Cài đặt Steam
Đăng nhập
|
Ngôn ngữ
简体中文 (Hán giản thể)
繁體中文 (Hán phồn thể)
日本語 (Nhật)
한국어 (Hàn Quốc)
ไทย (Thái)
Български (Bungari)
Čeština (CH Séc)
Dansk (Đan Mạch)
Deutsch (Đức)
English (Anh)
Español - España (Tây Ban Nha - TBN)
Español - Latinoamérica (Tây Ban Nha cho Mỹ Latin)
Ελληνικά (Hy Lạp)
Français (Pháp)
Italiano (Ý)
Bahasa Indonesia (tiếng Indonesia)
Magyar (Hungary)
Nederlands (Hà Lan)
Norsk (Na Uy)
Polski (Ba Lan)
Português (Tiếng Bồ Đào Nha - BĐN)
Português - Brasil (Bồ Đào Nha - Brazil)
Română (Rumani)
Русский (Nga)
Suomi (Phần Lan)
Svenska (Thụy Điển)
Türkçe (Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ)
Українська (Ukraine)
Báo cáo lỗi dịch thuật
Quy định & Hướng dẫn thảo luận
Báo cáo bài viết này
Because biased guy who wrote "Yes" as his one and only review, on a bad game, doesn't have as valid an "opinion" as somebody with 100 meaningful/detailed reviews. The guy with 100 reviews should have his review count for 100x as much, because experience, put simply.
That only further supports my suggestion?
the library had always buttons to write a review from within the library, it just got fancier.
i agree on that, the more you write the more meaningless they should become.
WHy?
Actually prodding people to write reviews (particularly on games they've spent a significant number of hours in is actually a great idea.
They will either:
- RIghtfully throw some love to a game they enjoyed but never got around to reviewing...
- Be in a great position to provide a highly informed negative review.
The first one benefits hardworking devs, and the latter benefits consumers. Win-Win. The only people who lose are people who don't like when people scoore games in a manner counter to their own (very biased) opinion.
Isn't writing a review a thing you need to do for the 'Pillar of the COmmunity' Badge
It was hidden in a sub-menu before, now its a main feature.
Yea, we wouldn't want people who actually knew what they were talking about to matter, right? Just imagine if you got paid more for being experienced at some job. Crazy, right?
That too, yeah.
Isn't this an argument for "biased guy" (we're all biased, that's the point of reviews, to put your own view forward) to keep doing what he's doing, 99 more times to be precise?
Equally people who are “biased” put “bad game” too
I would just base it on number of reviews. You could throw helpful % in if you wanted, I suppose. Iterate and see what works best.
The accuracy of said reviews is irrelevant, the point is that a written review that only says "Yes" is worthless (the written part, at least), and forcing people to fill out a non-optional box for that "Yes" is counter productive nonsense. Just let them vote.
That seems like a separate data-set, which is already somewhat findable via Steam's stats + current (pre-library) review system. If anything to that effect, they should just show the average playtime of the game or something.
I consider the current review system pretty effective. You have to offset it by about 75%, but it still works. Most of the top played games on steam right now are gambling simulators, that keep people addicted even though they're terrible experiences, and are now getting an undeserved boost in review score.
People who like the game and people who are addicted to the game are not the same. Go watch any random LoL streamer on Twitch, and give it 5 minutes before their mood is destroyed. Then watch them go back in for another match of the most played (bad) game in history. Because gambling addiction.
Generally, the people who mis-review games do it because they have little-to-no experience gaming. They give a positive review to something awful, then you check their steam page and see the only own 8 games, and have 2,000 hours in CSGO, and its like; "Well, yea, I guess I can see how they think game X is good in comparison."
and to bring the bullet to the point, you are lucky that writing reviews is not your job because they would have to "let you go".
you usually get fired for being a bad performer, crazy world, just crazy.
Indeed. And that "crowd" is currently being skewed from the general masses to the hyper fanboys. PUBG has gone from 50% to 66% in just a few days since this library released.
Which is further skewed by Steam having a review score dedicated to recent reviews.
That's not really a response to what I said, but either way, if this is the kind of person who plays lots of CS:GO (or whatever) then their review is a legitimate reflection of the game's audience. Similar sorts of people will likely be at least a part of the people looking to the reviews for guidance.
Its almost like people responding to an advertisement at this point? Only people who are still playing the game 100 years later will even see it. Whereas before you had to go out of you way when you (theoretically) had something relevant to say, adding yet more weight to the process.
The response was: The person who owns less games than you've written reviews for; is less experienced, less informed, more biased, and should therefor have less weight. "Respect your elders" kinda thing.
The problem is when they write a review for not-CSGO, and that review amounts to "Toxic teamates don't yell bad words at me while friendly firing me in spawn and destroying my MMR lootbox skins". Well, yea, that's true, but its also irrelevant to 99.9% of games, and you should stop playing CSGO.