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)

[Tanoomba]

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

lol, you literally argue "plot presentation doesn't matter as long as plot is the same".

No, you're generalizing again. I'm saying that in THIS PARTICULAR CASE, the change in "plot presentation" was negligible to the point of having virtually no impact.

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

I did not ignore anything

Well, you continue to do so, so...

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

Less sexualization is worse

Even when it's of a minor? Jesus, dude.
This is what I mean when I say you don't actually talk about the changes, by the way. You treat them as an abstract, an end unto themselves.

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

and story moments made less impactful for dubious reasons.

They weren't made "less impactful" at all. Again, you're using vague and unspecific terms to avoid acknowledging how negligible the changes actually were. This is your whole argument.

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

It is both dev's intention and now part of the game.

It is not part of the game.

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

I'll even help you, your rebuttal should start with "The dev did not pander to the woke because...".

... they based their decisions on their own values.

[Tanoomba]

Origineel geplaatst door CiccioCc:

-Someone at Valve decides that in the exact period after the changes, too many customers have expressed against the changes, even if they expressed in a way the same system makes them freely express about, as in other time periods the system grant other different customers reviews stating the same issue, to be visible by default

This is where you start to be deceptive.
You decided not to mention that the the reviews would have left completely untouched if they had been relevant to people who wanted to know about the game on its own merits.

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

Since these customers expressions are moderated and potential new customers have to activate a setting to read them, the whole process is controversial.

Not inherently. The review bomb filter serves a necessary purpose and operates with the best interest of Steam users in mind.

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

Also, reviews are actively used as an advertising system, manipulating scores that are finalized to appeal customers, it is considerable a violation for any kind of businesses involved.

Presenting conspiracy theories as self-evident, are we?

[pizDuke]

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

lol, you literally argue "plot presentation doesn't matter as long as plot is the same".

No, you're generalizing again. I'm saying that in THIS PARTICULAR CASE, the change in "plot presentation" was negligible to the point of having virtually no impact.

In your subjective opinion you're absolutely allowed to have. In terms of objective opinions though

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

Hey Tanoomba, my old friend, my guiding light, my soulmate. I don't whether you deliberately or not doing this but this was already debunked as we established that the principled update that reduces fun due to removing of fun content and reducing escapist value of the game is a legitimate case to be upset. It's both about the game and about removal of fun, which on both grounds is relevant to the future purchaser. Thank you for reading!

Not to mention we all know the devs intention behind the change and the result, both of which is not enhancing the fun. The fact that in your subjective opinion there's "virtually no impact" does not serve as proper counter-argument here

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

Less sexualization is worse

Even when it's of a minor? Jesus, dude.
This is what I mean when I say you don't actually talk about the changes, by the way. You treat them as an abstract, an end unto themselves.

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

I think that's a dead argument, now I don't have all the up-to-date info on ages and stuff but as far as I know youngest sexualized characters were Filia's (15) and Squigly's (14) which is not even pedophilia but hebephilia at best. Not to mention that drawings don't even have age. But yeah, in case I forgot something please educate me if I"m wrong.

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

and story moments made less impactful for dubious reasons.

They weren't made "less impactful" at all. Again, you're using vague and unspecific terms to avoid acknowledging how negligible the changes actually were. This is your whole argument.

Less impactful is a very specific term for a very specific scene. It's less brutal therefore less impactful. Do you have an actual counter-argument?

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

It is both dev's intention and now part of the game.

It is not part of the game.

Game update is not part of the game? Bruh

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

I'll even help you, your rebuttal should start with "The dev did not pander to the woke because...".

... they based their decisions on their own values.

Unfortunately dev's values are "an awareness and sensitivity to social injustices and important societal facts and issues" which returns us back to this

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

Considering the dev literally said that they made changes because of real-world hate groups, it does by definition make them pandering to the "woke" as to those in "a state of awareness and sensitivity to social injustices and important societal facts and issues", which is a fun's kryptonite.

I see now why you didn't want to address this quote earlier.

[pizDuke]

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

Origineel geplaatst door CiccioCc:

-Someone at Valve decides that in the exact period after the changes, too many customers have expressed against the changes, even if they expressed in a way the same system makes them freely express about, as in other time periods the system grant other different customers reviews stating the same issue, to be visible by default

This is where you start to be deceptive.
You decided not to mention that the the reviews would have left completely untouched if they had been relevant to people who wanted to know about the game on its own merits.

And they are because

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

Hey Tanoomba, my old friend, my guiding light, my soulmate. I don't whether you deliberately or not doing this but this was already debunked as we established that the principled update that reduces fun due to removing of fun content and reducing escapist value of the game is a legitimate case to be upset. It's both about the game and about removal of fun, which on both grounds is relevant to the future purchaser. Thank you for reading!

and this

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

...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.

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

Since these customers expressions are moderated and potential new customers have to activate a setting to read them, the whole process is controversial.

Not inherently. The review bomb filter serves a necessary purpose and operates with the best interest of Steam users in mind.

"The money repurposing tool serves a necessary purpose and operates with the best interest of my platform users in mind"

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

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. Majority didn't but it's their problem.

[Loot Hunter]

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

You're generalizing to muddy the waters.
Instead of saying "panty color", you say "sprites", because while the former will have no effect on the game for anyone but a ridiculously tiny minority

No. Even panty color has an effect on the game. Not only that, you yourself doing exactly what you accuse pizDuke of - "muddying the waters". Because in certain contexts effect of panty shots would be absolutely noticed by more than a "ridiculously tiny minority".

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

You even mention "lore" even thought the lore in Skullgirls hasn't changed at all.

Except, it has changed. In the previous game's lore Filia wears white panties, in the Second Encore's lore she wears black.

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

We know this because even the reviews don't care about the changes. You're going through a lot of trouble trying to rationalize the irrational and make excuses for people who won't even make excuses for themselves.

Remember when you rationalized your disdain for youtube videos that said something you don't agree? You didn't actually care about facts in the videos, you just rationalized your irrational disdain. And now you just projecting.

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

"a state of awareness and sensitivity to social injustices and important societal facts and issues" is not fun

It's also not part of the game.

It is now, because the game reflects those things. Devs made changes for the game to reflect those things.

[Pyro3000]

Tanoomba will adamantly defend the tools, praising the system, because they agree with the skullgirls censorship while refusing to acknowledge a single post I make about Naraka and how the same tools were used to discredit reviews that complain about new security measures that made the game unplayable for many, reviews upset that the game suddenly needed kernel level access of your computer, and reviews that highlighted how the company was allowing Chinese players to abuse systems while banning non-Chinese region players. (And I say this all LOVING Naraka and still playing it to this day). There is a clear bias and you are all arguing with a brick wall.

[kitt]

Origineel geplaatst door GhostBear:

Origineel geplaatst door Pyro3000:

Tanoomba will adamantly defend the tools, praising the system, because they agree with the skullgirls censorship while refusing to acknowledge a single post I make about Naraka and how the same tools were used to discredit reviews that complain about new security measures that made the game unplayable for many, reviews upset that the game suddenly needed kernel level access of your computer, and reviews that highlighted how the company was allowing Chinese players to abuse systems while banning non-Chinese region players. (And I say this all LOVING Naraka and still playing it to this day). There is a clear bias and you are all arguing with a brick wall.

That's another issue that I agree with. Valve thinks DRM and Anti-Cheats are not a factor to reviewing a game. It's Valves own words and it is absurd. I think Valve just doesn't want to upset developers and having them take business else where idk. There is definitely people who will and have quit a game if they add a intrusive anti-cheat that they don't trust or a awful DRM. It definitely fits in line with service and how you enjoy the game on your own system.

I am not sure if discussing this one fits this topic? It is on the topic of problems of review bombing tools but it's going against what Valve stated where as skullgirls and SuperHotVR didn't break any rules since it is about game content and there is no evidence of a campaign to attack developers.

As for the other bits you mentioned thats another problem. Valve doesn't care what else is going on during the time period. If Valve sees that people complain about Anti-Cheat which they think is not ok then any other complaint too is not legitimate since it caught the time frame. I can't really bring much more about your example because I am unfamiliar with Naraka.

The system needs to stick to campaigns.

I kinda want to know Valve stance on selling pirated games because of DRM and if they consider reviews mentioning it as valid.
Did Valve also forget that Steam is literally a DRM?

I mean you pay money and receive a pirated game. I would be not amused..

[Pyro3000]

Origineel geplaatst door GhostBear:

Origineel geplaatst door Pyro3000:

Tanoomba will adamantly defend the tools, praising the system, because they agree with the skullgirls censorship while refusing to acknowledge a single post I make about Naraka and how the same tools were used to discredit reviews that complain about new security measures that made the game unplayable for many, reviews upset that the game suddenly needed kernel level access of your computer, and reviews that highlighted how the company was allowing Chinese players to abuse systems while banning non-Chinese region players. (And I say this all LOVING Naraka and still playing it to this day). There is a clear bias and you are all arguing with a brick wall.

That's another issue that I agree with. Valve thinks DRM and Anti-Cheats are not a factor to reviewing a game. It's Valves own words and it is absurd. I think Valve just doesn't want to upset developers and having them take business else where idk. There is definitely people who will and have quit a game if they add a intrusive anti-cheat that they don't trust or a awful DRM. It definitely fits in line with service and how you enjoy the game on your own system.

I am not sure if discussing this one fits this topic? It is on the topic of problems of review bombing tools but it's going against what Valve stated where as skullgirls and SuperHotVR didn't break any rules since it is about game content and there is no evidence of a campaign to attack developers.

As for the other bits you mentioned thats another problem. Valve doesn't care what else is going on during the time period. If Valve sees that people complain about Anti-Cheat which they think is not ok then any other complaint too is not legitimate since it caught the time frame. I can't really bring much more about your example because I am unfamiliar with Naraka.

The system needs to stick to campaigns.

I would be able to side with Valve that anti-cheat and such are off-topic if the game launches with those, and you're able to see if it impacts how well the game runs or if it launches at all for you. It's another issue when you may periodically play a game and suddenly an update makes it incompatible with your operating system or gives you a performance hit.

[CiccioCc]

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

This is where you start to be deceptive.

Not at all.

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

You decided not to mention that the the reviews would have left completely untouched if they had been relevant to people who wanted to know about the game on its own merits.

Nope, because it seems not feasible to discern which review is and which isn't, so they can use this ambiguous metric even if 10% of the reviews are as you describe (not relevant on the game merit). More over, this same description applies to other reviews out of the filtered period and on the contrary, these are left, as you say, untouched. So practically the opposite of the logic you apply. The feature is applied only when the numbers are too high and make the disappointment over a game, over its demerits, very relevant. Old customers have only to trust this decision, even if they took the time to express their thoughs are considered irrelevant, and potential new customer will never have the whole image clear about.

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

Not inherently. The review bomb filter serves a necessary purpose and operates with the best interest of Steam users in mind.

Yes indeed. If Valve asks, for advertising purposes, its customers what they think about a product and then decide to separate these thoughts (when many customers decide to express against a product change), hiding them by default to potential new customers, Valve position is controversial.

Let get this very simple straight: you ask me my opinion, and then you decide to not consider relevant it, based on what I say, or worse, WHEN I say it? Is this civilizedly reasonable?

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

Presenting conspiracy theories as self-evident, are we?

Malicious business activites are not for conspiracies, this is not governamental matter. These are just anti-consumers acts for mantaining sales purposes. Otherwise over a worsening change of a product (like superhotVR), they would gladly refund disappointed customers which have lost part of what they initially bought, aggraved by the fact that these changes after years of sales were for moral/personal opinions and not for technical reasons.

[Tanoomba]

Origineel geplaatst door Loot Hunter:

No. Even panty color has an effect on the game. Not only that, you yourself doing exactly what you accuse pizDuke of - "muddying the waters". Because in certain contexts effect of panty shots would be absolutely noticed by more than a "ridiculously tiny minority".

"Certain contexts"? What about THIS context? Again, you're just gaslighting here, pretending that the suggestion that these changes actually affected a significant number of people's experiences has any merit at all. Again, even the reviews themselves are not concerned with how the experience of playing the game has changed.

Origineel geplaatst door Loot Hunter:

Except, it has changed. In the previous game's lore Filia wears white panties, in the Second Encore's lore she wears black.

That's not "lore" in any sense of the word. Nice try.

Origineel geplaatst door Loot Hunter:

Remember when you rationalized your disdain for youtube videos that said something you don't agree?

I truly don't. You're thinking of someone else.

Origineel geplaatst door Loot Hunter:

It is now, because the game reflects those things.

No, that's wrong. Nobody can play the game and see those things on the game's own merits.

[Tanoomba]

Origineel geplaatst door CiccioCc:

Nope, because it seems not feasible to discern which review is and which isn't, so they can use this ambiguous metric even if 10% of the reviews are as you describe (not relevant on the game merit).

Why do so many of you seem to believe reading the reviews and seeing what they are concerned with is some kind of indecipherable sorcery?

Origineel geplaatst door Loot Hunter:

More over, this same description applies to other reviews out of the filtered period and on the contrary, these are left, as you say, untouched.

Because they're not part of a review bomb.

Origineel geplaatst door Loot Hunter:

Let get this very simple straight: you ask me my opinion, and then you decide to not consider relevant it, based on what I say, or worse, WHEN I say it? Is this civilizedly reasonable?

In this case? Absolutely. Because, again, it's a decision that, while it might annoy you personally, ultimately benefits everyone.

Origineel geplaatst door Loot Hunter:

These are just anti-consumers acts for mantaining sales purposes.

Preventing review bombs from misinforming Steam users is a pro-consumer move.

[Loot Hunter]

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

Origineel geplaatst door Loot Hunter:

No. Even panty color has an effect on the game. Not only that, you yourself doing exactly what you accuse pizDuke of - "muddying the waters". Because in certain contexts effect of panty shots would be absolutely noticed by more than a "ridiculously tiny minority".

"Certain contexts"? What about THIS context? Again, you're just gaslighting here, pretending that the suggestion that these changes actually affected a significant number of people's experiences has any merit at all.

Again, if the number of people negatively affected wasn't significant there wouldn't be a significant number of people writing negative reviews.

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

Again, even the reviews themselves are not concerned with how the experience of playing the game has changed.

You are thinking of someone else's reviews.

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

Origineel geplaatst door Loot Hunter:

Except, it has changed. In the previous game's lore Filia wears white panties, in the Second Encore's lore she wears black.

That's not "lore" in any sense of the word.

Lore
2. The backstory created around a fictional universe.
The character's favorite clothes, including panty color, is a part of the backstory.

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

Origineel geplaatst door Loot Hunter:

It is now, because the game reflects those things.

No, that's wrong. Nobody can play the game and see those things on the game's own merits.

Those things are reflected in the game.

[CiccioCc]

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

Origineel geplaatst door CiccioCc:

Nope, because it seems not feasible to discern which review is and which isn't, so they can use this ambiguous metric even if 10% of the reviews are as you describe (not relevant on the game merit).

Why do so many of you seem to believe reading the reviews and seeing what they are concerned with is some kind of indecipherable sorcery?

Origineel geplaatst door Loot Hunter:

More over, this same description applies to other reviews out of the filtered period and on the contrary, these are left, as you say, untouched.

Because they're not part of a review bomb.

Origineel geplaatst door Loot Hunter:

Let get this very simple straight: you ask me my opinion, and then you decide to not consider relevant it, based on what I say, or worse, WHEN I say it? Is this civilizedly reasonable?

In this case? Absolutely. Because, again, it's a decision that, while it might annoy you personally, ultimately benefits everyone.

Origineel geplaatst door Loot Hunter:

These are just anti-consumers acts for mantaining sales purposes.

Preventing review bombs from misinforming Steam users is a pro-consumer move.

All that, assuming wrongly there is a group of customers who is maliciously organized to do a collective reviewing activity.

If Valve want to act against despicable organizations, it needs to prove their existance and ban their accounts.

The real bomb was the unwanted update, and from then, negative rates increased.

I was not part of a group, when I reviewed superhotvr. Severely unfair when other users which state my same identical concerns on their reviews, are untouched and unfiltered.
Cause these are reviews published few days after me, or in the following years. The point of treating some customers in a way, some others in a different way, when me as these users have the identical activities premises, is wrong.

As you state earlier, ending inside a filtered period, can be considered misfortune.
That's alsy why Valve has to rebalance the criteria, because it treats users differently depending on the luck -or not- of publishing a review "inside a misfortuned period"

[pizDuke]

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

No, you're generalizing again. I'm saying that in THIS PARTICULAR CASE, the change in "plot presentation" was negligible to the point of having virtually no impact.

In your subjective opinion you're absolutely allowed to have. In terms of objective opinions though

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

Hey Tanoomba, my old friend, my guiding light, my soulmate. I don't whether you deliberately or not doing this but this was already debunked as we established that the principled update that reduces fun due to removing of fun content and reducing escapist value of the game is a legitimate case to be upset. It's both about the game and about removal of fun, which on both grounds is relevant to the future purchaser. Thank you for reading!

Not to mention we all know the devs intention behind the change and the result, both of which is not enhancing the fun. The fact that in your subjective opinion there's "virtually no impact" does not serve as proper counter-argument here

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

Even when it's of a minor? Jesus, dude.
This is what I mean when I say you don't actually talk about the changes, by the way. You treat them as an abstract, an end unto themselves.

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

I think that's a dead argument, now I don't have all the up-to-date info on ages and stuff but as far as I know youngest sexualized characters were Filia's (15) and Squigly's (14) which is not even pedophilia but hebephilia at best. Not to mention that drawings don't even have age. But yeah, in case I forgot something please educate me if I"m wrong.

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

They weren't made "less impactful" at all. Again, you're using vague and unspecific terms to avoid acknowledging how negligible the changes actually were. This is your whole argument.

Less impactful is a very specific term for a very specific scene. It's less brutal therefore less impactful. Do you have an actual counter-argument?

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

It is not part of the game.

Game update is not part of the game? Bruh

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

... they based their decisions on their own values.

Unfortunately dev's values are "an awareness and sensitivity to social injustices and important societal facts and issues" which returns us back to this

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

Considering the dev literally said that they made changes because of real-world hate groups, it does by definition make them pandering to the "woke" as to those in "a state of awareness and sensitivity to social injustices and important societal facts and issues", which is a fun's kryptonite.

I see now why you didn't want to address this quote earlier.

Hey Tanoomba, my man, how's it going? You keep ignoring my messages, that's not very nice :(
I'm absolutely sure you're not afraid of my arguments in any way and did this only because you forgot.
But I must warn you - you wouldn't want me throwing phrases around like "it was established that devs pandered to the woke" or "It was established that Skullgirls is the case of devs making the game worse because of politics" just because you didn't address anything, now would you?

[pizDuke]

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

Origineel geplaatst door Loot Hunter:

Let get this very simple straight: you ask me my opinion, and then you decide to not consider relevant it, based on what I say, or worse, WHEN I say it? Is this civilizedly reasonable?

In this case? Absolutely. Because, again, it's a decision that, while it might annoy you personally, ultimately benefits everyone.

Origineel geplaatst door pizDuke:

Of course Tanoomba, because you're virtuous, noble and objective. You just exclude people you don't like from "everyone"

Origineel geplaatst door Tanoomba:

Anybody who calls it "wokeness" has already revealed their hand and should not be pandered to.