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
Easy snide remarks aside, both have their pros and cons, Valve had this whole debate in-house before making a decision, and unless hard data shows it's costing them sales, it won't change.
General trend however is abandonment of the multi-tier systems in favor of binary ones. They're less great for reviews, but a lot better for matching your tastes with the content.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/16/14952434/netflix-five-star-ratings-going-away-thumbs-up-down
count the 10/9s and 1/0s and then count the rest yourself. little hint: you find the first 8-rating on page 4 and the first 2-rating on the next page.
neglectable and only useful for snobs.
gta aside, both systems come everytime to a very similar overall rating, because it simply does not matter. crowdsourced ratings will always end up on similar results no matter how many rating-steps you give people.
That's why I think 3 to 5 choices is best. The current amount -- 2 -- is inadequate, but I think 10 would be overboard.
Metacritic is (1) actually out of 100, not 10, and (2) has weird formulas for forcing others' rating systems into their system, meaning that there are different methodologies arbitrarily smashed together in ways that don't necessarily make sense. Even the userscores on Metacritic are out of 100, just out of 10 but with decimal places.
I don't know about you but I see a lot of 2's and 4's. And 3's too.
And heck, the fact that you didn't say 3's shows that 3 -- the middle score -- is actually a meaningful choice. Unlike what you usually argue for which is keeping the choice between 1 and 5.
I'm not sure if you two are aware, but on Steam, aggregate user score 70%+ is positive of some sort, 69%- is Mixed or worse. That dividing line is very much an arbitrary one.
Better idea: create a Steam group and use it as your personal curator list. Now you have three choices: recommended, information, not recommended.
Metacritic showed how this system didn't work. All games that where good got 10s with like 90% more than the 0s. But there where still people who voted those games 0 due to some small flaw.
Then we have this where it could be far more easier to review bomb games with this type of rating system and MetaCritic has once again shown why this was a bad move.
You would probably be one of the rare that puts the score in the mixed tab. But the majority would not.
You would not see any less hate from this and it's far more likely it'd cause more hate. Imagine people who dislike the game and put it at 0/10 because of how much they hate it. Which hurts a game far more than a single dislike.
People would also focus more on the score than the actual review and this has been seen by some review sites.
IGN had a game breaking bug in Prey and put the score at 4/10. They even wrote that they had this bug. Fans got mad as hell about it. They later updated the review when the bug was fixed.
There was another site that reviewed a game and wrote a rather lengthy review but the score of the game was lower than the average for it. People just instantly focused on the score instead of the review.
so you would have given the game a 0 rating just because you thought the overall score was too high.
as already explained, the game would have the same overall score no matter how many rating-steps you give people. you seem to have the perception that your opinion is more worth then the opinion of the other 35k people who rated that game (and it seems that is your general attitude in all your review)
and actually ... your negative review in this case had more impact on the rating then your "8.5 expert rating" would have done. math 1o1.
(If you think I'm making this up, look at the 7/10 Jim Sterling gave Zelda: Breath of the Wild. He mostly had good things to say about it; it was a largely positive review with some criticisms. Holy crap, the BACKLASH of people who thought he was being paid by another company to Sabotage the metacritic score or something, it was absolutely ridiculous! People who care about review scores are downright sociopathic at times!)
Which brings me to my main point: Recommended/Not Recommended reviews are not Upvotes/Downvotes and should not be treated as such. I've left "Not Recommended" reviews for Early Access games that were mostly positive and basically amounted to "The groundwork for a great game is here, but there's too much yet to be implemented for me to tell you to spend your money yet" and fanboys attacked me for having the gall to "downvote" the game. On the flipside, I've given "Recommended" reviews with the Caveat that it only appeals to specific demographics and not the mass market, along with the types of players it would appeal to and the reasons why, and I've had people attack me for having the gall to "upvote" something that only niche audiences would like.
(Both of these particular examples have since been taken down - the first because my criticisms had been addressed in patches - and the Devs themselves thanked me for the feedback and encouraged me to check back, which just makes the fanboys look crazed and unstable. The latter was removed because it was sitting at 0% helpful, so meh, may as well take it down if it wasn't answering anyone's questions about it.)
TLDR Version: Read the freaking reviews, people. The Recommendation/Number is window dressing. Don't flip out over the entire vanilla ice cream sundae being ruined if there's a cherry on top and you hate cherries but love vanilla.
8 to 10 = It's a good to must buy game.
7 = Average
6 = Plenty of things wrong with the game but might have one redeeming value to it. Vast majority of the time though, don't buy.
0 to 5 = The game is utter trash and you should avoid it like the plague.
This is how the scoring is for vast majority of the gaming community when it comes to a 10 rating score.
I haven't seen people go "Oh it got a 6/10, eh might be worth it".
0 to 5 may be better, but personally I recommend making 0 itself the center.
-2 (optionally)
-1
0
+1
+2 (optionally)
This makes it clear: positive numbers are positive ratings, negative numbers are negative ratings. No more schoolkid misunderstandings thinking that passing scores are 7/10 and above on assignments (or 3 or above on AP exams).
as for my rating of fallout new vegas, i would do as follows. I give Fallout 3 a 10/10, and Fallout New Vegas an 8.5 out of 10. Being that I can't leave an 8.5 out of 10 score, I would skew my score to an 8 or 9 depending on the rest of the reviews.
If the reviews are at a 90% average, I would leave an 8.
If the reviews are at an 80% average, I would leave a 9.
Plain and simple.
And as for the argument as to "no one would leave an in-between rating" that's bogus. plenty of people would leave an in-between rating. You're only going to get 10's and 0's if the game really deems a 10/10, so some people are going to get pissed off because maybe the game doesn't work on their computer, or, like myself, feel the game is over-hyped, so they might leave a 0.
I still think a "mixed" button wouldn't do Fallout: New Vegas justice! You guys aren't getting my point. I want to leave a rating that isn't binary, and also isn't out of 3 options. A "mixed" review is a 5 out of 10 in my eyes. I don't think Fallout: New Vegas deserves a 5.
Also, just because you let people leave a more accurate score doesn't mean they won't write reviews anymore. Maybe the reviews won't be as lengthy as they are now, because you don't have to justify your binary rating as much, but that's just fine. People should be able to just leave a score out of 10 and maybe write 10 characters and move on with their lives. There's no harm in that.
Let people think what they want about 7 out of 10, 5 out of 10, etcetera. At the end of the day it's their money. Some people don't have much so they won't buy anything that's any lower than a 7 out of 10. However, I still think that if you I had the option to leave a score out of 10 for all of my games here on Steam, and everyone else had the option, then the games would be rated a lot more accurately. Like I said, I don't think Fallout: New Vegas deserves a 95% overall rating, so I would love to leave an 8/10 but I can't, so I resulted in leaving a thumbs down "zero" rating although I don't really want to.
On a totally different topic: i think Steam users should also be able to click the "This review is helpful AND funny" or "this review wasn't helpful AND funny". essentially, there should be the option to click the funny button as well whether or not they found the review helpful.
Hell, why not even give the option to rank other's reviews out of a 10 scale rating system? That might be a little too much, and in that case it would take away from actually reviewing the game and people would end up reviewing the actual review. That would be kind of strange, but would still work.
I still think this binary rating system just does not work very well. Sure, it's better than having no system at all. And sure, people have to explain themselves more. But I don't want to have to write every time when I leave a review on Steam about a game that oh wait, I DO recommend this game however I only give it a 7 out of 10. But hey! there's a problem. I can't really give the game a 7/10. Sorry, I'm giving the game a 10/10.
It's already listed in a separate line anyway.
Please change your review ASAP.
This is aggregating.
So you rate the obejctively better game lower? This is exactly why a scale is BS - there is no unified rating mechanism. A perfect ten for Fallout 3 is ridiculous. You are basically proving that user reviews tend to go full or naught.
That you like new Vegas slightly less doesn't mean anything at tens of thousands of reviews. Especially not when you go against the mainstream.
While that is a yes or no question the feelings i have about a game are not yes or no.
I have favorite games that i would rate 9-10 and i have less good but played and liked games that i would rate 6-9 but i still play many games and dont think they should not be played just because they are only as good as 3-5 because they just lack important features that other games in the genre have that mean more to me ect.
SO the real question is if you have 100,000 people all reviewing games and 90% will only give 1 or 10 how do we get real reviews.
My thought is meter players ability to review.
If you can only review X number of times. using some metric similar to
Y= number of games purchase (not free) Z= Time passing in months
A= helpful reviews ( requires a review to be rated as good which is somewhat implemented)
X = ( Z / 3 ) + (( A / Y ) X 3 )
so 1 review per quarter if the reviews are good up to 3 more reviews somehow that would maybe be 3 more quarterly ect..
The idea is less reviews people wont post as much garbage and those who are helpful get to review more often.