Why there is no "mixed" review option?

[Fingolfin]

Many times there are good things but not enough to give a positive review and bad things but not enough to give a negative review. I also see lots of "Thats a negative review although I love this game but this and that makes it kinda a bit tedious" such reviews. If steam can give us a "mixed" option it would be great. Should not be that hard?

[Start_Running]

Quint the Alligator Snapper님이 먼저 게시:

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

And you've at the same time failed to make any meaningfl distinction between any 2 neighboring points on the 5-point scale.

Actually they're quite obvious if you think about them:

top score: "games I really like"/"favorites"
above-middle score: "games I like, but not enough for them to be favorites"
middle score: "meh"
below-middle score: "games I dislike, but not enough to absolutely hate them"
bottom score: "games I hate"

It's quite simple, honestly.[/quote[]
Now here's a qestion that 's even simpler. At what point on that scale would yo consider the game worthy opf recommendation?

Also as i've constantly said the question isn't asking you how much or even if youu like the game, just whether or not you recommend it. You want answer a quesion hat isn't being ask. I mean if someone asks you "What ime is it?" do you start rattling off about how yor day has been? Please tell me you're not one *those* types.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

The current system has two very clear and distinct points that map perfectly to the nuumber of possible action states.

As has been pointed out before, there are more than two possible action states; you only bin them into two categories and then try to argue it's self-evident.

Dude. if you have to use another verb to describe the action state...is nott a state of he same action. Sorry, I know he english language is already buggered and bent more than a nymphomaniac yoga master but even it won't bend that far Quint.

if you have to uuse a different verb-clause to describe the state.. then i is a different action with its own binary action states.

There are only two possible responses to 'Do you recommend this game?" Either Yes or No.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Now here's a qestion that 's even simpler. At what point on that scale would yo consider the game worthy opf recommendation?

That's a question the reader can decide on their own. Different people have different thresholds for what they consider a good enough game to buy...and that's not to mention how heavily that depends on the price of the game.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

As has been pointed out before, there are more than two possible action states; you only bin them into two categories and then try to argue it's self-evident.

Dude. if you have to use another verb to describe the action state...is nott a state of he same action. Sorry, I know he english language is already buggered and bent more than a nymphomaniac yoga master but even it won't bend that far Quint.

Again trying to use linguistics as some sort of justification of your philosophy which in turn you use to justify the design of a review system here.

The decisions of prospective customers, in real life, are not binary decisions, no matter how much you try to twist logic into knots to say they are.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

There are only two possible responses to 'Do you recommend this game?" Either Yes or No.

Just because you can ask a question to force a binary response doesn't mean the only relevant responses are binary.

[Start_Running]

Foxdude님이 먼저 게시:

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

ITs not even that he GoG rating for Fallout 3 is that far off from Mettacritics or steam. TThey're all within a 10% range.

Which might be an indication that the Steam rating is inflated, since the GOG version works out of the box for the vast majority of users and the same cannot be said of the steam version.

And the steam version works ot of the box for some number of steam users. HArd to say since most people don't review, especially when the game performs within acceptable parameters.

Secondly the GoG player count is p[robably a good deal smaller than the Steam one so smaller sample size.

But we'll never know for sure as long as Steam keeps using this system. Remember a 70% approval rating is on Steam is not the same as a 7/10 average score.

True, but we can say that 70% thought the game was worth recommending.

You cannot equate the data gathered from a binary rating system to one gathered from a 5 or 10 point scale.

You actually can if tthey are applied to the same question. The problem here is tha there are two fundamenttally different qestions being asked. Though funny joke m8. Have you actuallly seen the reviews for Fallout 3 on Gog?


Here's the joke. There are as many mentions of crashing, and inability tto launch as with the steam version and yet it still manages a 3.8 average approval rating That maps to a 78%

[Start_Running]

Quint the Alligator Snapper님이 먼저 게시:

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Now here's a qestion that 's even simpler. At what point on that scale would yo consider the game worthy opf recommendation?

That's a question the reader can decide on their own. Different people have different thresholds for what they consider a good enough game to buy...and that's not to mention how heavily that depends on the price of the game.

The reader can't decide if they recommend sometthing...they haven't experienced it. The writter is the one who is in a position to recommend. An But thank you for pointing out the very thing i've said as to why the question Valve asks is more refuined. Recommendation is a more committed action than rating,, it requires more thought. And can be adapted to any rating scale because no matter a person's internall scale, there's always a buinary point on that scale where they will or won't recommend something.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Dude. if you have to use another verb to describe the action state...is nott a state of he same action. Sorry, I know he english language is already buggered and bent more than a nymphomaniac yoga master but even it won't bend that far Quint.

Again trying to use linguistics as some sort of justification of your philosophy which in turn you use to justify the design of a review system here.

Linguistics is the study of llanguage, langage is how we communicate. I guess it has ess import to people whio freely redefine meanings as it suits their need but no. The rest of us do understand how languuage works Quints.

The decisions of prospective customers, in real life, are not binary decisions, no matter how much you try to twist logic into knots to say they are.

They kind of are. A chain of IF-THEN-ELSE statements still amount to binary decisions.
The best you've been able to show is that there exists an opttion to delay the decision. But at some point the decision must resolve into a yes or no.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

There are only two possible responses to 'Do you recommend this game?" Either Yes or No.

Just because you can ask a question to force a binary response doesn't mean the only relevant responses are binary.

That's exactly what it means. As the questioner generally dictates what teh relvant answers are. I get the feeling you might just be one of those passive aggressive sorts that get mad at people for not asking them the qestions they want to answer. Quint. Let it go. GHow you feel; isn't oof particular importance to Vallve. Just your actions and if you're feeling chatty the factors that influenced the decision behind the action.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Quint the Alligator Snapper님이 먼저 게시:

That's a question the reader can decide on their own. Different people have different thresholds for what they consider a good enough game to buy...and that's not to mention how heavily that depends on the price of the game.

The reader can't decide if they recommend sometthing...they haven't experienced it. The writter is the one who is in a position to recommend. An But thank you for pointing out the very thing i've said as to why the question Valve asks is more refuined. Recommendation is a more committed action than rating,, it requires more thought. And can be adapted to any rating scale because no matter a person's internall scale, there's always a buinary point on that scale where they will or won't recommend something.

Unless you think that these recommendations exist in a vacuum -- which you apparently do since you've refused in this thread to reason any further than them, despite how much you grandstand on this first idea (as shown here) -- a recommendation needs to be worth the receiver's time.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Again trying to use linguistics as some sort of justification of your philosophy which in turn you use to justify the design of a review system here.

Linguistics is the study of llanguage, langage is how we communicate

And linguistics does not justify the Steam review system only having two options.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

I guess it has ess import to people whio freely redefine meanings as it suits their need but no.

Says the person who says it's not about "quality" but about "standards", and who says that a "requirement" is not "forced".

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

The decisions of prospective customers, in real life, are not binary decisions, no matter how much you try to twist logic into knots to say they are.

They kind of are. A chain of IF-THEN-ELSE statements still amount to binary decisions.

You can chain together an endless number of if/then statements in order to individually test an infinite number of possibilities. By your logic, that makes literally everything a binary decision.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

The best you've been able to show is that there exists an opttion to delay the decision. But at some point the decision must resolve into a yes or no.

Actually, it doesn't have to resolve at all, in real life.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Just because you can ask a question to force a binary response doesn't mean the only relevant responses are binary.

That's exactly what it means. As the questioner generally dictates what teh relvant answers are. I get the feeling you might just be one of those passive aggressive sorts that get mad at people for not asking them the qestions they want to answer. Quint. Let it go. GHow you feel; isn't oof particular importance to Vallve. Just your actions and if you're feeling chatty the factors that influenced the decision behind the action.

Wow, more irrelevant ad hominems from you.

The "questioner" in this case also dictated that they want suggestions, btw. :P

[Nx Machina]

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

And the steam version works ot of the box for some number of steam users. HArd to say since most people don't review, especially when the game performs within acceptable parameters.

Secondly the GoG player count is probably a good deal smaller than the Steam one so smaller sample size.

265 reviews GOG versus 29,536 Steam.

[Start_Running]

Quint the Alligator Snapper님이 먼저 게시:

Unless you think that these recommendations exist in a vacuum -- which you apparently do since you've refused in this thread to reason any further than them, despite how much you grandstand on this first idea (as shown here) -- a recommendation needs to be worth the receiver's time.

Quint. Don't project your flaws on to those who do not share them. You are the only one who's come close to stating that the recommendations are seperate and apart. I have said multiple times that I consder the WHOLE information package presented.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Linguistics is the study of llanguage, langage is how we communicate

And linguistics does not justify the Steam review system only having two options.

Yup it can. The same way langage dictates you can't split something into 3 halves.
Sorry Quint but words have meanings. Sentence constructs carry meaning. You not liking the meaning doesn't meanin you can insert your own meaning.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

They kind of are. A chain of IF-THEN-ELSE statements still amount to binary decisions.

You can chain together an endless number of if/then statements in order to individually test an infinite number of possibilities. By your logic, that makes literally everything a binary decision.

Every decision that results in an action at any rate.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

The best you've been able to show is that there exists an opttion to delay the decision. But at some point the decision must resolve into a yes or no.

Actually, it doesn't have to resolve at all, in real life.

It does. The moment you die or cease to exist the answer defaults to one or the other.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

That's exactly what it means. As the questioner generally dictates what teh relvant answers are. I get the feeling you might just be one of those passive aggressive sorts that get mad at people for not asking them the qestions they want to answer. Quint. Let it go. GHow you feel; isn't oof particular importance to Vallve. Just your actions and if you're feeling chatty the factors that influenced the decision behind the action.

Wow, more irrelevant ad hominems from you.

Is that the standard definition of ad hominem or the Ouint definition of ad hominem?
THe point still stands. Valve is not asking how you feel. Valve doesn't particularly care for how you feel. The really just care if you recommend or do not recommend the game and to a lesser degree the reasons for your decision to recommend/not recommend.

The "questioner" in this case also dictated that they want suggestions, btw. :P

Discussions of Suggestions Quint. Likely a form of outsouurcing the trash filtration. If a suggestion cannot stand up to cross examination. Its probably not worth it.

Especially when the suggestion is technically regressive.

[cinedine]

Foxdude님이 먼저 게시:

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

ITs not even that he GoG rating for Fallout 3 is that far off from Mettacritics or steam. TThey're all within a 10% range.

Which might be an indication that the Steam rating is inflated, since the GOG version works out of the box for the vast majority of users and the same cannot be said of the steam version.

But we'll never know for sure as long as Steam keeps using this system. Remember a 70% approval rating is on Steam is not the same as a 7/10 average score.
You cannot equate the data gathered from a binary rating system to one gathered from a 5 or 10 point scale.

Remember that Steam shows an approval rating and NOT a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ score.
The approval rating of vanilla ice cream is 90 %. That doesn't mean it's the best ice cream ever.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Quint the Alligator Snapper님이 먼저 게시:

Unless you think that these recommendations exist in a vacuum -- which you apparently do since you've refused in this thread to reason any further than them, despite how much you grandstand on this first idea (as shown here) -- a recommendation needs to be worth the receiver's time.

Quint. Don't project your flaws on to those who do not share them. You are the only one who's come close to stating that the recommendations are seperate and apart. I have said multiple times that I consder the WHOLE information package presented.

Don't project your flaws onto others; everyone considers the whole information package, but most people (but not you apparently?) can tell which parts are more important.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

And linguistics does not justify the Steam review system only having two options.

Yup it can. The same way langage dictates you can't split something into 3 halves.
Sorry Quint but words have meanings. Sentence constructs carry meaning. You not liking the meaning doesn't meanin you can insert your own meaning.

Yet somehow "3 halves" is actually a meaningful idea that's useful in real life, so you're not even getting your tangential arguments right, despite your gall to grandstand on this stuff.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Actually, it doesn't have to resolve at all, in real life.

It does. The moment you die or cease to exist the answer defaults to one or the other.

Not sure if you've noticed but video game developers/publishers tend not to be as long-lived as people. Bring this back up when the audience of Steam becomes largely sexagenarians or older.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Especially when the suggestion is technically regressive.

Nope; it offers reviewers an additional option, while keeping what's already available in place. It allows people to more accurately represent their opinions in the review system. It harmonizes the review system with the curator system. You may not like these things, but these would be improvements.

[Start_Running]

Quint the Alligator Snapper님이 먼저 게시:

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Quint. Don't project your flaws on to those who do not share them. You are the only one who's come close to stating that the recommendations are seperate and apart. I have said multiple times that I consder the WHOLE information package presented.

Don't project your flaws onto others; everyone considers the whole information package, but most people (but not you apparently?) can't tell which parts are more important.

...to them.. And some people divide the import equally rendering the question of more or less irrelevant.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Yup it can. The same way langage dictates you can't split something into 3 halves.
Sorry Quint but words have meanings. Sentence constructs carry meaning. You not liking the meaning doesn't meanin you can insert your own meaning.

Yet somehow "3 halves" is actually a meaningful idea that's useful in real life, so you're not even getting your tangential arguments right, despite your gall to grandstand on this stuff.

3 Halves is a great phrase for describing or conveying the idea of something that is impossible by definition. It's allso thematically appropriate since you seem to be arguing that there need to be 3 where only 2 are possible. Gee its amost as if I chose that phrase for the layered applications in the context of the discussion. But some how you missed the nuance...as you tend to do.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

It does. The moment you die or cease to exist the answer defaults to one or the other.

Not sure if you've noticed but video game developers/publishers tend not to be as long-lived as people. Bring this back up when the audience of Steam becomes largely sexagenarians or older.[/quote]
What woud that have to do with the point made? Any decision relating to a specific action will resollve into a yes or no at some point. At the time of death or non existance this will default to a yes or no. You're free to test this for yourself.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Especially when the suggestion is technically regressive.

Nope; it offers reviewers an additional option, while keeping what's already available in place.[/quote] Wrong on both. To allow dfor the option you want a different question needs to be asked and once you ask a different question you can't appply the answers of the previous questtion to it. You're basically asking for a hard reset of the system.

And for what? To make it muddier and less useful. I know your ideal vision of Steam would entail it becoming like GoG.. but GoG is not what Steam wants to be. Valve wants steam to be Successful and a market leaderm, which is !GoG.

It allows people to more accurately represent their opinions in the review system.

So you're saying there are people who can't recommend it, but at the same time can't not recommend it. Sounds exactly like the sort of people with coherent opinions. It's not rocket science. You either say if you recommend it or not, or you don't want to say if you recommend it or not. If you don't want tos ay then thats fine but Valve only wants the answers of people who feel comfortable saying if the recommend something or not.

It harmonizes the review system with the curator system. You may not like these things, but these would be improvements.

The curator system which is in of itsellf a mess. WHy wold you want to harmonize anything with that... oh wait the crator system is closer to GoG./ Yo can say stff,, without saying any commitment and you don't even need to have played or even have owned the game to do so....makes sense ;)

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Quint the Alligator Snapper님이 먼저 게시:

Don't project your flaws onto others; everyone considers the whole information package, but most people (but not you apparently?) can't tell which parts are more important.

FYI I realized I typo'd and fixed it. It should say "most people can tell which parts are more important." My apologies for the typo. It's now fixed in my post.

Though I guess you got me back with multiple misformatted quotes.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Yet somehow "3 halves" is actually a meaningful idea that's useful in real life, so you're not even getting your tangential arguments right, despite your gall to grandstand on this stuff.

3 Halves is a great phrase for describing or conveying the idea of something that is impossible by definition.

Now you're just outright making your own meanings. Or you haven't studied math.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

only 2 are possible.

Again, the actual decision involves more than two choices. Just because you can script it as a long chain of individual binary choices doesn't mean that the decision is actually binary.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

It does. The moment you die or cease to exist the answer defaults to one or the other.

Not sure if you've noticed but video game developers/publishers tend not to be as long-lived as people. Bring this back up when the audience of Steam becomes largely sexagenarians or older.

What woud that have to do with the point made? Any decision relating to a specific action will resollve into a yes or no at some point. At the time of death or non existance this will default to a yes or no. You're free to test this for yourself.

And "the time of death or non existence" is not particularly relevant to potential customers on Steam looking for a game today.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

Especially when the suggestion is technically regressive.

Nope; it offers reviewers an additional option, while keeping what's already available in place.

Wrong on both. To allow dfor the option you want a different question needs to be asked and once you ask a different question you can't appply the answers of the previous questtion to it. You're basically asking for a hard reset of the system.

No new question needs to be asked; the system only needs to accept a non-answer, that's all.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

And for what? To make it muddier and less useful.

It makes it no muddier at all. In fact, the Steam userscore can continue to be calculated the same way.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

I know your ideal vision of Steam would entail it becoming like GoG.. but GoG is not what Steam wants to be. Valve wants steam to be Successful and a market leaderm, which is !GoG.

My ideal version of Steam would sell games in DRM-free form, and that's basically it as far as similarities go with GOG. And there is no coherent conceptual meaning to "!GoG" except as an excuse on your part to rag on GOG.

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

It harmonizes the review system with the curator system. You may not like these things, but these would be improvements.

The curator system which is in of itsellf a mess. WHy wold you want to harmonize anything with that... oh wait the crator system is closer to GoG./ Yo can say stff,, without saying any commitment and you don't even need to have played or even have owned the game to do so....makes sense ;)

Except what you said is not my idea and is also irrelevant.

The question of whether someone who doesn't own a game can comment on it is separate from the question of whether someone is forced to choose positive or negative for a headline rating on a review.

Also, the main reason the curator system isn't as useful as the review system is because its text entry fields are limited to 200 characters.

[FOXDUDE69]

cinedine님이 먼저 게시:

Foxdude님이 먼저 게시:

Which might be an indication that the Steam rating is inflated, since the GOG version works out of the box for the vast majority of users and the same cannot be said of the steam version.

But we'll never know for sure as long as Steam keeps using this system. Remember a 70% approval rating is on Steam is not the same as a 7/10 average score.
You cannot equate the data gathered from a binary rating system to one gathered from a 5 or 10 point scale.

Remember that Steam shows an approval rating and NOT a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ score.
The approval rating of vanilla ice cream is 90 %. That doesn't mean it's the best ice cream ever.

Exactly! See? We do agree on some things, bro.

[Nx Machina]

Only two outcomes- Buy or Not. Yes or No.

Recommended - I suggest you buy this game.

Not recommended - I suggest you do not buy this game.

[FOXDUDE69]

Shogun Blade님이 먼저 게시:

Only two outcomes- Buy or Not. Yes or No.

Recommended - I suggest you buy this game.

Not recommended - I suggest you do not buy this game.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

[Nx Machina]

Foxdude님이 먼저 게시:

Shogun Blade님이 먼저 게시:

Only two outcomes- Buy or Not. Yes or No.

Recommended - I suggest you buy this game.

Not recommended - I suggest you do not buy this game.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

So true and absolutes will determine whether she says yes or no to your needs.