[SUGGESTION] Increase Review Minimum Play Time to 15 minutes from 5 minutes : Steam

[<™[-=> Cookiez <=-]™>]

Currently, minimum play time before you can write a review is at 15 minutes.

How about raising the bar to 15 minutes?

That way the reviews will be more substantial.

Remember that games include load times, cinematics, cut-scenes, tutorials, etc.

All these things start at the beginning of the game and take a few minutes each.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

How about searching for the various other threads about moving the bar.

tl;dr... It will not resolve anything.

[Zefar]

People can just wait 15 minutes in the menu and then review it. So it's pointless.

The only reason it has 5 minutes is to make sure the person at least tried to start the game.

[cinedine]

5 minutes is already too long if the game crashes after start.

[<™[-=> Cookiez <=-]™>]

Originally posted by Zefar:

People can just wait 15 minutes in the menu and then review it. So it's pointless.

The only reason it has 5 minutes is to make sure the person at least tried to start the game.

The same reasoning applies to 100 hours, 200 hours, etc.

Do you have a better suggestion?

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by <™-=> Cookiez <=-™>:

Originally posted by Zefar:

People can just wait 15 minutes in the menu and then review it. So it's pointless.

The only reason it has 5 minutes is to make sure the person at least tried to start the game.

The same reasoning applies to 100 hours, 200 hours, etc.

Do you have a better suggestion?

Judge reviews by their quality of information rather than their playtimes?

[Crazy Tiger]

Originally posted by <™-=> Cookiez <=-™>:

Originally posted by Zefar:

People can just wait 15 minutes in the menu and then review it. So it's pointless.

The only reason it has 5 minutes is to make sure the person at least tried to start the game.

The same reasoning applies to 100 hours, 200 hours, etc.

Do you have a better suggestion?

Yeah, leave it as it is.

[Mikasa Ackerman]

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Originally posted by <™-=> Cookiez <=-™>:

The same reasoning applies to 100 hours, 200 hours, etc.

Do you have a better suggestion?

Judge reviews by their quality of information rather than their playtimes?

exactly , i dont know how many hours i spend on final fantasy X on the ps2 , or how many on 13 on the xbox , i just know my 100% file on the 360 was 270 hours ( and thats only one file i played it multiple times , took me a while to beat it too )

just because someones playtime is low says nothing ,back in 2016 if i wanted to make a review about ff 10 i could do it in 10 minutes after looking at some cutscenes to judge the remaster , see if everything runs smoothly etc

i already know the game from having played it before , i dont need X amount of hours on steam to properly judge a game , also , i beat amaze in less than an hour , how long should i leave that small game lding to make a proper review

[<™[-=> Cookiez <=-]™>]

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Originally posted by <™-=> Cookiez <=-™>:

The same reasoning applies to 100 hours, 200 hours, etc.

Do you have a better suggestion?

Judge reviews by their quality of information rather than their playtimes?

How would one do that?

[cinedine]

Originally posted by <™-=> Cookiez <=-™>:

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Judge reviews by their quality of information rather than their playtimes?

How would one do that?

Reading them helps a lot.

Playtime doesn't in any way relate to the quality of a review. One of the more infamous reviews on Steam for Team Fortress 2was from a guy playing 1000+ hours. Quote: "It's okay I guess"

[<™[-=> Cookiez <=-]™>]

Originally posted by cinedine:

Originally posted by <™-=> Cookiez <=-™>:

How would one do that?

Reading them helps a lot.

Playtime doesn't in any way relate to the quality of a review. One of the more infamous reviews on Steam for Team Fortress 2was from a guy playing 1000+ hours. Quote: "It's okay I guess"

So, in your opinion, how would you define what is a "good review"?

And what's a "bad review"?

Then, to extrapolate from the above notion, what's a "good/bad reviewer"?

[cinedine]

Originally posted by <™-=> Cookiez <=-™>:

Originally posted by cinedine:

Reading them helps a lot.

Playtime doesn't in any way relate to the quality of a review. One of the more infamous reviews on Steam for Team Fortress 2was from a guy playing 1000+ hours. Quote: "It's okay I guess"

So, in your opinion, how would you define what is a "good review"?

And what's a "bad review"?

Then, to extrapolate from the above notion, what's a "good/bad reviewer"?

What does it matter. From your OP:

Originally posted by <™-=> Cookiez <=-™>:

How about raising the bar to 15 minutes?

That way the reviews will be more substantial.

Simply not true.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by <™-=> Cookiez <=-™>:

So, in your opinion, how would you define what is a "good review"?

One that answers your questions and/or provides truthful information (ie not intentionally deceptive)

And what's a "bad review"?

One that does not answer youyr questions and/or contains false information (ie it is written with the intention to deceive)

[<™[-=> Cookiez <=-]™>]

Originally posted by cinedine:

Originally posted by <™-=> Cookiez <=-™>:

So, in your opinion, how would you define what is a "good review"?

And what's a "bad review"?

Then, to extrapolate from the above notion, what's a "good/bad reviewer"?

What does it matter. From your OP:

Originally posted by <™-=> Cookiez <=-™>:

How about raising the bar to 15 minutes?

That way the reviews will be more substantial.

Simply not true.

So, you have no idea what is a good/bad review.

You have no idea what to do, do you?

[<™[-=> Cookiez <=-]™>]

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Originally posted by <™-=> Cookiez <=-™>:

So, in your opinion, how would you define what is a "good review"?

One that answers your questions and/or provides truthful information (ie not intentionally deceptive)

And what's a "bad review"?

One that does not answer youyr questions and/or contains false information (ie it is written with the intention to deceive)

And how will you find out if it's a truth/lie?

What if it's just an emotional opinion? E.g. One of the more infamous reviews on Steam for Team Fortress 2was from a guy playing 1000+ hours. Quote: "It's okay I guess"

[Zefar]

Originally posted by <™-=> Cookiez <=-™>:

Originally posted by Zefar:

People can just wait 15 minutes in the menu and then review it. So it's pointless.

The only reason it has 5 minutes is to make sure the person at least tried to start the game.

The same reasoning applies to 100 hours, 200 hours, etc.

Do you have a better suggestion?

If you go past the 2 hour mark all the bad games will have far less negative reviews making it look like it's a good game and in return only benefit bad publishers.