Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
El autor de este tema ha marcado un mensaje como la respuesta a su pregunta.
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
I absolutely do know what I am posting, you on the other hand fail to counter anything and would rather post "Kusa".
Odd how you keep posting about Fallout 3 whilst claiming it is not about Fallout 3. Once again thank you so much for confirming it is about Fallout 3.
It is only 29,133 reviews from 2 to 5 million owners.
https://ibb.co/WtPwPyB
I'm not even gonna go into why this argument is so absurd and irrelevant, I'm just gonna let someone else tackle it if they genuinely take it seriously. Good luck.
And you're saying you've read through all 28K reviews? Doubt it. BUt even if I gave you that many peope encounter the issue the key point is, the majority can still recommend it. Which means the issue is at best considered to be minor, and the rest of the game more than makes up for it.
As others have said. PC gamers are used to this. Bethesda gamers even more so, and Fallout players even moreso still.
You have been making an absurd irrelevant argument every since you made your OP post especially when you want a system which is in stark contrast to your Fallout 3 and Destiny 2 rants as they are definitely not reviews.
Positive reviewers RECOMMEND Fallout 3 despite it flaws and issues, not complicated, nor complex just you with an axe to grind.
And the fact that they do in of it self says alot about the quality of the game. RThus is the nuance of the recommend system.
Where did I say that? I said a gave a good long look to the reviews from the last few years.
Which if you bothered doing, and if you were honest about it, you'd agree it paints a very clear picture.
Now, exactly how much this would impact someone's rating of the game is much harder to ascertain with the current review system then it would be with a 5 point scale. Because at the moment, we'd have to go into every single review individually to get a good picture, instead of just looking at the rating in a 5 point scale and see where the game actually lies.
I will gladly repost what you posted so that all can see how it makes no sense.There isn't anything to argue, against a statement from you that makes no sense.
Two people don't have to agree to talk to each other.
Because you are replying to me; does that work?
And it's not clear that you've gotten my point since you keep saying all sorts of weird and outlandish things. For example, saying that two people who disagree are not talking with each other, saying that I think that posting about something long enough will make it happen, and so on.
I didn't choose the thread topic; OP did.
Nah! it is a want. [/quote]Opinions are wants.
Meanwhile, I will continue talking with Start_Running.
You forgot about one guy who insists that whatever Valve is doing is the best choice because Valve always knows best but users never do, and one guy who posts a long series of non-sequiturs and argues over everything, plus the various other people who chimed in but didn't stay for the entire ongoing marathon.
Start_Running, here you can see evidence of a person interpreting Steam's userscore as how people feel about a game ("98% of the people liked it"), rather than whether people would recommend it.
This is just one example of evidence against your argument that the system is not about feeling but about recommendations. The system is not working correctly if what you say is its goal, because it is making people think that it is about feelings.
That's a good idea.
Because Start_Running's staked his position on the notion that systems with more than two points are not useful.
OP is very definitely not, if you skim through the thread, you'll also see my posts, as well as the posts of various other people who also like this idea. If you do a search for such topics as a neutral or mixed or informational review/recommendation option, you'll find even more posts in support of the idea, from a variety of different users over the years (plus even more insistently ragging on the idea from Start_Running).
And this suggestion is for an option to rate the game in a different way be available to people.
Shogun Blade has been insisting (since post #2) that OP is actually only here to flame Fallout 3. (There were actually a bunch more posts from him on this that were deleted at some point, probably by a mod for being off-topic.)
And the job of a rating system is to let people disagree.
A 3-point scale and a 5-point scale allow for that disagreement too.
They did it by simply removing a bunch of reviews from a given timeframe from counting.
And Steam can improve its review system by allowing for a 3- or 5-position status.
No it's not.
SCORES ARE EVIL.
And nonsense.
Do you want games have the mobile "give us five stars please" begging content?
Do you want developers lose out on bonus payments because they missed the threshold by one point?
Do you want to have users harrassed because they dared to give the "best game ever" only a 4/5?
Do you want great but slightly flawed games excluded from your discovery queue or hidden away on page 2 because they only got a 3.9/5?
Do you want more of the same old same old developed to tick boxes that have a high chance to grant high scores?
And what for? So that people can now draw an arbitrary line when they consider a game trash at 4.0 instead of 80 %?
There is no benefit for anyone in there.
Stop obsessing over numbers.
Oh! my at last so we agree your definition of forced updates needs not repeating.
When you start making sense feel free to repost mine.
Says the man who kept posting your definition of "forced updates" which is incorrect by the way as mods do not count when it comes to official updates from developers.
So true so why are you still replying after you stated you would no longer? Oh! that's right you cannot resist and cannot let go.
Your replying so it obviously does work.
No you did not but you did keep posting what it was about.
Wants require agreement - options need to exist and 5 star reviews do not.
Meanwhile you will keep contradicting Start_Running as you always do.
And Valve curbed them and a 5 star rating system will be used to disguise review bombing.
And the current system already does that after all I disagreed with s.x over his review of Divinity Original Sin EE and Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic.
The system is working as intended.
It won't happen as the current system works alongside other systems Valve set up.
As they would with a 5 star system.
It does not need to.
Just because you want another system does not make the current system flawed.
And finally you are still here arguing for arguing sake. Try I will not reply, stick to your guns.
The same can be asked about "give us a positive review please".
The same mistreatment of employees can result from getting a Steam game rated only "mostly positive" rather than "positive".
What about giving the "best game ever" a negative rating? That's even more stark.
But, actually, Steam already made reviews default to having comments turned off.
The same can be said using a threshold applied to the Steam userscore as it currently exists.
Also I've gone way farther than page 2 on my Discovery Queue anyway. Besides, the main motivator for going through the Queue is to get trading cards, up to three a day, so for people who go through it, they'll be going through three pages anyway.
I don't know what you're talking about.
The point isn't even the numbers; the point is that such a system would let reviewers more properly represent their opinions and make it more convenient for readers to find the kinds of reviews they want to read.
Multiple users aside from myself have used "forced" to describe these updates; your definition is not the alpha and omega.
I never stated I would no longer reply. In fact, I stated that I reply when I want to. One would think that you would get your information straight since you seem to enjoy digging into people's post histories.
Also, your question doesn't follow logically from what you're replying to anyway.
Wants do not require agreement.
Is that a problem?
Also, that only happens most of the time; you'd have found exceptions where he and I do agree if you dug through my post history.
The way Valve reduced their impact on the rating (note that they did not actually prevent review bombs from happening in the first place) was nothing related to the difference between a 2-point and a 5-point rating system.
Good that you understand that their procedure is independent of their choice of review system.
I don't need you to reply anyway; if you think I'm doing this only for you, then you have an inflated sense of self-importance.