The case for Neutral Reviews

[loppantorkel]

I haven't been bothered by this before, but there's a solid argument for an informational, neutral review, that isn't 'good' or 'bad'.

Status quo, with good/bad reviews, can be attempted, but I think people get more and more aware of the issue with a binary review system. 97% review game should be excellent or at least enjoyable, yes? What if it's not for you? Do you leave it a bad review just for the space to inform other players, do you leave another good review or just don't inform them?
I'd be inclined to leave a bad review in absence of a neutral option. There should be a platform to inform players without having to recommend the game, even if it's a decent-good game. Example: Citizen Sleeper, or Inscryption

Early Access games that have been enjoyed but aren't updated as fast as one would hope - a neutral review would allow the players to inform without recommending or down-voting the game. Example: Valheim

Leaving the current binary system as it is can of course be attempted, but we've seen an increase of the 'review bombing' during the years and attempts to rectify it. Why is it becoming more of an issue? Probably because it's one way to affect the score and an attempt to produce a change, and this won't go away, but it's certainly exacerbated by the binary system which forces players to either side to make their voice heard. Attempts to review bomb games won't go away, but the more level headed segment of gamers who might be disappointed may just want to inform others rather than causing more disturbance. Example: CP2077

So what about all the current review scores? Just leave them and the future ones as a Good vs Bad %, and have the neutral ones as a side feature for people interested in another perspective.

I know this isn't a new idea, but it deserves to be revisited.

[loppantorkel]

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

loppantorkel님이 먼저 게시:

A thing that is slightly disappointing to see is the extreme reluctance to accept that there are any benefits to a more graded system, in general or more specifically for Steam.

It's generalluy considered a good thing not to accept anything that cannot be shown to be true.
I've said it before. These things are like tools in a tool box. Is a rubber hammer inherently superior to a wooden mallet, Are either automatically worse compared to a claw hammer?

No. They have their use cases.

loppantorkel님이 먼저 게시:

There's the 'prove it' argument which is pretty dumb to be honest. Why? Since you're fond of analogies - it's like having to prove there are benefits to having one or two more gears in a manual gearbox.

Whether or not the two more gears are of use depend entirely on the machine the gearbox is in. The more gears the more complexity, the more complexity the more prone to wear and failure and conversely the more problematic it is to repair. WOw. WHo'd have thunk it?

So yeah you're going to have to prove that it's worth the trade off to add 2 extra gears.

Even your own analogies prove you wrong. When one actually understands all the pieces in place and does not make assumptions.

loppantorkel님이 먼저 게시:

If you're in the extreme - only with one or two gears - there's usually some benefit in adding a few more gears. 10 gears - not that much benefit to add more.

That again depends on the machinery involved. SOmetimes. all you need is a forward gear and a reverse gear for idea performance in a given use case.

If there is a benefit to change. SHow it. So far no benefit has been shown. Quite the contrary.
And the fact that some complain about having to show the benefit shows an inability to do so due to trying to solve a problem that can't be shown to exist. Well what people will agree is a problem. Many don't see trhe exclusion of people who refuse to make up their minds or who refuse to state what theyu've made their minds up to...is not a problem.

Indecisive wafflers not being able to post reviews isn't a bug...its a feature.

You're kind of proving my overall point. We already went through this one time before too. Well done!

[Start_Running]

FOXDUDE69님이 먼저 게시:

debate lord님이 먼저 게시:

I legit don't see any benefits of something like a 5-point system unless we're talking about professional critics 🤔

Professional critics, whose opinion is as easy to buy as they are out of touch with what gamers value.

Are they?

FOXDUDE69님이 먼저 게시:

Unless you are talking Youtubers, there's no such thing as a professional videogame critic, just a bunch of journalism majors who couldn't get a job at a real newspaper and now have to make a living covering an industry they clearly hate.

One can say the same thing about any field of critic. FIlm, Literature, Art, Musi, Culinary, fashion, etc...

[white but not quite]

FOXDUDE69님이 먼저 게시:

debate lord님이 먼저 게시:

I legit don't see any benefits of something like a 5-point system unless we're talking about professional critics 🤔

Professional critics, whose opinion is as easy to buy as they are out of touch with what gamers value. Unless you are talking Youtubers, there's no such thing as a professional videogame critic, just a bunch of journalism majors who couldn't get a job at a real newspaper and now have to make a living covering an industry they clearly hate.

I was saying in general

I would assume that most reputable sources actually vet their critics. And you can get a feel of how a certain critic rates things if you familiarize yourself with their tastes, which you simply cannot do with a large and diverse crowd of random people

[Start_Running]

loppantorkel님이 먼저 게시:

You're kind of proving my overall point. We already went through this one time before too. Well done!

And you've proven mine.

As said. If you can't show inaccuracy, you can't show improved accuracy.
The best you can say is that you'd prefer if they asked you a different question.
But Valve knows what information they want, so you're going to have to show why the information you'd prefer to give is the information they want to ask for. and so far.. you haven't.

FOr most people the why is as important as the what hence why the system involves both.
And there's nothing that would be said in a neutral review, literally nothing, that cannot be sid just as if not more effectively with a Yes/No.

Or at leats. No one has been able to demonstrate such.

M8. Its okay that you like graded systems. Thats fine but if you want someone else to use them.. you have to demonstrate their efficacy for their usecase.

[Brian9824]

FOXDUDE69님이 먼저 게시:

Team Fortress 2. :Talking_Skull:
A 6/10 game. :spazdunno:
Since it's a 6, 90% of people rate it positively. :cupup::fgsmile:
Valve takes that 90% positive rating, feeds it to Google as a 9/10 and gives TF2 a 9/10 on Google searches. :dallars:
Real slick, Valve. :goldentoilet:

Facts would seem to not match that claim.

Steam score gives it a 90%
Critic scores on metacritic give it a 92%
User scores on metacritic give it a 90%

So in this case all 3 scores perfectly match, so if the steam scores are wrong then Metacritic with their "more accurate" review system also has to be wrong, and thus their 5 star system can't be accurate...

Sounds like your confusing your personal opinion with facts again.

[loppantorkel]

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

loppantorkel님이 먼저 게시:

You're kind of proving my overall point. We already went through this one time before too. Well done!

And you've proven mine.

As said. If you can't show inaccuracy, you can't show improved accuracy.
The best you can say is that you'd prefer if they asked you a different question.
But Valve knows what information they want, so you're going to have to show why the information you'd prefer to give is the information they want to ask for. and so far.. you haven't.

FOr most people the why is as important as the what hence why the system involves both.
And there's nothing that would be said in a neutral review, literally nothing, that cannot be sid just as if not more effectively with a Yes/No.

Or at leats. No one has been able to demonstrate such.

I gave you a simple example of increased accuracy, which in turn could increase sales. More specific data by the users will let Valve more accurately target their games to users who enjoy similar games.

I've given an example of one benefit for more grades.

[Start_Running]

loppantorkel님이 먼저 게시:

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

And you've proven mine.

As said. If you can't show inaccuracy, you can't show improved accuracy.
The best you can say is that you'd prefer if they asked you a different question.
But Valve knows what information they want, so you're going to have to show why the information you'd prefer to give is the information they want to ask for. and so far.. you haven't.

FOr most people the why is as important as the what hence why the system involves both.
And there's nothing that would be said in a neutral review, literally nothing, that cannot be sid just as if not more effectively with a Yes/No.

Or at leats. No one has been able to demonstrate such.

I gave you a simple example of increased accuracy, which in turn could increase sales.

No you gave an example of misunderstanding the Use case.

Valve is seeking to capture data regarding how many people recommend a ggame versus those that do not recommend the game. So there is only one thing that matters to Valve. Do you recommend the game? Yes/No answeers that question in the most effecient and effective manner. Because as demonstrated In light of the central question..neutral is jusrt another No. They already have an option for uindicating one does not recommend the game.. it's No.

loppantorkel님이 먼저 게시:

More specific data by the users will let Valve more accurately target their games to users who enjoy similar games.

Specificity only really matters where you have an objective usnit of measure.
If you're measuring length,mm gives you greater precision than inches. But when the thing is 'feels' and opinion. yeah specificity is pretty meaningless.

But the system allows you to be as specific as you want.. in that handy text box.
You're two buttons. Red and Blue. . Click red and then use the text box to say whether you're hexachrome, pantone, brick, vermillion, apple, dark, light, carmine, crimson, blood, or pale. Red.

[white but not quite]

loppantorkel님이 먼저 게시:

I gave you a simple example of increased accuracy, which in turn could increase sales. More specific data by the users will let Valve more accurately target their games to users who enjoy similar games.

Hmm how would that even work? "90% of jrpg lovers recommend this game", "35% of turn-based strategy fans hated this game"? or what do you mean

[loppantorkel]

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

loppantorkel님이 먼저 게시:

I gave you a simple example of increased accuracy, which in turn could increase sales.

No you gave an example of misunderstanding the Use case.

Valve is seeking to capture data regarding how many people recommend a ggame versus those that do not recommend the game. So there is only one thing that matters to Valve. Do you recommend the game? Yes/No answeers that question in the most effecient and effective manner. Because as demonstrated In light of the central question..neutral is jusrt another No. They already have an option for uindicating one does not recommend the game.. it's No.

You're making assumptions again. Are you aware of hypotheticals? We do have to think of things beyond what we have now to theorise of potential benefits. If you're unable to see any potential benefits in a more graded system despite me giving a specific example of a benefit - I don't think I can help you. This is what I meant by the the longer blurb on the previous page. Admitting potential benefits isn't admitting defeat.

loppantorkel님이 먼저 게시:

More specific data by the users will let Valve more accurately target their games to users who enjoy similar games.

Specificity only really matters where you have an objective usnit of measure.
If you're measuring length,mm gives you greater precision than inches. But when the thing is 'feels' and opinion. yeah specificity is pretty meaningless.

It's almost as if the current recommendations aren't based on 'feels' and opinion. pretty meaningless huh. Nah 'pretty meaningless' is only in your head. Would grades be specific? Probably not, but there'd be a potential for increased specificity, and the data would likely be usable, which is more or less proven by Youtube's need for a 5-star questionaries.

But the system allows you to be as specific as you want.. in that handy text box.
You're two buttons. Red and Blue. . Click red and then use the text box to say whether you're hexachrome, pantone, brick, vermillion, apple, dark, light, carmine, crimson, blood, or pale. Red.

Why bring this up when we're discussing data usage?

[FOXDUDE69]

brian9824님이 먼저 게시:

Steam score gives it a 90%
Critic scores on metacritic give it a 92%
User scores on metacritic give it a 90%

Critic scores shouldn't be taken seriously, they are typically wrong. And when they are right, they are right for the wrong reasons.
And isn't you guys that keep saying metacritic is trash? At least when it comes to the rating of TF2. looks like it is trash.

[loppantorkel]

debate lord님이 먼저 게시:

loppantorkel님이 먼저 게시:

I gave you a simple example of increased accuracy, which in turn could increase sales. More specific data by the users will let Valve more accurately target their games to users who enjoy similar games.

Hmm how would that even work? "90% of jrpg lovers recommend this game", "35% of turn-based strategy fans hated this game"? or what do you mean

This guy 5-stared the same games you did, he 1-stared the same games you did, he 3-stared the same games you did. This obscure indie title that he also 5-stared is missing from your account - perhaps you'd like it too? Steam can recommend games more specifically to you.

[white but not quite]

loppantorkel님이 먼저 게시:

debate lord님이 먼저 게시:

Hmm how would that even work? "90% of jrpg lovers recommend this game", "35% of turn-based strategy fans hated this game"? or what do you mean

This guy 5-stared the same games you did, he 1-stared the same games you did, he 3-stared the same games you did. This obscured indie title that he also 5-stared is missing from your account - perhaps you'd like it too? Steam can recommend games more specifically to you.

Oh so this is about recommendations now? Why do you keep moving the goalposts all the time. Maybe you should update the OP so it's clear what is it that you want

[Zero, Dark Knight]

debate lord님이 먼저 게시:

loppantorkel님이 먼저 게시:

This guy 5-stared the same games you did, he 1-stared the same games you did, he 3-stared the same games you did. This obscured indie title that he also 5-stared is missing from your account - perhaps you'd like it too? Steam can recommend games more specifically to you.

Oh so this is about recommendations now? Why do you keep moving the goalposts all the time. Maybe you should update the OP so it's clear what is it that you want

Because he's dishonest and he doesn't even realise it, he attacks me every time I call him out on it in some weird fever dream of 'you're just not getting what I'm saying' - well, yeah of course, cause he changes his argument every post.

[FOXDUDE69]

Y'all just need to calm down and debate with some civility.
We are all people here. And we are all gamers.
There's more uniting us than separating us. We can discuss Steam reviews without this vitriol.

[loppantorkel]

debate lord님이 먼저 게시:

loppantorkel님이 먼저 게시:

I gave you a simple example of increased accuracy, which in turn could increase sales. More specific data by the users will let Valve more accurately target their games to users who enjoy similar games.

Hmm how would that even work? "90% of jrpg lovers recommend this game", "35% of turn-based strategy fans hated this game"? or what do you mean

loppantorkel님이 먼저 게시:

This guy 5-stared the same games you did, he 1-stared the same games you did, he 3-stared the same games you did. This obscure indie title that he also 5-stared is missing from your account - perhaps you'd like it too? Steam can recommend games more specifically to you.

debate lord님이 먼저 게시:

Oh so this is about recommendations now? Why do you keep moving the goalposts all the time. Maybe you should update the OP so it's clear what is it that you want

loppantorkel님이 먼저 게시:

What do I want in your mind?

debate lord님이 먼저 게시:

I think you just want to argue for the sake of it. You're often snippy and condescending for no reason, you don't engage in good faith, you don't seem to be actually interested in improving anything because you don't even have a framework of how to approach whatever issues you have with the current system.

Our latest conversation. The one acting in bad faith here is none other than you. If I've posted something against the steam guidelines - feel free to report. I've defended myself from a few specific attacks, that's all. I may have been condescending towards them who have had such a tone themselves.