Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Este tema ha sido cerrado 
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
I mean why's he saying it at me, when I have the exact same stance he does.
I guess more words are needed. If you have mixed feelings about a game and don't want to have to either recommend or not recommend it, this isn't you being neutral, it's you being indecisive. How will a shrug of shoulders help anybody?
If a game left you feeling 'meh': this isn't you being neutral either, because you're still making a value judgement a la "the game is mediocre" (for me personally it would warrant a non-recommend, since a game that doesn't make me feel anything isn't worth spending money and time on).
And if you're just going to list a bunch of observations such as: game has some bugs, voice acting is only partly done; or simply quote the store page, all without providing any judgement on whether or not those things affect one's experience with the game (all while refusing to commit to a thumbs up or down) — then why bother writing a review at all?
The benefit to a more graded score would be that it would make it possible to search and sort games to a greater degree. Possibly also making the scores more accurate - if you're allowed to set up some search criterias. E g - I'd exclude all the bot reviews. ... yea, I know cool story, need more dragons :)
Well we've already been through this in a similar thread. In which I said that I don't think more granular ratings will be helpful with a bunch of random reviewers, due to how subjective (and in case of the 1-10 scale - redundant) those scales are. And that they're best suited for critics reviews, because you can actually acquaint yourself with a certain critic's tastes to get a feeling of how they rate art and entertainment.
I also think that the reason some people feel "pressured" into choosing between the two "extremes" in this case, is precisely because they don't understand how opinions work. Or maybe they've not yet internalized how they feel about a game, and just want to waffle on and write confused essays without having to commit 🤷🏻♀️
EDIT: Btw I'm just clearing things up for the people in the back, who didn't give what I said any thought, and hurried to inform me that I shouldn't, in fact, write a review of a piece of art, if I don't have an opinion on it
Also, your harping on "non-commital" doesn't make sense because there's "commitment" is not necessary nor relevant to opinions on games.
Reviews in the middle of the opinion range naturally tend to contain a mix of praise and criticisms.
Skimming (for example) ten middle-of-the-range reviews gives a better picture of what the common points of praise and common points of criticism are for a product, compared to skimming ten positive reviews (which contain mostly praise) or skimming ten negative reviews (which contain mostly criticism).
Now how would one be able to find these middle-of-the-range reviews? If there's a category for them, then one can find them very easily. Like how on Amazon I can bee-line to three-star reviews.
It's only "less accurate" if you assume that in the current system you can force the entire playerbase to post reviews and thus up-or-down ratings on a game. This is never the case. The "player base as a whole" is not surveyed in the first place!
Furthermore, you speak of accuracy, but you seem to think that that accuracy comes not from actually gathering people's opinions, but from forcing them to answer a question that they don't even necessarily have a meaningful answer for, merely for the sake of stuffing responses into a single binary pair of categories. That's not "accuracy", that's arbitrariness, literally using it just because it's there.
And I haven't even gotten into the issues of meme reviews and review bombs and such.
But you can learn about how a game is received by those people who don't want to post a rating, from the reviews they write.
And if you're so concerned about aggregating them, then like I mentioned earlier when you asked about it: the number of neutral reviews should be displayed as well. Which makes sense since one should be able to filter them in/out of the reviews one is seeing on a page.
These preferences are not specific to me (let alone "hyper-specific" lol), and there isn't anything illogical about wanting neutral opinions to be recorded and categorized properly as neutral. You on the other hand have taken the illogical position where a neutral opinion should be counted as a negative opinion, even though it's not a negative opinion. And you've also taken the illogical position of claiming that forcing people to answer a question that they don't have a meaningful answer to produces "accurate" results.
You're flogging a strawman again...
You keep on claiming "dramatically compromise" except it would be an improvement to both accuracy and accessibility to allow people to properly represent their reviews and to allow readers and extra option to find neutral reviews.
The whole discussion about "neutral opinion" is not relevant. It should be quite clear that "neutral" is only a monicker for "in-between positive and negative" or "indifferent" at most and not neutral as in "not involved".
Similarly, "This game produced no emotions in me whatsoever" is a negative review. "This game did some things well, but not well enough to elevate it past the things it does poorly" is a negative review. "I LOVE how the game does A, B and C but absolutely hated X, Y and Z to the point where I can't say I like the game" is a negative review.
ANY well-written review is going to contain a mix of praise and criticism. That's not a characteristic particular to neutral reviews. And a neutral review is just as likely to be poorly-written and uninformative as a positive or negative one. This idea that you're getting better information from a neutral review is a fallacy.
Heck, if you are genuinely interested in informative reviews that cover both positive and negative aspects, read critics' reviews! It's literally their job to be as informative as possible and give you a good idea of whether the game in question will appeal to you or not. A well-written positive review will not try to convince you you will like the game, it will explain why the review liked it in a way that will allow you to decide if it will also appeal to you or not. Same for negative.
Not at all. Again, the more reviews we have, the more accurate the aggregate is. Large numbers of reviews tend to be an adequate representation of how the player base as a whole feels, because we have no reason to believe there is significant difference between the opinions of those who write reviews and those who don't. On the other hand, if you're going to sub-divide "people who write reviews" into separate groups, one of which has chosen not to be counted with the others, then you're skewing the results so you're not getting an accurate representation any more, especially since the ones not being counted are essentially negative reviews for all practical purposes and would have a significant effect on the aggregate if counted.
There's no "force" involved! [Whatever[/i] someone's opinion is, it can easily be slotted into "recommend" or "don't recommend". That's a binary that includes literally every possible opinion someone could have. The beauty is even if someone doesn't believe they have a meaningful answer for that question, the system works anyway! With large numbers of reviews, irregularities become statistically insignificant.
It's ultimately less useful to be observing the opinions of different groups of gamers separately.There is no added value from grouping "neutral" reviews separately from positive or negative ones, none whatsoever. You might as well ask for only reviews from girls between the ages of 12-16, or pet owners, or Europeans, or people named "Frank". You've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand just because you have a personal hangup about "don't recommend" being (accurately) counted as a negative review.
And like I said, that messes up the aggregate calculation. You can't add a third variable in a binary system and expect everything to run smoothly.
I'm curious: Let's say there was a "neutral" option and it counted towards the aggregate as +0.5 for both positive and negative review totals (so, for example, 2 neutral reviews would count for +1 positive and +1 negative). Would that be acceptable to you?
It's illogical to want to break the current system and throw off aggregate calculation because you think neutral reviews are more informative than positive or negative ones (which, again, they aren't).
For all practical purposes, it absolutely is.
It's an entirely reasonable and easy-to answer question that encompasses literally any possible opinion of a game someone can have.
This is like suggesting microwaves have additional buttons that lets you add half-seconds, one third-seconds, and quarter-seconds to your timer. You're suggesting that this will allow people to better tune their microwaving times instead of dividing everything into crude "1 second" measurements. You don't care that the additional buttons will make the microwaves harder to use for everyone except the people who've fantasized about dividing seconds into slices, or that there is no actual benefit to these new buttons except a psychological endorphin rush for the second-slicers. "It's not harder at all! Now everyone can heat their soup for 184.75 seconds if they like! It's more accessible, see?"
"More options" does not equal "more accessible", especially when the previous options already account for every possible scenario. It's complication for complication's sake, to stroke the egos of those who believe they discovered a better way to read and write reviews.
When you said 'add him at your own risk' you automatically implied that "objecting nose-picking and other fruitless activities" is seen as undesirable in a friend. My dearest of all friends, you just made a value judgement about behaviour right there! Even if you hadn't advised for or against adding flux in the end, and only said this: "he objects nose-picking and other fruitless activities, which is just so controlling isn't it!" it would still be you making a value judgement
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/value-judgment
*thinking to himself*
Curious, they think if you criticize a videogame, and then refuse to commit to either a thumbs up or thumbs down, then you're not making any judgements! Haha. They think the final step is the only judgement, and not literally your entire review filled with your opinions on various aspects of the game!
This is where my theory of 'bias' comes in. Some people convince them selves that neutral means your getting a fair and balanced opinion. But you can get fair and balanced in any type of review. I literally have no trouble finding such well written reviews.
It's to the point I honestly forgot there was a LOAD MORE button at the bottom of the review section.
The kjoke is it is ioften the opposite. Talk to a UI/UX designer and they'll tell you the secret is to present the user with as few options as possible.
If you're neutral you can answer the question asked, because that doesn't compromise on neutrality and you can explain your neutral reasoning in the commentary.
Part of making a system user friendly and accessible is knowing where to draw the line, knowing what not to include.
they're an expert on that?
This happens because people don't always share the same tastes and priorities. Especially when it comes to works of art like games.
A well-written review need not contain a mix of praise and criticism.
Furthermore, I was talking about skimming over multiple reviews, in order to get a broader picture of common and uncommon criticisms and points-of-praise for the game.
The information from one neutral review isn't likely to be "better"; it's likely to be closer to a balanced mix of the good and the bad. And stack multiple neutral reviews and I can get a good picture of what other people think a product does well/poorly most commonly.
First, critics' reviews aren't compiled into one place, much less the convenience of the bottom of the store page.
Second, and more importantly, most games don't have critic reviews anyway.
Since you should understand this you should understand why a neutral or negative review could lead someone to want to buy the game.
Tell Steam to stop excluding "review bomb" periods with this reasoning.
The only "accuracy" you might get is "what happens when you force everyone who writes a review to answer this question". Which incidentally includes some people who just answer the question arbitrarily or in ways that don't follow the assumptions that you make of them. Such as your assumption that neutral reviews are negative -- people who have neutral opinions of a game aren't necessarily going to follow this assumption of yours.
"Irregularities" don't necessarily disappear; systemic biases are a thing in statistics. You're just running on the assumption that such errors cancel themselves out, which needs not hold true.
And just like I said before, you can collapse something into a single binary but that doesn't mean that distinction is functional. You're assuming that it does provide good data and then circularly using it to justify itself.
Wow, you just dissed the ability to filter to see only positive reviews or negative reviews. Congrats.
That's fine too.
It's illogical for you to claim I'm saying something I don't say.
The neutral option allows reviewers to more properly represent their opinions.
The neutral option allows readers to filter for (and filter out) neutral reviews. Readers who find neutral reviews more useful, such as (but not limited to) myself, will get a better survey of the pluses and minuses in people's takes on a game by filtering for neutral reviews.
The old recommendation system, where players weren't even asked for an up-or-down, also encompasses literally any possible opinion of a game someone can have.
No, this would be like adding the ability to have the microwave heat at half power, rather than be either full blast or off.
You're easily distracted by ad hominems, ain't ya.
Also, if you already consider neutral reviews to be negative, then you already know how you want to deal with them. You shouldn't be afraid of literally just adding one more option that makes other people's lives better.
The entertainment industry doesn't actually just run on platitudes, unlike what you may think. There are a ton of mediocre and middling works that do just well enough to help keep the bills paid. This is not new at all, but as usual, reality contradicts your grandstanding.
More ignorant grandstanding on useless platitudes. Note how in reality applications generally have a variety of options/settings available to the user. Even here on Steam.
For that matter, Valve has already shown they don't follow your platitude, considering that instead of making one simple on/off toggle for the What's New they added multiple tweaking fields.
The review is marked negative. That does not properly represent a neutral opinion. There is no way to properly represent a neutral opinion in the current system.
If you're just gonna lean on the text box, then note that positive and negative reviews existed back when there was just a text box and there was no rating anyway. So by your reasoning, the rating choice doesn't even need to exist.
The issue here is. More options are unnecessary since really all it amounts to is.. say it with me. anopther option for no.
The question asks something that any person can honestly answer with a yes or no. But a few people DOn't want to actually say how they feel, for whatever reason. A Game is either good enough to meet your standard of recommendation or it isn't good enough. There's no in between. Just like there's no in between when it comes to an exam paper. yOu either pass or fail.
They want to say how they feel but they can't, and you're willing to lie through your teeth to claim that they have the opposite position that they have.
You fail to realize that "your standard of recommendation" is not actually a standard, unlike on an exam paper.
I'd legit never heard anyone use the words "neutral opinion" before this whole shebang with steam reviews. A "neutral stance" on a political issue — sure, a "neutral point of view" of a historical event — yeah, people say that kinda stuff all the time. But wth is a neutral opinion? I get a brain aneurysm every time somebody starts droning on about reviews while using that phrasing; and naturally, it means different things to different people... Also this isn't a Likert scale where you can just be "in between positive and negative", you either recommend something or you don't.
Dunno, maybe I'm weird 🤷🏻♀️
You want access to both good points and bad points about a game. Well-written reviews that are either positive or negative already have that. You want to be able to find them easier. We have a review upvote system that helps. We also have no reason to believe that so-called "neutral reviews" will contain both good points and bad points about a game anyway, as they are just as likely to be poorly-written as any other reviews. You want so-called "neutral" reviews to be properly categorized. They already are, based on if the reviewer's "neutral" opinion leads them to recommend the game or not (the only two possibilities).
We went off on a few tangents, but I think that covers all the important points.
It does if the reviewer didn't recommend the game. And since you've said you don't really care about aggregate score anyway, I'm having trouble understanding why you care how it's counted.