ติดตั้ง Steam
เข้าสู่ระบบ
|
ภาษา
简体中文 (จีนตัวย่อ)
繁體中文 (จีนตัวเต็ม)
日本語 (ญี่ปุ่น)
한국어 (เกาหลี)
български (บัลแกเรีย)
Čeština (เช็ก)
Dansk (เดนมาร์ก)
Deutsch (เยอรมัน)
English (อังกฤษ)
Español - España (สเปน)
Español - Latinoamérica (สเปน - ลาตินอเมริกา)
Ελληνικά (กรีก)
Français (ฝรั่งเศส)
Italiano (อิตาลี)
Bahasa Indonesia (อินโดนีเซีย)
Magyar (ฮังการี)
Nederlands (ดัตช์)
Norsk (นอร์เวย์)
Polski (โปแลนด์)
Português (โปรตุเกส - โปรตุเกส)
Português - Brasil (โปรตุเกส - บราซิล)
Română (โรมาเนีย)
Русский (รัสเซีย)
Suomi (ฟินแลนด์)
Svenska (สวีเดน)
Türkçe (ตุรกี)
Tiếng Việt (เวียดนาม)
Українська (ยูเครน)
รายงานปัญหาเกี่ยวกับการแปลภาษา
กฎและแนวทางปฏิบัติในกระดานสนทนา
รายงานโพสต์นี้
Also everyone is pretty much mixed by default. Read any well written review more than one paragraph and you'll likely find the writer expressing their likes and disappointments in the game.
You might want to avoid using the words positive and negative. As pointed out. You can recommend a game you have a personal negative opinion of, and you can decline to recommend a game you feel positive about. So Yeah Don't go into Positive/Negative. Thinking.
It's not about that. ITs about "Do you recommend?" nod. 'Do you feel positive/negative?" about the game. Look at the question itself. Not what you reflexively imagine the question to be.
A lot of don't knows just says a lot of people didn't recommend the game.
There is no ionformation that isn't already captured in yes or no, more effectively I might add.
You may say that, but ultimately if the rating score doesnt revolve around people making well written the reviews, then the fact that you might write a "mixed" review is ultimately pointless as far as the score is concerned.
Mixed reviews, will only count as mixed reviews, IF there is a score attached to opinions being mixed. Otherwise people can easily only have positive or negative opinions, and if those are the only rating options that you get, then regardless of how well thought out your individual review is, it will still only count as positive or negative, and people wont be able to filter out your mixed review beyond just scrolling through an oasis of overly positive or negative comments.
That sounds very inconvenient if the point is to accurately portray the amount of people having a particular opinion.
But an upvote is inherently considered to be a positive, much like a downvote is inherently considered to be a negative (it is even stated as such in the score ratio). Eitherway, if all you look is at the score, mixed reviews wont matter if they dont count as their own kind of score. The voting system in of itself still doesnt encourage a well written review anyway, and a comment saying "I like this game" is no more informative than saying "I think it is meh".
You may think that "2 no's are redundant", but there is a difference between "I dont like this game" to "I think it is meh". You personally may not consider trying games out that are considered to be "meh", but it is not the same for everybody. Some people here may want to try out a game that is rated "meh" over "bad" after all.
Yeah, but if the point is the share mass of opinions, all the while the quality of the reviews are given no distinct treatment from the fodder, then people not having a conclusive opinion enough to rate it as a plain "I recommend" or "I dont reccoment", should be valued, because a neutral rating would still paint a different image than games with overly positive and overly negative ratings, and there are in fact people that wont vote if they cant represent their opinions as neutral.
Or, if the focus is to increase the quality of the reviews and avoid redundant comments, then make a change that would encourage people to actually flesh out their opinions beyond wether or not they like or dont like something.
Can't say for sure what will encourage the latter. But the only time I wouldn't consider a neutral review with a inconclusive answer, is if the quality of the reviews are valued and people actually are encouraged to put more thoughts in their votes.... But this is not currently the case, because far more importance is placed on the quantity, and quality is treated as an optional thing.
Which are just No reviews with more letters.
Yes because at the end of the day you have to decide whether you are able to recommend. You can express the degree of your mixedness in your commentary for people who care to read but at the end of the day thhe why is less important than the action itself.
Not really. The opinion you are being specifically asked about is whether or not you deem the game worthy of your recommendation. That's it.
If you are asked the question: "Are you in London?"
TYhe person asking doesn't care where you actually are. The don't really want to know where in london you were, or that you were in Bristol, or Naples. They just want to know if you were in London.
Just like the only opiniopn Valve cares about in if you consider the game worthy of your recommendation. Thats a simple yes or no answer. Saying your mixed doesn't really answer the question...well it does.. since Mixed is not yes. and if it's not yes, its no.
Thats because the question is phrased in such a manner. If the question were asking the reverse the implications are going to be flipped as well.
This is also why its important to look at the actual question written and not what you think the question is. The wording of the question was specifically chosen. THaty's the same sort of thinking that causes people grief in Early-Access.
It kinda does encourage. You wuill notice this if you sort your reviews by most helpful you will find a rather good sampling of well written reviews. ANd then there's the awards.
Just remember. what you consider 'well written' is not what ' I or anyone else may consider 'well-written'.
Yeah but they're both the same in that neither of them are 'I recommend this game'. And as I pointed out. Disliking a game doesn'rt stop you from recommending it. Neither does feeling meh about it. Feels versus actions. SOme people are capable of divorcing the two. WHich is where the system's nuance comes into play.
They can do that already. They just need to hunt for games with a mixed aggregate.
The opinions are the only thing objective and concrete. Yes is yes, No is NO. The meanings for these are clear and mutually exclusive. WHat can be considered a quality commentary is 97% subjective to the reader. Your idea of quality maybe a long form essay. SOmeone elses may be acommentary written in haiku.
Conclusive enough to know that they do not want to say they recommend though. And if you don't want to recommend then the answer to the question of 'do you recommend this game?" would honestly be....No. Again. When you have no actual bias or preference towards the answer you give, then the quesrtion is simple. The issue comes when someone wants to say, or avoid saying something. Which again immediately makes them sus.
In short. The minute you know you don't recommend it. YOu're saying no. The moment you try to convince others that you're nmot saying No. ANything you say becomes sus and immediately less valuable than even the fodder rev iew because one must ad extra consideration to your motivation.
Translation. You want Steam to encourage what *YOU* personally consider to be quality reviews.
Nevermind what their100 million+ other users think. See how that sounds when you say it plainly?
They already have tools by which people can encourage the types of reviews they want to see more of. You can Marke the review as un/helpful and you can give the review award of an appropriate nature. You can do this, and everyone else can do this.
The sort of reviews that people reward more will generally become more common.
But isnt the main purpose of reviews to put extra thought on people's motivations?
Why care about people's opinions if you have no idea of their motivation?
You can figire out a persons motivation depending on how fleshed out it is, so you can still take value out of someone that doesnt have a conclusive answer, by giving thought to what they say about the game.
But someone that just has a one note answer? There nothing for you to put thought in to justify their motivation, because all you have is opinion but no motivation.
The fact that you are more inclined to count a inconclusive answer as a "I dont recommend" by default, says more about your reasoning, than you accepting a review just cause it is rated as postive or negative. It pretty much implies that you dont care about what they write so long as you can straight up see if they recommend or dont recommend.....
In otherwords, dismissing the meat of the review and only valueing the final verdict.
This kind of mentality doesnt encourage people to put thought in their opinions, it just discourges does who are not willing to give their opinions a binary value. And it is not at all quality based, just opinion based.
That's why for neutral reviews to function Steam should rework their implementation of reviews.
It still takes more than a single click to do that. Don't underestimate the lazyness of the average user.
My original reply was adressing the issue that neutral reviews would actually serve to present new points to the reader, which -as I said- most likely are already being adressed at the actual postive/negative reviews.
If by sus, you mean that you actually have to bother thinking about about what the reviewer says about the game, then isn't a good thing considering that it is supposed to be a Review?
Recommendations that gives you nothing to think about, arent much of recommendations unless you know who you are asking, which most people dont in the case of Steam reviews.
Reviews are supposed to describe the game that is rated, comments that do this are more of a review than comments that dont. And that is the case regardless of whether they recommend, dont recomment or anything in between.
This is good and all, but it is not like you will lose the option to do this just cause people now got the option to be neutral.
While if the score is more inconclusive than not, people will care more about the reasoning than random opinions. You know, forming your own opinion based on what you can find out, instead of letting other people dictate your thoughts only based on their opinions.
Except this is less like "Are you in London?" and more like "Do you recommend going to London?". People CAN answer a simple yes, people CAN answer a simple no, but, people ALSO CAN give a "I dont know" and then go further in depth as to why it is "I dont know" and not simply a straight up "yes" or "no".
Granted, it is also possible that someone might just say "I dont know" and leave it at that.... But that opinion still is no way less informative than someone that simple says "Yes" or "No´", because in all three cases none of them explains their motives. And if the point is to see how many people gives either answer with no regards to how fleshed out it is, then all answers should be fair game without being restricted to straight answers, cause people dont always have straight answers for as much as you want to claim.
I mean, these kinds of threads are literally a proof to this.
Yeah, but even when people are given the choice as to say "I dont know" to a "yes" or"no" question, thing is you can still have a motivation behind it, and the point of reviews are to explain your motivations.
You don't care about motivations? Then you dont really care about reviews. Or at least, you are biased against reviews of particular ratings, which in this case would be neutral ratings.
Well to clarify then, I meant "fleshed out reviews", or "elaborated opinions". Anyone may have opinions, but what gives a review value is how much insight it gives you in the topic.
Review doesnt give you any real insight about the game, because it is 100% opinion and 0% explanation of motive for said opinion? Then it is not insightful in of itself, because it doesnt give you much to think about besides "this random stranger as this random opinion about the game".
The only value those kinds of comments have right now, is the fact that they still do show an opinion of a game, and based on how many people have similar opinions, you can judge a game's popularity, when popularity itself may be a measure of quality to a degree.
But you know, this case also applies to neutral opinions. The only real difference is that you are more likely to have thoughts about someone that doesnt take a side, than someone that does. When from a reviewing standpoint, the more thoughts you have over it, then the better it is to judge the game, or at least read more.
But there is a whole level of nuance that you are ignoring, and it is the part that people can explain their motivation for their rating. People can do this already for recommendations as well as disrecommendations, true, but people also can do this for those that are mixed or unsure. Just because you dont straight up say that you recommend a game, it doesnt mean that the reader can't find value out of that comment.
Because at the end of the day, the reader's standards can be different from the reviewers, at which point the motive is more important than the rating.
It doesnt matter if the reviewer only feels comfortable voting as neutral to the reader, because the reader might still decide to try out the game or not even if the review was a straight upo positive or negative. The motivation is the point of reading them after all, so it is something that shouldnt be dismissed.
Except said mixed aggregate is only mixed cause there are equals amount of positives and negatives. Add a neutral rating into the bunch and the scoring would change. Either in the sense in that less votes will appear as negatives, or vice versa in that most positives werent as straightforward as it might have seen at first.
Basically, tipping the scale further in the grand scale of things.
Something that is more concrete than opinions, is the *motivation* of said opinions. People are more likely to care about the motivation in the case of nonconclusive answers, than in cases where you get a straight answer, because it gives you more things to think about.... You know, more stuff for you to consider as to whether or not you are interested in a game. Which again, is the point of a review, of which one note comments misses.
Except there is one factor about neutral reviews that might have been missed which may affect the scoring:
Neutral opinions not only can replace positive comments, but they also can replace negative comments. Making it so that a game will have more or less press in either way depending on how mixed the reception is.
The main difference between a neutral from negative and positive opinion, is that neutral opinions are free to be interpreted as either positive or negative based on your own personal judgement.
You personally decide to consider neutral as "negative" by defualt with zero regards to motivations? That's on you. But it is still however possible to consider a neutral review as a positive, if their motivations for being negative encourages you to buy the game.
Like someone could talk about how a side scroller, mention what it is about, it's pros and cons, and still not decide if they personally recommend the game or not. But then, as a consumer, the point with reading reviews isn't just to see if you agree with other people, it's to see if the stuff they talk about interests you.
Neutral reviews would tip the scales of the voting system, because certain games will either look more or less popular when more opinions are made out to be free to interpretation of the reader as opposed to decide by a score the reviewer put in the end.
And that has it's own kind of value that positive or negative reviews dont really provide on their own, since without a 3rd option things are made out to be more black and white for those who arent willing to dig from the start.
The minute you indicate how you're being perceived as being more important than speaking clearly you immediately devalue what you are saying.
Actually no. Unless they are really bad at it. TThe only thing you can tell is the level of effort they put into writing their commentary. That doesn't speak much of their motivations. At best it speaks to the degree to which they are motivated.
That depends on the note. If I see a negative review w that reads "Best Blue Screen Evar!" That tells me a lot about their experience.
If I see a positive review that says, "My fingers are bleeding" that tells me a fair bit about their experience as well.
Quantity is not always a measure of quality.
Are these inconclusive people recommending? They are not. There fore they are Not recommending. Its pretty straight forward.Is that man standing. No he's crouching. Well he's not standing then is he?
Theverdict says that they did not recommend. ergo they did not deem the game as being worthy of recommendation. And oh look at rthat there's alreadyu an opion for 'Not Recommending'. Now whatt I take from the commentary about *why* they do not recommend is another matter. But I'm going to give more weight to the words of the person that will honestly say NO rather than try to use weasel words and phrasing.
You seem to be trying to conflate two distinct aspects of something as the same thing. The verdict as you call it is a part of the the whole and it adds context to the whole. The lack of teh verdict basically means that the text has measurably less information.
Any review becomes more informative with a verdict attatched. So why would you waste time with those that are measurably inferior?
It's like if you goal is to get drunk, why would you waste time drinking light beer?
You do realize that is not a good thing for the dev/pubs right. IUn entertainment you either wwant to be a spectacular success or a spectacular failure. You don't want to be middling. No one remembers middling actors or movies. No one talks about middling movies.
You can do that with Positive and NEgative as well.
There are games I've bought because of what I've read in negative reviews, and games I've skipped because of what I've read in positive reviews. As said. The system already accounts for this and allows it.
Again Neutral just becomes a second 'No' .
Because different questions may give you a different conclusions. Affecting your opinion differently depending on content that is said.
It depends on how you interpret it. I for one wont automatically assume that a voteless comment is a "I dont recommend" just cause they dont explicitly say "I dont recommend". Why? Because there are comments that may be rated as neutral, but their motives can be summerized as "I recommend if...", while if said "if" fits my standard, I can count it as a "I recommend it".
That you are unwilling to give that benefit of doubt, only shows a bias against people that dont want to vote with their reviews. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is still enough of a motivation to form your own opinion over. It is not that different from a positive or negative review, other than the scoring is blank.
Except those examples are actually descriptive reviews. Very short comments yeah, but different from "I like this", "I recommend this, take my word for it" with no description whatsover other than the fact that they recommend it.
Thing is that reviews arent just about what the reviewer says, it's also whether or not the reader will care enough to read them. Neutral reviews arent just "I don't know" and nothing else, they also can be "I recommend, IF". In otherwords, neutral reviews aren't just another no, they can also be another yes. It's just that they are conditional as opposed to general. Readers being people with subjective opinions may favor a mixed review that represent a conditional recommendation as opposed to a comment with a straight dis/recommendation.
You clearly are someone that doesnt value neutral reviews regardless of motivation, good for you. This doesnt mean however that this is the case for everyone else, or that they shouldnt be included just because you personally dont care enough to find value in them.
Not necessarily, because a comment can still bring other things besides the reviewer's personal opinion into the topic. A final verdict might be a nice add on, but that's about it. If they have a verdict but not motive, then it wont be influencing my opinion one bit, hence less valuable than if they had some motivation for a particular thought.
Because I may still be curious to see the thoughts of someone that doesnt commit to either side? Do you need more of a reason than that to see other people's reviews?
For me, it seems like this whole debacle is a result because people drink beer for different reasons. You might drink beer just cause you want to get drunk, so a strong beer may suit you better.
I however may just want to drink beer cause I like the taste, strong beers can be nice, but they are not an obligation for me to enjoy the drink.
Some games will still inevitably end up more popular than others, because people may still have a clear opinion even with a blank option on the side. The difference is more that gamers will have an easier time distinguishing mediocre games, because less people's review of them will be scored as a plain positive or plain negative.
It is not just a second "No" if it include a conditional recommendation, at which point it´'s up to opinion really. Your opinion may be no, but this doesnt mean everyone else agrees with you.
EVBen with a conditional it is still by definition and context, just another No since it is Not Yes.
You are either A or !A. You either DO or DON'T.
At best Neutral can be deemed as a reason for the NO. I don't recommend..because I'm, neutral.
Redundancy is useful to show which sorts of criticisms or praise are more common. When reading strangers' reviews, one can't assume that strangers necessarily have the same sort of computer or the same desires of the game, so it's important to be able to see what they've experienced.
Without seeing the game and the text of individual reviews, it's hard to say what I would think of a game with a given review score, but if I saw a game with a lot of neutral reviews I would expect that players may have encountered some issues but still liked the game to some extent, or players may think that the game is sorta generic but serviceable. This is in stark contrast to seeing a lot more negative reviews, which suggests more serious issues with a lack of merits, or seeing very few neutrals compared to similar games, which may suggest that opinions are divided on the game with strong opinions on both sides, which might occur for games whose content engenders controversy. Again, it's hard to say what's going on just for a hypothetical game, but different levels of neutral reviews can actually mean something, so ideally it'd be captured information readily available to prospective customers.
Yeah, that's definitely also a use of having a neutral option. Like I've said before, limiting people to only positive and negative presents a data quality issue where neutral opinions are is mixed in with both positive and negative reviews.
Even Start_Running himself, despite saying that he considers neutrals to be no's, keeps "explaining" that people need to ask themselves whether whether they're slightly more on the positive side or slightly more on the negative side. It's a contradiction in his argument, but more importantly it underscores the concern you're having.
Actually, if they just consider neutrals as "no", they don't need to rework anything -- not even their wording, which says "X% of user reviews are positive."
Ironically, a lazy user would be better served in this regard by leaving some short nonsense in the review text box just to get the review posted. So there are perverse incentives going on here.
Ah, fair enough.
If you take someone saying they have a neutral opinion on a game as "indicat[ing] how you're being perceived as being more important than speaking clearly", you're inserting an entire truckload of your own bias into this.
And those would tell me very little about their experiences. The first one just suggests the game crashed on them; I'd have to check a bunch more reviews to see whether this is a common issue or not, because frankly speaking, fifty million different things can cause bluescreens. Heck, I can even bluescreen my computer on demand at any time I want.
As for fingers bleeding, the most that suggests is that they have to do a lot of things in rapid succession in-game.
These are, at best, only single pieces of information, and I'm being generous by assuming they're actually meaningful information. Because frankly they're phrased like jokes.
There's far better reviews out there. Quantity actually is a measure of quality when it comes to how much one covers in information about the game. Why would I look for tiny reviews like this when I can skim longer reviews that have more information density?
You can force a binary answer format to a question but that doesn't mean the answer is useful.
Why are you so hung up on whether a complete stranger recommends a game to you?
"Neutral" isn't "weasel words ahd phrasing". It's a very clear statement of opinion.
If you can't understand a neutral opinion, that's your problem.
Given the exact same review text, the lack of an attached recommendation "means the text has measurably less information"? This makes no sense, as the text has not changed.
What you're showing here is that you're dependent on the recommendation to get your information. I guess this is why you're so concerned about forcing other people to give you recommendations on games?
If you think being a spectacular failure is better than being middling, you have a poor idea of business needs.
They can calculate previous reviews like having 1 star and 5 stars and they get the same rating for them.
Only future rating would change and that would happen also for the neutral reviews.
Unless they really do not count them at all. But in that case, the neutral reviews are like normal posts where the user can prevent others to comment.
But to be useful, neutral reviews should also be counted, and in an extreme situation, if all 100% reviews would be neutral, the rating score should be 50%.
The graphs we see now on the review evolution, would game more colors. Instead of blue/red there would be more colors distributed vertically on top of each-other.