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
Why not a 100 point scale for increased precision?
Hello and welcome to the discussion! I addressed this in an earlier post but I'll paste it here for you!
I can understand a 4.5. as a "really great but a bit shy a masterpiece".
But something like a 9.8... What's the difference between that and a 9.7 or a 9.9?
You want a scale with some room to work with but nothing that has so much room that the numbers themselves become pointless. Which is why the 5 star rating scale is so widely adopted, I guess.
So strange how someone would create a thread to disguise the true intent of the thread, Steam and Fallout 3 especially when they themselves have 90 hours in Fallout 3 proving it works.
https://ibb.co/Z1mVB1c
Saying it's difficult to decide is perfectly fine, but one can decide.
HAving caveats and bus are always to be expected. when dealing with expressions of opinions since certain assumptions must be made.
No Your argument was 'Some other people are doing it this way, ergo Steam shouldl'
That depends on the adulterant. I mean no one would call wood pulp tasty but yet it finds its way into a lott of the food you eat, in greater quantities than you'd probably suspect.
I mean we're tyalking abouut a time in history where Boric powder was used to 'freshen' milk. Me thinks what we call disgusting now may not have been perceived as such back in the day. TThat said. The point was that saying SOme people do it so they should do it is a poor argument'. Some people are using leeches to treatt fever, ergo, you should use leeches to treat fever, etc etc.
The simple matter is. Nuance is already built into the system. You just need to have the liguistic skills to convey the nuance. Even mighty Amazon, actually hasa binary system in the end. They just use the 5 scale to hide that fact from their audience.
The question is simply asking if.. not to what degree. you recommend something. You can convey the degree s in the commentary.
Second, we have user reviews. Just not with the rating system you prefer.
All review systems have their flaws. Anything with more than a binary choice for instance suffers from people often picking either the highest or the lowest options.
The thing is, if it's changed to a 5 star system there'll be someone posting the next day: "Valve seems to expect the community to curate the Steam store for them using the review system but we cannot do that properly with a flawed 5 star system!"
Every argument you make can be copy/pasted to any other rating system.
In closing, here an analysis with data that may explain why a binary system is better for Valve, and for curating the store.
https://www.appcues.com/blog/rating-system-ux-star-thumbs
As for reading specific reviews, I'd actually beeline to "mixed" reviews myself when looking for information on a game I'm interested in purchasing. I'm more likely to get a mix of comments about what it did well and what it did poorly.
As for the overall perception, seeing a bunch of negative reviews suggests a degree of antipathy toward a product that is not present if they're actually a bunch of "mixed" (or neutral or informational or no-recommendation, whichever) reviews.
If it was me the reviews would equate -
5 stars - top quality entertainment. Possibly best in field in one or more areas. Whatever minor flaws might exist don't detract from the overall quality of the experience.
4 stars - Solidly good game. May be a little derivative with a competitor that's clearly better, an annoying flaw that significantly mars enjoyment on an otherwise very good game, or generally good but lacking in "wow" factor.
3 stars - Playable but flawed. It's not been a bad experience playing this game but there's nothing to keep you coming back.
2 stars - Generally not fun to play. This game may have some redeeming qualities and basically works but there's something about it means you're unlikely to persevere with it
1 star - Car crash. Basically non functional. This doesn't merely disappoint, it annoys or worse. Can also apply to a game breaking bug in an otherwise good game (the save function regularly fails on EA's "Sims Medieval" for example).
A couple of things - my five star scale won't be the same as other people's five star scales.
Since I'm reviewing games I bought I'd expect my average review score to average close to 4.
But what I'm demonstrating is that a five point scale clearly has advantages for nuance in reviews above the simple "recommend/ don't" that Steam currently has. For some games it's been a flick of a coin which way I went at the end and it means I'm either over scoring or underscoring on Steam's reviews whereas a "3" would be pretty accurate.
I also agree with the post that says you need to read the contents of the reviews and not just rely on the scores.
Finally those who've posted that all reviews can tell you is whether other people have enjoyed a game - they can't say whether you'll like it - are true too.
S.x.
And yet that remains your personal viewpoint of a game. I may think it is a 1 star. Am I wrong, no because it is my opinion of a game you enjoy.
Some people say "but YouTube switched from a five-star scale to an up-or-down system", but YouTube's five-star system wasn't attached to in-depth reviews of videos. Those were for reactions, not reviews.
Exactly.
Furthermore, all games have mix of good and bad and the really exceptional games are the ones where the positives far, far outweigh the negatives to the point that when you mention the bad stuff it's usually so minimal or insignificant that it sounds like you are just nitpicking. Those are 5/5 games and they are exceptionally rare but not according to the Steam review system, where a game that's simply good can become "Overwhelmingly positive". Especially if it's from an indie developer. Which makes the system just as meaningless as IGN's 7 to 10 scale.
I'm not the kind who writes long reviews but I've been in a situation when I was "forced" to give a negative review to a good game I had some issues with because there was no other option.
For example, Dragon Ball FighterZ is a game I love, a spectacular fighting game and the best Dragon Ball game ever made, but people could just shut the game down when they were about to lose a match with no real consequences, which ruined the online experience for honest players. So I switched the review to a thumbs down until recently when I came back to the game and noticed that you can filter out quitters from your matchmaking pool.
Valve's not going to do that.
They basically already did this when they transitioned from one to two recommendation statuses. Your old recommendations were assumed to be positive recommendations.
That said, what you're saying is why I suggest that Valve just go with a compromise solution, keeping the positive and negative statuses and just adding a neutral/informational status.
And as IO've said at the end of the day, this boils down to someone wanting to answer a question that wasn't asked. The question is 'Do/Can you recommend this game?'. Not 'How much do you like this game?' o, or even 'How do you rate this game?'. Why? Because therecommend it is a much more telling questtion that can only resolve into a yes or no because actions are themselves binary. You either 'take a step forward' or 'you do not take a step forward'. However you'd rate the game, or however your feel about the game is either enough to warrant recommendation or not enough to justify recommendation.
For some people a 3/5 is enough to warrant a erecommendation. For some people anything les than a 5/5 is not worthy of recommendation, and ina few cases someone can find a reason to recommend a 1/5 (you have to experience this Jank to believe it!).
COnversely it doesn't matter if you rate the game 4/5 or even 5/5 If you still can't recommend it thatt's pretty telling.
Suure the RPG could be a masterpiece of storytelling, and puzzle mechanics, on every level you can think of but you know enough that the FurryxFutaxShota themes are not something most people will appreciate, or be able to stomach.
Can/Do you recommend it? Is a question that cuts through a loty of needless fluff and yields a very explicit answer. And as a bonus one can write all the nuanced prose ones wants in the commentary and even slap a 4/5 in there. if you want, but at the end of the day... you have to be able to answer that core questtion.
And heck it actually allows you to achieve an understated nuance if you have the linguistic and compositional chops to do so.
This kind of dissociative behaviour is interesting and not unknown to Steam.
In a sense it can be seen in how many people focus their reviews already.
Yet YouTube dropped their star rating precisely due to that reason. Most votes rated in the extremes anyway.
And we've seen for years how rating systems in gaming have had this bias towards the extremes. In a sense ratings as metacritic show the same evil bias customer satisfaction ratings have for businesses. Anything below the top score is seen as a problem by a lot of people.
Remember there's a difference between YouTube insta like/ dislike and a review which usually has had far more pre-meditation.
S.x.