.
1. Valve Time.
2. People have requested a huge variety of features, and Steam has not incorporated a good number of them, including things like sorting one's library by tags or by Steam userscore.
You may be interested in a suggestion someone else posted, to be able to separate technical and game content issues into two ratings: http://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/10/350543389012741348/
Sure, I can. But that is still confusing. One guy sees it red and another sees it green, that is going to end up fighting each other.
I am going to say no. Seperating reviews into too many categories clutters the section more than it helps.
OP is basically suggesting the userbase be able to write randm texts at the game's review section, and that's it, lol. When you are evaluating, e.g., a seller in a site like Ebay, the neutral stance is useful to prevent the seller's reputation from being hurt due to unexpected problem that is out of control of either the buyer of the seller.
Unlike Ebay's context, where you judge the reputation of a seller, and not their products, in here we are evaluating products, and not publishers, studios, or whoever responsible for such products, therefore a neutral recommendation to a product is simply not useful to the community. One either likes something, or dislikes, there is no logical middleground, lol.
It would merely put two symbols at the top of each review, instead of just one. That would be clutter to you?