Problems With The Tools Against Review Bombing

[Arjen]

Recently, the developers of Skullgirls censored and removed some content from their game, which includes crowdfunded content. The audience responded to this anti-consumer update by negatively reviewing the game based on its changes in content, but now all those reviews have been marked as "irrelevant" and are no longer included.

I think it's vital for Steam to distinguish between an actual review bombing (ie, some developer posts an opinion on Twitter separate from the game, and irate fans try to hurt the dev by proxy) and a genuine audience response (thousands of negative reviews about an actual update that affects the actual content of the game).I don't think these reviews should be marked as irrelevant while hilarious positive reviews with comments like "boobs" or "i found this game through porn" are apparently relevant enough to keep up.

So my suggestion is, please allow discussion and argument about whether or not a flood of negative reviews is "irrelevant" or not before just throwing thousands of reviews in the bin. In this case, it's a justified response to an update that goes against the tone of the game and the wishes of people who crowdfunded this game to begin with.

I understand not everyone may agree with the fans, but the fact is that these are genuine frustrations from the actual audience, not a hate campaign of irrelevant comments. Valve, please acknowledge the difference.

(Changed the title from 'Abusing the Tools' to 'Problems with the Tools,' so as to not insinuate it was the developers censoring the criticism)

[Providence 777]

Nguyên văn bởi Start_Running:

Nguyên văn bởi Providence 777:

You can gaslight all you want, valve made it clear they explicitly are hiding the reviews.

By putting a big ass star over it.
Riiight.

You clearly don't like these reviews, I doubt you'd support this feature if it were making the negative equally visible as they were before.

Nguyên văn bởi Start_Running:

The also flagged positive reviews,

they factually did not
I was there, you were not.

The recent reviews went from over 6000 to 53 the day the filter was activated.
Those 53 were positive, no negative reviews were visible.

You're lying, we all saw it happen.

Nguyên văn bởi Start_Running:

And yeah a tool to filter out the meaningless noise is a very useful and pro-consumer feature It can be hard eniough trying to find well written informative reviews as is without have to sift through sons of drivel.

It's an anti-consumer feature invented to protect corporations from valid criticisms that could hurt their profits.

Nguyên văn bởi Start_Running:

But of course the screamers really hate when people start breaking out the ear plugs :P

The majority of customers wrote negative reviews, and left, I wouldn't be here if they didn't filter out valid criticism of the game's content.

As a result, you're going to have to deal with me complaining about this for many years to come.

[pizDuke]

Nguyên văn bởi Start_Running:

Nguyên văn bởi Providence 777:

You can gaslight all you want, valve made it clear they explicitly are hiding the reviews.

By putting a big ass star over it.
Riiight.

Ok updated my quote a little

Nguyên văn bởi pizDuke:

Nguyên văn bởi D. Flame:

It is, for all intents and purposes, being hidden.
Like just because you can find an easter egg if you go looking for it, doesn't mean that it wasn't still hidden.

Like for real, claiming the hidden reviews aren't hidden because the user has the option of unhiding them. Brilliant logic.
I guess I can also steal money from all the people on my platform by default and claim they were never stolen because the user has the option to request money back with a big ass star (that is actually not that big). Majority didn't but it's their problem.

[Tanoomba]

Nguyên văn bởi Pyro3000:

I don't know how you can say people aren't complaining that an aspect they liked was removed, and then immediately say that what they're complaining about is censorship.

There's no contradiction there. They don't care about what was removed, they're just against "censorship" on principle.

Nguyên văn bởi Pyro3000:

They are complaining that an aspect of the game they liked was censored out, yes.

No.
People were not invested in Filia's panty color in particular. They weren't invested in that image of Big Band getting beaten in particular. They weren't invested in the red armbands in particular. These are negligible changes that don't actually have an effect on the actual experience of playing the game. Most of the player base (who play casually) likely haven't even noticed that anything has changed at all. It's fundamentally the same game it's always been.

Nguyên văn bởi Pyro3000:

People would enjoy the game just as much as they did when it was initially revealed.

Those not looking for things to be outraged about still do.

Nguyên văn bởi Pyro3000:

However, people paid money for the game, and are not upset that it isn't in the condition it was to begin with.

Neither is any game that's ever received a patch.

Nguyên văn bởi Pyro3000:

That is absolutely a fair complaint.

But if the complaint is simply that the game is "not the same", with no consideration of what actually changed or how that affects the game, then it's not relevant for potential purchasers who want to know if the game is fun (it is, as much as it always was).

Nguyên văn bởi Pyro3000:

If suddenly every Dragon Ball Z game was updated to be called Dragon Ball, and people left negative reviews because they wanted the Z back, I would STILL support their right to voice their discontent with the change even though I personally wouldn't care.

Nobody was denied the privilege (not a right) to voice their discontent. Their reviews are all still there and visible to anyone who wants to read them. Importantly, those most likely to share the complaints expressed are also the ones most likely to know about the filter and how to disable it.

Nguyên văn bởi Pyro3000:

At the end of the day, consumerism revolves around the consumer.

Indeed, and the review bomb filter operates with the best interests of the consumer in mind.

Nguyên văn bởi Pyro3000:

If it's not a big deal, then there won't be that many people complaining.

That ignores the sensationalist and emotionally manipulative nature of much entitled gamer rhetoric. They blow things out of proportion all the time.

Nguyên văn bởi Pyro3000:

I don't care what reason people have for their rating, at all.

More power to you. But the general Steam user trusts that the aggregate reflects what people think of the actual experience of playing the game, not what outrage campaign has currently caught the attention of an angry mob.

Nguyên văn bởi Pyro3000:

The periods that are typically hidden are hidden to remove negative reviews from the calculation.

That's only because "positive review bombs" aren't really a thing. It happened basically once, and Valve went out of their way to address it specifically and explain their process of deciding whether to enable the filter or not:
https://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1621770561051427036

[Tanoomba]

Nguyên văn bởi GhostBear:

People are not liking the updates and the system is being abused to filter them out. We still have no evidence for a campaign.

No, the system is being used appropriately. The backlash is clearly based on principle unlikely to be relevant to someone who wants to know if the game is fun (it is).

Nguyên văn bởi GhostBear:

If it's technically about the game then it is about the game.

Not according to Valve's explanation. You might not like their rationale but they've explained themselves clearly and they are following their own criteria.
https://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1808664240333155775

Nguyên văn bởi Valve:

First, what do we mean by an off-topic review bomb? As we defined back in our original post, a review bomb is where players post a large number of reviews in a short period of time, aimed at lowering the Review Score of a game. We define an off-topic review bomb as one where the focus of those reviews is on a topic that we consider unrelated to the likelihood that future purchasers will be happy if they buy the game, and hence not something that should be added to the Review Score.

[Tanoomba]

Nguyên văn bởi GhostBear:

We already went over this many times. It's based off the update that lowered the enjoyment by removing content.

It didn't lower enjoyment, though. Heck, even most of the backlash doesn't make any mention of the experience of playing the game changing at all. It's fundamentally the same game it's always been, and is just as enjoyable now as it's always been.

Nguyên văn bởi GhostBear:

Yes. The reviews are on topic.

Not according to Valve's criteria.

[pizDuke]

Nguyên văn bởi Tanoomba:

Nguyên văn bởi GhostBear:

We already went over this many times. It's based off the update that lowered the enjoyment by removing content.

It didn't lower enjoyment, though. Heck, even most of the backlash doesn't make any mention of the experience of playing the game changing at all. It's fundamentally the same game it's always been, and is just as enjoyable now as it's always been.

Are you speaking objectively or subjectively? If objectively - then your position is invalid because you claim to read minds. If subjectively - then you have the right to have this opinion but it doesn't represent the reality, because the reality of the matter is that principled update removed FUN content and added PRINCIPLED content, which is a legitimate case to be upset, and does not make anyone inherently principled. Still awaiting rebuttal.

[Tanoomba]

Nguyên văn bởi GhostBear:

If it's the same game then how did it get updated?

Trivially, hence the "fundamentally".

Nguyên văn bởi GhostBear:

The game was changed for the worse no matter how small or big.

Not inherently, no. The game isn't worse at all. The actual play experience and fun of the game have not been compromised even a little bit.

Nguyên văn bởi GhostBear:

Valves criteria is that it's about the games content and even services.

You are mistaken.
https://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1808664240333155775

Nguyên văn bởi Valve:

First, what do we mean by an off-topic review bomb? As we defined back in our original post, a review bomb is where players post a large number of reviews in a short period of time, aimed at lowering the Review Score of a game. We define an off-topic review bomb as one where the focus of those reviews is on a topic that we consider unrelated to the likelihood that future purchasers will be happy if they buy the game, and hence not something that should be added to the Review Score.

Nothing mention of "about the game's content" or "services" at all.

[Tanoomba]

Nguyên văn bởi pizDuke:

Are you speaking objectively or subjectively? If objectively - then your position is invalid because you claim to read minds.

I'm not reading minds. I'm reading the reviews. They make their motivation very clear.

Nguyên văn bởi pizDuke:

because the reality of the matter is that principled update removed FUN content and added PRINCIPLED content

Neither of those claims are true.

[pizDuke]

Nguyên văn bởi Tanoomba:

Nguyên văn bởi GhostBear:

If it's the same game then how did it get updated?

Trivially, hence the "fundamentally".

You keep saying "fundamentally" only to shift the goalpost. Game was changed, if people don't like the change - people should be able to speak up. You can read more about it here.

Nguyên văn bởi pizDuke:

Key concepts here are "consent" and "options". Something the "right side of history" severely lacks. You may "prefer" Halo with robots but entire player base shouldn't be forced to conform to your taste without their consent. Halo 4 can be updated tomorrow to feature only robots - then according to your logic the whole player base has to keep the head low and suck it up or be silenced. Next month they update all the models to horses. Month after that they'd remove color purple from game in solidarity with some political movement. Month after that they'd stretch Tobey Maguire face as a texture onto all the mountains.
The concept you're advocating for is inadequate. If people don't like the change - they should be able to voice concerns and not be silenced as if their concerns are off-topic.

Nguyên văn bởi Tanoomba:

Nguyên văn bởi GhostBear:

The game was changed for the worse no matter how small or big.

Not inherently, no. The game isn't worse at all. The actual play experience and fun of the game have not been compromised even a little bit.

"Adding salmon to the sweet cake does not affect the experience of eating said cake". Logical fallacy at it's core.

[pizDuke]

Nguyên văn bởi Tanoomba:

Nguyên văn bởi pizDuke:

Are you speaking objectively or subjectively? If objectively - then your position is invalid because you claim to read minds.

I'm not reading minds. I'm reading the reviews. They make their motivation very clear.

Yes, and the reviews say they're upset about the censorship. More on that here. (Btw just a reminder you never addressed that quote because you're incapable of doing so)

Nguyên văn bởi pizDuke:

Tanoomba arguments would make sense if it was a random campaign to tank that game literally out of nowhere, but it was a reaction to the unpopular update no-one asked, thus every single mentioning of the censorship relates to the SPECIFIC INSTANCE of the said censorship.

Nguyên văn bởi Tanoomba:

Nguyên văn bởi pizDuke:

because the reality of the matter is that principled update removed FUN content and added PRINCIPLED content

Neither of those claims are true.

You yourself and the dev confirmed that the updated is principled. The original game consisted of things original developer found FUN. Thus some FUN content was removed, some PRINCIPLED content was added. This constitutes a legitimate case to be upset for a user.

Awaiting a rebuttal

[pizDuke]

Nguyên văn bởi GhostBear:

Nguyên văn bởi Tanoomba:

You are mistaken.
https://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1808664240333155775

Nothing mention of "about the game's content" or "services" at all.

So the quote I just recently used has it.

Nguyên văn bởi Valve:

Select "Off-Topic" only if the review doesn't relate to your product or the service you are providing. An example is if the review talks about ice cream instead of your strategy game.

And I am sure you remember this one too

Nguyên văn bởi Valve:

Q. Some customers are basing their review on practices or data not related to the game. Is that allowed?
A. Yes. Steam reviews tend to be a reflection of how happy customers are with the game itself as well as the value proposition, the business practices, and the experience of being part of that game’s community. This is all valid feedback and a reflection of how customers feel about the experience provided by your game.

Yes, as the op also mentioned some time ago.

Nguyên văn bởi Arjen:

If there's one thing we've gotten from this discussion, it's that either side can cite evidence for why the reviews should or shouldn't be filtered, both from Valve. As a result, we at least need a statement from Valve to close the book on it. I'd personally think the just outcome would be to no longer mark the reviews as off topic and once again show them by default, but even a clear explanation with clear lines on what constitutes as an 'off topic review bomb' would be productive and set a useful precedent for future events.

Tanoomba doesn't realise that at the end of the day what he says is a blind guess on how valve policy should work, in his subjective view. He's not the authority thus is not someone who should dictate people how to correctly interpret the policy, especially since valve kept using same words in different meanings.

[Providence 777]

Nguyên văn bởi pizDuke:

Nguyên văn bởi GhostBear:

So the quote I just recently used has it.


And I am sure you remember this one too

Yes, as the op also mentioned some time ago.

Nguyên văn bởi Arjen:

If there's one thing we've gotten from this discussion, it's that either side can cite evidence for why the reviews should or shouldn't be filtered, both from Valve. As a result, we at least need a statement from Valve to close the book on it. I'd personally think the just outcome would be to no longer mark the reviews as off topic and once again show them by default, but even a clear explanation with clear lines on what constitutes as an 'off topic review bomb' would be productive and set a useful precedent for future events.

Tanoomba doesn't realise that at the end of the day what he says is a blind guess on how valve policy should work, in his subjective view. He's not the authority thus is not someone who should dictate people how to correctly interpret the policy, especially since valve kept using same words in different meanings.

you're operating under the assumption that he's actually arguing over something he genuinely believes.

The truth is that he's simply lying for the purpose of antagonizing a group of people he sees as "the enemy" (gamers).

Reminder he's a staunch defender of Anita Sarkeesian, who he believes is faultless.

[Pyro3000]

Nguyên văn bởi Tanoomba:

Nguyên văn bởi GhostBear:

We already went over this many times. It's based off the update that lowered the enjoyment by removing content.

It didn't lower enjoyment, though. Heck, even most of the backlash doesn't make any mention of the experience of playing the game changing at all. It's fundamentally the same game it's always been, and is just as enjoyable now as it's always been.

Nguyên văn bởi GhostBear:

Yes. The reviews are on topic.

Not according to Valve's criteria.

You're arguing exclusively with Skullgirls in mind, which many on this are, but don't forget that Naraka got "review bombed" by fans and it was *'d away despite the reviews being about the game suddenly needing kernel access. Also another period for people complaining that Chinese players were getting special treatment at the time instead of being banned for bug abuse. This tool is absolutely flawed and Valve's "criteria" are incredibly loose. I would certainly argue that games suddenly needing deeper system access to be played should count. I would certainly argue that biased rule enforcement that was making the game difficult for western players to play should count.

I really don't care why someone downvotes a game. They can downvote Ninja Gaiden by being made by a guy that was accused of sexual harassment for all I care. I don't think it's truly "off topic" when it's something that might make a game less enjoyable to someone. I know I certainly can't enjoy Rurouni Kenshin like I used to after the creator went to jail for pedophilia.

[Tanoomba]

Nguyên văn bởi pizDuke:

You keep saying "fundamentally" only to shift the goalpost. Game was changed, if people don't like the change - people should be able to speak up. You can read more about it here.

What are you talking about? I never shifted the goalpost. My point was ALWAYS that the game is fundamentally the same and that people aren't upset because the game is worse or less fun, but because they are against the very CONCEPT of "censorship" on principle. You're actually proving my point here by emphasizing "game was changed". If you don't actually care WHAT was changed or how it affects the experience of playing the game, just that it was changed AT ALL, then you're taking a principled stance that is irrelevant to people who want to know if the game is fun (it is).

Nguyên văn bởi pizDuke:

Yes, and the reviews say they're upset about the censorship.

Yes. On principle.

Nguyên văn bởi pizDuke:

You yourself and the dev confirmed that the updated is principled.

Yes.

Nguyên văn bởi pizDuke:

The original game consisted of things original developer found FUN.

Yes. None of the fun has been compromised.

[Tanoomba]

Nguyên văn bởi GhostBear:

So the quote I just recently used has it.

You're quoting irrelevant sources. One is information for devs and when THEY can flag reviews as off-topic, and the other is about what is allowed. Technically, even review bombs are allowed. Nobody gets punished, nothing gets deleted.

My quote is explicitly about how Valve decides if a REVIEW BOMB is OFF-TOPIC. There's only so many times you can ignore that.