Εγκατάσταση Steam
Σύνδεση
|
Γλώσσα
简体中文 (Απλοποιημένα κινεζικά)
繁體中文 (Παραδοσιακά κινεζικά)
日本語 (Ιαπωνικά)
한국어 (Κορεατικά)
ไทย (Ταϊλανδικά)
Български (Βουλγαρικά)
Čeština (Τσεχικά)
Dansk (Δανικά)
Deutsch (Γερμανικά)
English (Αγγλικά)
Español – España (Ισπανικά – Ισπανία)
Español – Latinoamérica (Ισπανικά – Λατινική Αμερική)
Français (Γαλλικά)
Italiano (Ιταλικά)
Bahasa Indonesia (Ινδονησιακά)
Magyar (Ουγγρικά)
Nederlands (Ολλανδικά)
Norsk (Νορβηγικά)
Polski (Πολωνικά)
Português (Πορτογαλικά – Πορτογαλία)
Português – Brasil (Πορτογαλικά – Βραζιλία)
Română (Ρουμανικά)
Русский (Ρωσικά)
Suomi (Φινλανδικά)
Svenska (Σουηδικά)
Türkçe (Τουρκικά)
Tiếng Việt (Βιετναμικά)
Українська (Ουκρανικά)
Αναφορά προβλήματος μετάφρασης
Κανόνες συζητήσεων και οδηγίες
Αναφορά ανάρτησης
Menzagitat has the most sensible solution, as 50% is the midpoint between rating scores of 100% and 0%.
If they had wanted neutral, 5 star or any other system they would have implemented it but they did not and no matter how many threads are made, until Valve see value in altering the system it will remain as is.
Furthermore, change does not come instantly; even if Valve wants to do something it might not yet be done. There's a reason Valve Time (which you yourself have cited at various points) is a thing, but honestly it is a thing for any major software projects everywhere.
Duuude, you don't need to answer all the post this guys do. They are known suggestion-haters here, they will keep giving the same arguments of how bad is your idea, that Steam is perfect, and bla bla bla, over and over again. They probably feel important doing that.
Your idea is a good one ;)
Part of what supportys this is the fact that the idea of settting up a steam group...something that requires work on their part is never good enough, and that they want this option on steam. never mind that Metacritic exists. A platform where they can give all the 50/100 scores they want.
Let's also remember that Steam itself has repeatedly encouraged and continues to encourage people to write reviews for games. Even if people were entirely apathetic toward writing reviews, Steam promising minor perks for doing so would at least incentivize some use of it.
But more importantly, people write reviews to express their opinions. That's what a review system is for. And when it comes to expressing opinions, people generally like to be able to express their honest opinions. And that means expressing neutral opinions when their opinions really are neutral. It's very much not about "the desire to join in the discourse ona popyular [sic] game without picking a side that might get you called out" -- it's the exact opposite of that: people want to be able to provide their own opinion.
Metacritic is neither convenient to use nor integrated with the Steam store. And the same can be said of a Steam group. Neither of these ideas would become available to all Steam users, both those who want to write neutral reviews and those who want to filter for them and read them.
Also, you've repeatedly criticized Metacritic, so why do you recommend people go there?
Then others who post suggestions, they have the illusion that if they manage to support with arguments their suggestion against those who dismiss it, valve is more likely to take it into account.
I wonder if Valve even reads the posts here.
If Steam would have no reviews, people would go to Metacritic to check if the game is good or not.
Valve wants to have controll over the review process. It can ban reviews, it can filter them... and can manipulate the score to be better fitted to sell the game. Better for Valve and less good for the customer.
It's less a matter of control and more a matter of just having their own standards...which some people have some issues meeting hence ttheir desire to lower the standards. It's like people who can't ge a an "A" want to have the threshold for A's lowered from 85% to 80%.
Valve has determined what works best, and considering they're doing much beter than the store fronts with 5 star reviews , neutrals and whatever....they seem to be on to sometthing.
The only tangible effect is that it would allow more people to write and more reviews. But as pointed out, the platform has no shortage of reviews. To the point you can find reviews in an absurd variations of styles and formats. I have seen reviews done in the form of Haiku. Rhyming Couplets and Quatrains, Baudy Lymrics, heck I've even seen a review done in the style of a cooking recipe.
Being neutral does not prevent you from answering yes or no any more thatn being neutral prevents you fropm stating your shoe size, hair colour. No new viewpoint is added by neutral, and there's nothing a neutral review can say that a positive or negative one can't, and in better detail.
This isn't any sort of standard of quality. In fact, it's easier for someone who doesn't care about it to just click either, than for someone who does care about what they mean and just happens to have a neutral opinion, but you'd rather the former reviewer to get through but not the latter.
So if anything, this is a "standard" that is holding back the quality of the review system.
Last time I checked, Valve isn't doing better than Amazon.
But for some reason Steam continues to incentivize people to write more reviews. Therefore you are clearly missing something.
You can force an answer to a question but that doesn't mean that the answer is useful. In fact, by forcing an answer, you are making it worse, by forcing people with neutral opinions to mix their reviews in with positives and negatives.
This is nonsensical reasoning from you, because forcing a positive or negative label on a review with the same text does not provide any detail at all.
Meanwhile, a neutral option would indeed add the viewpoints of those many people who want to indicate a neutral opinion. You don't seem to realize this but it's important to be able to see different people's information on the contents of a game -- an issue that's commonly reported is more likely to happen to a prospective customer than one that's rarely reported, for example.
By excluding neutral reviews you're excluding this information. Just because you don't find it useful doesn't mean no one else does.
Or if not, please explain why you think "they're doing much better".
I didn't thought about this 80% thing :) Maybe was discussed above and I missed the post.
Indeed, with a 5 stars system, the highest threshold would be 80% and with Steams rating system, "Overwhelmingly positive" is at 95%.
But Actually the 95% is the aggregated score of all yes/no reviews. And a similar score can be obtained with 5 star reviews too.
But I come back to this threshold thing below.
The manipulation is about how you present "good" and "bad" and it's meaning.
Having just one threshold where the reviewer will switch from negative to positive, you basically obtain the most useful information as a salesman (Valve), and that is: what is the minimum effort you have to put as a developer into the product, in order to sell it.
Getting that information from many customers, it gets an average of that one threshold
But that is not the real quality of the game,
In a 5 star voting system, if 100% of players (extreme case) would rate it 4 stars, it would mean that is the game rating. It would not depend on how many votes there are. All of them agree with each other that 80% is the deserved rating.
In a yes/no system, if you do good enough to exceed a threshold, you can get a 100% rating.(this is also an extreme case).
For Valve it works well because Valve doesn't want to rate the game but to sell them and eliminate those who cannot advertise their games properly.
So, Start_Running, if you say that the current review system is better for you, then I think you say that
- if it is good enough to be sold, then it is good enough for you too, to consider buying it
or
- if you disregard the score, then you actually read the reviews and the vote doesn't influence much your decision either
Maybe not because I see posts on forums having title like "my first review". If somebody want's to write a review and not vote, can do that on forum and even have more impact.
So the effect could be a move of such posts from forum to the proper review. But maybe not because once you write the review, if you edit it later, it will not be shown in the graph at the edit time but at the original post time and almost nobody will notice your updated opinion.
Even if you delete the review and post a new one one year later, it will still register as an edited review of the original first review.
This is another manipulative thing, probably to reduce opinion impact when the developer does a bad thing and destroys the game or abandons a promising early access development.
Has the sort of review system people like Quint consider ideal...with the lowest barrier to entry imaginable almost as low as metacritic and yet...they seem not to be selling as much stuff.
And keep in mind. these are the losses they admit to.
Except you have the problem that there is no shared agreement on the difference between any 2 neighboring stars in such a system. 5 star type systems were designed more around tangible, physical things that can be objectively measured and agreed upon. It works great for things like Say a toner cartidge because you can bet a 10 different people will rate a leaking cartidige fairly consistently.
But for something like movioes, or music...not so much with the consistency. The same holds for games. And the cherry is the question of recommendation goes one step further than the stars. Or to put it another way. At what star would you say Yes on a recommendation?
Except there's no consistency there. There's not as much correlation between effor and success as you might think. And again devs get a little more feedback from their forums and from the more well written reviews.
Negativity could simply be aless a matter of the product and more a matter of it being pushed to the wrong audience. Like pushing ghost peper potato chips to ulcer sufferers.
There's no Manipulation of any stripe. The system is astoundingly transparent in fact.
And you're making the assumpion thatt everyone considers 4 sttar to be equal to 80%. What if half the people consider 4 star to be 50%, and another thiord consider it to 90%. A star rating can mean different things to as many different people. THe meaning of Yes and No however are pretty universally understood.
And that would just tell you 100% of the people who review deem the game to meet or exceed their threshold for recommendation. NOw if one want to know why they recommend it. Or do not recommend it.. that will require more reading.
ELiminate? Why would you even use that word when it literally has no relevance in this context...well beyond needless emotionally driven hyperbole.
Thats a false-dichotomy.
Yes. if it is sold it is worth considerattion of purchase and therefore examination.
BUt why does reading the reviews require one to disregard the score. THe score can easily be what prompts you to read the reviews. And the votes themselves as exoplained add more information to the review.
Can't say i've ever seen such a forum post. and I always check the forums of every game I consider buying as a rule. So I have to wonder...As for having more impact. That depends.
And again. How many such posts exist? And how often are they actually seen? I know I've never seen any and as mentioned I specifically search the forums of games I consider purchasing. SPecifically looking for things that were or were not mentioned by reviews.
Like for example, configuration options, keybindings, bugs or glitches, activity, etc.
YOu'd think I'd have seen a review or ttwo pop up from the search queries but nope.
That depends on how helpful your opinion has been considered. ANd there;'s a reason why Valve does it the way it does.
YOur constant drift into conspiratorial logic is rather worrying.
It says more to your willingness to ignore reality in favour of your beliefs. This is not a good thing. It shouldn't take abnyone more tthan a minute of contemplation to consider *why* things are done that way.
Not to mention your mistaking correlation for causation, completely ignoring the fact that you're comparing apples to oranges at best.
And even more importantly, you're forgetting the fact that they're not the only store in existence that uses a 5-point rating system. There's...a much more famous store that does that. You may have heard of it; it's just a little online retailer whose name starts with A. In fact, you've even have cited it before in your arguing over this...funny how you forget facts except the ones that are convenient to your point.
You've been living under a rock if you haven't ever seen the five-star sytem being used to rate movies.
Also, the recommendation question is not any "further"; just a mere rephrasing of a query of opinion.
And people are able to use a 5-star system just fine. Except maybe you. Since so many other people know how to interpret the difference between any two neighboring star ratings and they can get as well as post information just fine using them.
Hey, don't you remember your basing your argument on math when you tried to tell me there's more info in a forced yes/no than in a neutral review? Did you forget your math already? 4/5 = 80%. 4/5 =/= 90%.
Or did you also forget math because that doesn't let you weasel out of this?
And whether this pool of mostly or all strangers recommends it doesn't say anything about why I should or shouldn't buy a game.
It seems there are many things you haven't seen before. Like, you haven't even seen people giving star ratings on movies before...something that's been ubiquitous since even the days of print newspapers...
It shouldn't take abnyone [sic] more tthan [sic] a minute of contemplation to understand that neutral opinions exist, but somehow you're still here.