Instalar o Steam
Iniciar sessão
|
Idioma
简体中文 (Chinês Simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês Tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol de Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol da América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Brasil)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar problema de tradução
Este tópico foi fechado 
Regras e Orientações das Discussões
Denunciar este post
Reviews can also be used by game owners or new players to find out if a game is properly maintained or discontinued. Some games released on 2012 are not compatible with windows 10-11, example Might & Magic Heroes 6 (a lot of negative review).
You distort reality several times in your answers.
I've proven that it's not just me, but at least 4300 players, and again that's a low estimate (this doesn't include disappointed players who don't post review).
If the goal of reviews is to maximize the number of "happy customer", it's in steam's interest to find a solution. You just proved that's not the point. The goal is to have the feeling of a positive score to maximize sales for new purchasers, nothing more.
And this problem, objectively, I have no legal way to solve it, please be honest.
My only option is to ignore the developer and publisher in the future. And regarding Steam, since the discussion is going nowhere, I've deleted half of my wishlist and will get some of my next games elsewhere. It's the only thing I can do, and I invite other players to think about it.
In fact. Despite we can all be annoyed by an individual making fun of the others with such activity, I am not concerned by that, mostly. What I am seriously worried about, if there is some manifactured way of behaving on the forums for a commercial purpose, uknown to many.
Enlighten me, then. How does fanservice work?
Well, yeah, that's how entitlement narratives work. They disingenuously portray themselves as victims so they can feel justified creating a villain to rally against.
They literally can. That's not even up for debate.
... And beyond.
You are mistaken. Feel free to present a quote if you still think I'm missing it.
But the recent reviews aren't about whether the game is fun to play or not. They're not about the game at all. They're about personal principles regarding content being modified after the fact. That's not useful for someone who wants to know if they'll enjoy the game.
Straw man. What it proves is that gamers have a history of throwing hissy fits when they think "wokeness" is compromising their games, and that this wouldn't be the first time gamers got upset about missing underage panty shots.
I'm not insinuating anything. The reviews themselves make that VERY clear.
Yes! It was a good call! It makes all the sense in the world for Valve to maintain the integrity of the review system so it remains useful and relevant for Steam users.
See? You admit yourself that it's about punishment.
Obviously I do care.
Yes, I have. It wasn't "way more" than just panty shots. As I've said before, the cumulative effect of ALL the changes is trivial. The game remains fundamentally the same game it has always been. And, like I've also said before, if the changes included everything in that list EXCEPT the panty shots, then we wouldn't be seeing this backlash.
It's STILL a fanservicey game. If you believe the game only counts as having fanservice if the underage panty shots remain untouched, then that says more about you than it does about the game.
Straw man.
Or rather, it shows that that's what the reviewers are doing in all those cases (and more).
Yes, yes, I get it. "It's really about ethics in video game journalism", after all.
They were all review bombed for being woke. I understand that, for you, it's important to pretend this sentiment doesn't exist. but when gamers go out of their way to make it clear they don't want what they perceive as "wokeism" in their games, I take them at their word.
[[quote=Soliolangley;5560306947042733435]
You distort reality several times in your answers.[/'quote]
You are mistaken.
The industry doesn't exist to accommodate ANYBODY'S specific tastes and preferences. It doesn't matter if it's just you or if it's 4000 people, you are not entitled to having the game change to suit your personal desires.
First of all, Steam DID find a solution. The review bomb filter is the solution to people abusing the review system to punish devs over perceived wrongdoing.
Secondly, the goal of the review system is NOT to maximize sales. It's to help people get an idea of whether a game will appeal to them or not. A user making an informed purchase decision is less likely to end up disappointed in whatever they buy. Valve doesn't want people buying games they won't like. They want people to find and enjoy games that appeal to them, and a properly-functioning review system is an important tool for them to use.
It's not because review bombs could lead to less sales that Valve filters them out. It's because they make the review system LESS useful and informative and make it harder for people to figure out if they'll like a game.
Of course you don't! You haven't been wronged, so there's obviously no legal recourse for you. This "problem" is ultimately that you are disappointed, and that's not the travesty you seem to want to portray it as.
There you go. The system works!
Why are you so obsessed with that? Not everything is a GamerGate campaign.
Fanservice is when you, as a fan, is presented with something that relates to the character (or anything really) you are a fan of. For example, yellow costume for Wolverine in Deadpool 3 reminds fans of X-men animated series and classic comics in general. That's why it's fanservice. Or, if you are a fan of some cute girl character, fanservice for you can be that girl shown in some closeup or sexually appealing scene. Which does include panty shots or shower scene.
Again, the key here is that you should be a fan of a character. If you are just shown some random boobs or booty - that's not fanservice. That's why if your favorite character (or panty shot of that character) is removed you can't say that there is "plenty fan service left" because you are not a fan of those other characters. Their boobs or booties mean nothing to you.
Claiming that all the criticism that you disagree with is disingenuine is exactly the entitlement narrative you project on others.
They literally can't. Consumer protection organisations can attest to that. Not to mention Steam itself has a history of removing games that devs changed in certain way.
There is nothing beyond.
What?! You said all the recent reviews were about panties!
Gamers have a history of throwing hissy fits for every ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ reason under the sun. That doesn't mean that every single complaint is a hissy fit. I asked specifically for a poof that there are more people upset about panty shots than Russian Voice pack removal from Skullgirls. All I got from you is a bunch of fallacies and attempts to weasel out of the answer.
Yeah, so clear that you constantly flip between claiming that all reviews are about panty shots, then claiming that all reviews are about censorship, then all reviews are about principles, then claiming that it's just a hissy fit that is made out of a feeling of entitlement, then claiming that it's not feeling of entitlement but desire to punish the developers. Yeah, it's very clear that you yourself can't even decide what reviews are about.
A system that hides devs' screw-ups isn't useful for Steam users who look for games that would remain faithful to their core principles and won't change in unexpected and disappointing way.
See what? There is literally not a single word about punishment.
Then why have you insisted that you don't a comment ago?
What things?
On one hand, I don't like it when a developer changes an established game, particularly when they remove content. I felt the same way when GTA games were "updated" to remove music tracks. I believe fans of Skullgirls are justified in being upset about this.
On the other hand, Skullgirls is still a good game. It still plays the same way as it did before. If that content weren't present to begin with, it still very likely would have high review scores, so it's reasonable to say that the review bombing was in fact, "off topic" and it's probably justified that they get filtered out from counting towards the average.
People just want to be heard, and reviews are a good, visible way to get heard. We saw it happen recently with Warthunder, and those devs absolutely heard the upset masses. A lot of the less popular changes were reverted.
One thing that really grinds my gears is the immediate accusations of sexism or pedophilia leveled at anyone who disagrees with these changes. We see this way to frequently these days. Didn't like She Hulk? You're just a sexist pig. Didn't like the fact that they removed content from Skullgirls, a game that came out 10 years ago, you're just a gross incel who's upset because you can't see an underaged character's knickers anymore. Don't like the direction the newer Disney Star Wars movies are going? That's just because you're an insecure male who can't stand to see a strong, capable woman.
These accusations are designed to stop criticism in their tracks. No need to defend bad writing or unpopular changes. Just call anyone who doesn't like it a pedo. It's absolutely maddening.
I never said that.
You're making the mistake of trying to conflate "general Steam user" with particular tastes or preferences when it comes to game content. That's not what the term is about. It's not about catering to majority tastes. It's about making sure the review system is as USEFUL and RELEVANT as it can be for people who want to know if a game will appeal to them, WHATEVER their tastes.
Straw man.
Well the changes made in THIS case fall well within what the devs are allowed to do. No consumer rights were violated.
Sure there is. A game doesn't release in a fixed state and it is not bound to some amorphous and immutable "vision".
Nothing about that indicates outside pressure. Note the language used: "WE felt", "WE believed". They made the changes to suit what THEY wanted, not what others were demanding.
I didn't, but that is the "content" in question, yes.
I didn't say it does. But THIS review bomb certainly is.
Straw man (all three). I never said ALL reviews were about anything. But the underlying motivation is that people are upset about losing their underage panty shots, so they've started what they see as a principled crusade against "censorship". You seem to believe these are discrete elements that contradict each other, when they're all accurate descriptors of what's going on.
Again: Those aren't mutually exclusive. They're trying to punish devs because they feel entitled to their underage panty shots.
Nothing's been hidden. There's a "content and revisions" update that details all the changes the devs made on the store page. The fact that YOU see them as "screw-ups" is what's not helpful for Steam users, since it has nothing to do with their ability to enjoy the game.
You're begging the question, presenting it as a given that the game hasn't remained faithful to its "core principles", or that that's relevant to someone who just wants to know if they'll have fun with the game.
You see a loss in score aggregate as the devs "being held accountable". Therefore, you think we should be able to punish them over perceived transgressions via review bombs. I (and Valve) disagree.