安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
此主題的作者已將一篇留言標為問題解答。
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
I see no issue or harm in adding more filtering options so the user can further fine tune the reviews they want to see. However, that is quite different then excluding reviews from the aggregate score based on what could only be an arbitrary time played.
It's just the difference in numbers between the two time periods. I hear you though, it went on my 'not a chance in hell I'll play it" after the free weekend crap.
I don't care whether people use it and I also don't care about achievements. They hold no value, in my opinion. Therefore I disagree that a review should be weighted simply because someone has achievements. That's not just about SAM, but as a concept of a whole.
I don't see people using SAM as a bad thing. It doesn't influence me in any way, when others use it. Valve also doesn't care about it.
I also don't see myself as defending SAM, but more as trying to make sure that no misinformation gets spread. Therefore I said that it's all assumptions.
In my opinion, you're getting at it from the wrong angle. You want Steam reviews to be something they are not. They are not actual, professional reviews. Playtime hours mean very little, as do achievements. You don't need 20-40 hours to get the gist of an RPG. You don't need more than 10-15 minutes to know whether you want to keep on playing or not, and thusly whether you recommend or don't recommend the game.
Steam reviews are opinions, nothing more, nothing less. It's perfectly valid to have an opinion about a game after 10 minutes of play. I always form the major part of my opinion in the first 10-30 minutes, because that's when I decide whether I keep on playing or not. If I keep playing longer, my opinion may be expanded, but that's all.
What you, in my opinion, actually need, is something my friend Quint has mentioned before. Better filters, with sliders for minimum and maximum playtime. That way you can filter things the way you like it. It won't stop one-liners, but some things you just have to scroll past, eh.
Aren't you a great guy.
Except there is a problem with CS:GO. In 2015 (and apparently several other times) there has been an update / glitch / bug that ruined achievement data for some users by overwriting the date on all of them to the date of an update. It is also impossible to revert according to people who contacted support. So you'll be reporting someone who already is a victim and make them a double victim because of your self-righteousness.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/730/discussions/0/1741106440029599902/
https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comments/5lo4uk/all_my_csgo_achievements_have_the_same_date_and/dbx7udt/
And of course there are cheap anime games that give you all achievements at the same time or when you open/close the game.
Also, threatening to report someone for having just 2000 achievements unlocked over years of gaming shows how low you are willing to go to defend your already self-derailed thread. Achievements don't even have anything to do with low playtime reviews. You just want to antagonize those who disagree with you at this point.
This is where the “objective viewpoints” came up in the first place.
Software has bugs. So the statement itself, as an appropriate review topic, is banal and worthless. I won’t say that, categorically, it’s worthless to discuss bugginess relative to other titles, but that’s getting far from being “objective” at that point.
What’s more, that effort would be better invested, generally, in reporting the problems to the developer.
“The game requires you to invest a lot of time” doesn’t exactly sound objective. What’s our reference game for this?
Finally trailing off with an et cetera gives an impression you have more “objective viewpoints” you simply cannot be bothered to enumerate. Why so coy?
Which again if you read through my post makes no difference, free or not, reviews do not change a game.
Good luck with that, a little advice, don't hold your breath.
if you want more objective points about games you could talk about the setting, you could talk about the sounds, you could talk about the graphics, even though some people do not care about graphics, im pretty sure we can all agree objectively when graphics are good or bad.
Performance is objective, AKA this game is not optimized.
Pointing out Hardware that doesnt work with the game is also objective.
Discussing whether it is CPU or GPU intensive is objective.
Discussing how many players are playing it is objective
downtime/uptime of the server is objective.
How often it recieves updates is objective.
How many developers are working on it is objective
Good luck with that. And you're now blocked, troll.
>Play free game.
>Poor controls make it impossible to play.
>Leave bad review warning others that this game is terrible.
I don't see why I should have to play a bad game for hours just so I can leave a review telling people what is obvious after 5 mins of playing this game.