Suggestion: Game Rating Enhancement

[Goundski]

Suggestion: I think players that played a game for less than 10 hours cannot give an honest review of a game. Maybe put a requirement of at least 10 hours play time before someone can review a game.

[MadBone12]

This has been discussed many times and all the reasons why this does not make sense have already been discussed. Short version:
- people will just idle the game, making the time meaningless
- there are many games that are less than ten hours so those games would never be reviewed
- if someone tried to play a game over and over but couldn't due to bugs, people would want to know that but a time restriction would limit that

And many other reasons. Use the search function.

[ElvisDeadly]

Pointless.

Because, yes, you can give an honest review of many games with less than 10 hours game time. You can finish many games in less time than that.

And if you did need 10 hours people would just idle, it would be impossible to know who had genuine time and who just idled to leave a review.

How about YOU use the filters provided and ignore reviews with less than 10 hours played if you don't value them?

[Walach]

I just want an answer on "what magically happens after 10 hours that makes you be able to make a good review?" :P

[Crazy Tiger]

Good thing that the Steam reviews are merely about recommending a game. Most people don't actually need 10 hours of a game to decide whether they do or do not recommend a game. Personally I very rarely need 10 hours to decide whether I do or do not recommend a game. Often enough it's within 1-2 hours for me.

That said, things like idling, offline play, games shorter than 10 hours (which there are quite a lot) and such mean that an arbitrary limit is pointless. The current 5 minutes one is good.

For your own personal arbitrary limit you can use the filters: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2667102909

[DC-GS]

So you want exclude ALL the reviews of broken games which had to be refunded, since they have to refund the game with less than 2 hours.

No thanks.

If a game gets refunded A LOT, i want to know it. Dont hide it!

[Menzagitat]

Originally posted by Goundski:

Suggestion: I think players that played a game for less than 10 hours cannot give an honest review of a game. Maybe put a requirement of at least 10 hours play time before someone can review a game.

- Some games can be finished in less than 10 hours.
- Some games have problems which prevent you to play it or enjoy it already during the first hour you played. And in that case they deserve a negative review.

- But a more unclear case is where the game starts well, you enjoy half if it but toward the end it becomes frustrating. If you write a review after you played just half of it, then you will not mention the negative parts. Also for this reason the yes/no review system is bad for the players.

[The End]

Originally posted by Goundski:

Suggestion: I think players that played a game for less than 10 hours cannot give an honest review of a game. Maybe put a requirement of at least 10 hours play time before someone can review a game.

The so called "review" is a personal opinion and as such no timeframe is needed.

BTW. no matter what, playtime can be idled as long as needed.

Has to be a NOPE from me on this

[Yasahi]

I suggest that only users that have been on Steam for at least 18 years are allowed to make suggestions since they're the only ones with enough experience to understand how the platform works.

That would actually make as much sense as your arbitrary time limit of 10 hours. It would also mean that for some games, you'd need several playthroughs before being able to review the game. That would be quite silly, right?

[Gwarsbane]

Originally posted by Goundski:

Suggestion: I think players that played a game for less than 10 hours cannot give an honest review of a game. Maybe put a requirement of at least 10 hours play time before someone can review a game.

This looks like another "the game I like is getting bad ratings, I want to change things so it gets better ratings, so instead of the developers making a better game, lets get rid of everyone who didn't refund the game so its mostly people who like the game" suggestion, which we have had lots of....

All your suggestion would do is heavily skew all reviews to the positive because anyone who didn't like the game in the first 2 hours or had problems with even getting the game running for the minimum of 5 minutes would not be able to leave a negative review.

So just like all the other threads about this topic which you should have used the search feature to look at them and read and either add to the latest one or just not bother posting instead of making a whole new thread, I say no to this because its a bad suggestion.

[Supafly]

Originally posted by Goundski:

Suggestion: I think players that played a game for less than 10 hours cannot give an honest review of a game. Maybe put a requirement of at least 10 hours play time before someone can review a game.

I think anyone no matter how many hours played has a relevant viewpoint NOT just those that like it.

I've played many a game where I couldn't overlook my dislikes within the first 2 hours and my view is 100% valid. Anyone that has the same views and isn't willing to overlook certain things will find my review helpful where as the view of someone who can overlook various dislikes less so. a reader would buy the game and then refund it because the reviewer didn't mention the negatives.

For example Cyberpunk. Refunded because the damn F key being un-mappable when the rest are and the F key does what the E key has been default for decades. Sure I could have found a way to modify it myself but the point is myself or others shouldnt have too.

If you're willing to mess around to force a k to be remappable when you can simply rebind all the others thats fine but for those that are less than accepting of such actions would find a review by me more helpful.

Ignorance does NOT make a good review.
One viewpoint does NOT make a good review.
Only talking about the positives with a biased viewpoint does NOT make a good review.

If long playtime is required to review you may as well shove you head up your *** to smell the roses because reading them are clearly biased

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by Goundski:

Suggestion: I think players that played a game for less than 10 hours cannot give an honest review of a game. Maybe put a requirement of at least 10 hours play time before someone can review a game.

Horrible idea, you'd force people to choose between being able to get a refund or telling people a game is bad so you'd vastly skew the reviews making them even more unreliable.

[Goundski]

You all make fair points. So let me ask this. Whats the purpose of a review then on steam in the first place? I mean if you looked at a car and just climbed into it and out an never drove it or even worse never drove it in the rain, on the dirt, at night in the heat or in the cold etc, meaning you did not spend time to understand all the functions of the car. Could you realty say it is a good or bad car. If someone just stands their to to simulate the time so they can say they spent the time with the car. Is that realty then a review to start off with. If one cannot filler out the useless info then whats the point. Then it should just be removed. I do however thing reviews does add value. Especially if it comes from the community rather than some marketed/sponsored individual. But in the game world spending 0.3H play time (not even finishing a tutorial) and the rate something bad is not realty helping anyone now. So what can be done to try and optimise this function so that it becomes more accurate and delivers a more calculated fair result?

[Crazy Tiger]

Originally posted by Goundski:

Whats the purpose of a review then on steam in the first place?

To rate the game recommended/not recommended based on a personal opinion and/or experience. Saying "I like it because it's blue" or "I don't like it because it isn't blue" already is enough for that.

It wouldn't be helpful to me, but I just scroll past it.

Originally posted by Goundski:

If one cannot filler out the useless info then whats the point.

You can filter out reviews below a certain playtime. I already showed that.

Originally posted by Goundski:

But in the game world spending 0.3H play time (not even finishing a tutorial) and the rate something bad is not realty helping anyone now.

Except that someone with 0,3H playtime could have spend playing the game for 100 hours in offline mode. It could also be someone who ran into technical issues with the game. It could even be someone who tried the game and immediately got put off with it.

All valid reviews.

Originally posted by Goundski:

So what can be done to try and optimise this function so that it becomes more accurate and delivers a more calculated fair result?

You use the available filters to only show you the reviews that are according to your personal metric. And you scroll past ones that you find uninteresting or not helpful (and thumb them down).

Your suggestion doesn't produce a "more calculated fair result", it merely produces a "result that fits your confirmation bias".

[ElvisDeadly]

Originally posted by Goundski:

You all make fair points. So let me ask this. Whats the purpose of a review then on steam in the first place? I mean if you looked at a car and just climbed into it and out an never drove it or even worse never drove it in the rain, on the dirt, at night in the heat or in the cold etc, meaning you did not spend time to understand all the functions of the car. Could you realty say it is a good or bad car. If someone just stands their to to simulate the time so they can say they spent the time with the car. Is that realty then a review to start off with. If one cannot filler out the useless info then whats the point. Then it should just be removed. I do however thing reviews does add value. Especially if it comes from the community rather than some marketed/sponsored individual. But in the game world spending 0.3H play time (not even finishing a tutorial) and the rate something bad is not realty helping anyone now. So what can be done to try and optimise this function so that it becomes more accurate and delivers a more calculated fair result?

Steam reviews are personal opinions about games, they don't have to be fair or balanced.

And just because some people have opinions that are not the same as yours does not mean they are wrong.

[Supafly]

Originally posted by Goundski:

You all make fair points. So let me ask this. Whats the purpose of a review then on steam in the first place? I mean if you looked at a car and just climbed into it and out an never drove it or even worse never drove it in the rain, on the dirt, at night in the heat or in the cold etc, meaning you did not spend time to understand all the functions of the car. Could you realty say it is a good or bad car. If someone just stands their to to simulate the time so they can say they spent the time with the car. Is that realty then a review to start off with. If one cannot filler out the useless info then whats the point. Then it should just be removed. I do however thing reviews does add value. Especially if it comes from the community rather than some marketed/sponsored individual. But in the game world spending 0.3H play time (not even finishing a tutorial) and the rate something bad is not realty helping anyone now. So what can be done to try and optimise this function so that it becomes more accurate and delivers a more calculated fair result?

Ofcourse. If we get in and the seat is uncomfortable, maybe too high/low far forward/back with sucky lumbar support driving is pointless because we won't want to drive something when we're uncomfortable from the start. Not everyone is of the same height and build. Reviewing and saying you dislike it seat and your sitting position cause your 6ft 6inches is a VALID review. Could be the best drive of any car but if you can't even bring yourself to start the engine and drive it it wouldn't matter