Instale 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 (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
Denunciar esta mensagem
If I don't recommend a game after X hours or after I finished it, it's simply because the cons were outweighing the pros of the game. Not recommending a game doesn't mean the game sucks or that I don't like it. It simply means I recommend most people to buy and play something else.
For example, I wouldn't recommend Resonance of Fate. It does a lot of things good. It's just that it's a massive grind later on in the game and ultimately that outweighs the pros heavily. I didn't dislike the game, it's certainly not a game that sucks, I simply wouldn't recommend it to the general audience.
I also wouldn't recommend Victor Vran. I played and finished it, but there are plenty of better games in the genre, so I would recommend those instead of this one.
Some games simply change too much after a while. People who initially started playing Stellaris have seen the game change in such ways that it's almost feels like a different game. And for some people, that change is not in a good way. So naturally it will mean a not recommend for such players, even though they did spend lots of hours on the game initially.
Same with multiplayer titles that have the userbase change and/or diminish over time. People playing dozens or even hundreds of hours and then not recommending a game because the community has turned into a toxic hive, isn't an odd thing.
There can be all kinds of reasons why people don't recommend a game they played for a while. And that's ok.
Would i tell others to buy this game based on what though and what is the reason you are writing the review in first place? It's whether you think game play etc is good or bad no? Why you're writing it isn't because someone likes to read your words, it's because they are trying to figure out whether to buy the game, and ultimately if it's good, bad or ok as consensus.
I guess this is where the punishment to the dev part comes in with my initial rant and the part most are not thinking about. We are only thinking about ourselves.
So this logic is saying someone recommends for the first 30 hours but hours 31 onward you don't recommend, but still continued rinsing the game for all it had btw...
So said person paid $10 or whatever for 30 hours of entertainment and then punish the indie dev (because a lot of not recommends impact overall review rating i believe). To me that is wrong and why the middle ground could holistically explain a better story.
The overarching problem is the overall steam rating appears to take all reviews and average them, the free text box everyone is referring to isn't included in the calculation.
At a glance if someone's looking at the game they're not reading every not recommend to understand thoughts and feelings, they see 'mixed' or whatever the other negative word is and think hmm and move on, in turn impacting sales > dev morale/funding to produce another (perhaps that is better).
This is probably why (and perhaps case and point) Steam does not allow you to return a game after you played it for 2 hours i think it is, as it'd be a nightmare to have indefinite return policy, affecting sales and they're saying "you've played enough of it to decide if you want to keep it or not", but don't seem to mind/have not considered a game being negatively reviewed after 30 hours of playtime. What's that all about?
When you paid 10$, you paid for everything in the game. The joy, the anguish, the good thing, the bad thing. Even if someone put a game at 'Not Recommended' after 9k hours, it is still just. No one is getting punished here. Putting aside the possibility that they are trolling, it is also possible that they have a good reason why they continue playing and a good reason why they put it as Not Recommended
Some people could keep going thanks to one or two small aspects that keep them entertained, notwithstanding that they hate the core of the game. Not to mention, the existence of perfectionists/masochists. They have paid the Dev for the license to play the game so that at least, as far as Steam is concerned, they are entitled to put whatever their thoughts are for the game in Reviews or you will see a rule 'playing past 30 hours means you recommending the game.'
The 2 hours that you have been given are only to check If the game runs normally on your device. Not to review the game as a whole. You reviewing the game in 2 hours is only a bonus. There are many, many threads asking to extend the limit, but there would be no end to that. After 5 hours, they will ask for 7. After 7 they ask for 10. and so on.
I will reserve the 'middle ground could holistically explain a better story' & the 'free text box everyone is referring to isn't included in the calculation.' for others to cover. In the meantime, I suggest that you read the link that I posted here.
Have a good day
Play (Recommended) Dishonored series, Divinity Original Sin series etc.
Not play (Not recommended) Fifa, Call of Duty, Fornite etc.
Meh (Not recommended) Fifa, Call of Duty, Fornite etc.
And of course when I write a review it's from my perspective. It's my view on what I played and bought. Factoring in the feelings of the dev and changing the rating of the review to accommodate that is dishonest in my opinion.
Steam not having an indefinite refund policy is simply because it's not viable for a business to have that. Refund systems also aren't a satisfaction guarantee, a person not liking what they bought doesn't mean they should be refunded. That's for most products and stores, though in general stores simply have a blanket policy that gives some leeway in that (retail stores that apply 30 days return policies, or Steams 2 hours).
I don't agree that if someone writes a negative review after 30 hours it means that they recommended the game the first 30 hours and then suddenly flipped. It's not black & white or binary in that sense. As you said yourself, we're not robots.
For example Victor Vran, as I said I wouldn't recommend that game as there are plenty of better games in the genre, I knew that after about an hour already. What was there was enough for me to not return it and to finish it, but finishing a game doesn't mean I recommend the game.
People write Steam reviews for their own reasons, and that's ok. They're merely opinions of people. If you don't want to not recommend a game after X hours, that's fine. You do you. Other people think differently, that's fine as well. They do them.
As for games that I could take or kleave. Yeah I can play those games, even enjoy those games but I would not Recomme d those games to someone else. I reserve such endorsements for games that can actually leave a solid impression on me.
YOu're free to recommend such a game if you want. That's your choice, and the choice all of us have. WHat you choose to recommend is your personal decision. You can recommend something you personally didn't enjoy if you want.
I personally take it as whether or not I recommend not whether or not I think it is good or bad. And as said you can recommend you personally don't like. I mean sit me infront of fifa and make me play it and I will probably recommend it. Same for COd. Though I don't personally enjoy those games but me not liking a game doesn't mean I can't appreciate why others would like them. Fifa for example bbelongs to a genre of game I just do not like at all. And the things I do not like are the very things people who enjoy such games like about it.
Well yeah. Can't think about the devs. and the devs themselves benefit from brutal honesty far more than sugar coating.
What? You never watched a movie/series past the point where it was interesting just to get some closure on the story?
Maybe they were hoping that it would get better again and they were just going through a bad chapter.
If the displeasure of hours 31+ outweighed the pleasure of hours 1-30...then that is indeed fair.
It's a net evaluation.. This is why they tell writers to nail trhe first two chapters and the last two chapters.
So you think the problem is that people actually have to read' to understand the why of the aggregate?
If a dev wants to get better ratings, they need to make a better game. WHich is what seperates the good devs from the trash devs from the great devs. Heck Creatives in general.
Heck as a creative you should be your own greatest critic. and many are. This is why most creatives will recouil from their early works like an anime fan from sunlight.
The simple point is. Meh is the equivalent of a disinterested shrug. If you're getting ideas for what movie to see friom friends. Do the number of So-So's determine your decision?
But as I said before (in this thread and I think just about any thread on the subject), it doesn't matter which rating system gets used. Different people have different preferences, so there will always be complaints, and ultimately any rating without context is meaningless (at least to me) on it's own.
Technically Steam already has a "meh" option for the curators. They could extend it to regular reviews and simply not count them, just as they don't count reviews from key activations.
For example, I wouldn't recommend FEAR 3 despite being a perfectly fine game because I didn't have fun playing Call of Duty clone with slow-mo.
I think people should read reviews to see if the game offers what they want, not because they say "good, bad, meh, 5/bananas, etc".
Ons person might bash a game for being too difficult, but that high difficulty could be a positive thing for someone else.
The problem is that CUrators have fewer restrictions than customers. A curator neither has to play, or even own a game they curate. A user has to have at least owned and played the game on steam.
The question to me is really what DO you recommend that made you sit there for that long, then what do you NOT that made you walk away.
The concept would need thought but that overarching logic should have mandatory drop-downs (that actually calculates in the overall overage) THEN put your words in the free text.
It's like an election - (bear with me..).... you know all the drama and media that comes during it? So no one remembers that - (similar to the free text in a review)...what people look at in an election are the end results that are posted globally... that is what sticks.
In this case it is the average that is taken from a steam review based on 2 simple factors - recommend and not recommend and nothing else....when someone sits and plays for 30 hours and then says 'nah...game is crap'...this doesn't make sense to me and impacts the dev/ steam and players in my view when the average rating becomes 'negative'.
This is also making me think how other's value their time. it's interesting.
THANK YOU, it's that simple.
The curious will read the reviews, and the commentary, as many as they feel they need to make an informed decision. The incurious don;'t care and would not particularly appreciate or pay attention tio the extra data being shoved in their faces.
So pretty much the system is what it is.
You're again assuming that not recommending implies dislike or walking awaty. . FOr you it might. FOr others it can be more a matter of the game just not meeting the high stndards they have for recommendation.. There are people who will only recommend a game that they consider a 9 out of 10 or higher.. And others will recommend a game as long as it is interesting.
Poor analogy. But yeah. Elections count what people endorse by their actions. They don't concern themselves with the why. Maybe they liked the ciandidate's stance on certain key policies. Maybe they liked the candidate's hairstyle. Maybethe candidate represents the party their family has traditionally voted for over the last 6 generations. It doesn'tb really matter. What matter is where you put your mark.
It's actually One factor. Whether or not they recommend..
And the reason it doesn't make sense to you is because you're thinking in binary extremes. Saying No doesn't mean you hate the game or think it's bad. It just means to don't think it was good enough. I mean I'll eat a mcdonolads burger if you put one infront of me. But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. I would however recommend a Deluxe Dlite burger.
You're also forgetting that games cyhange over time. You can put 30 hours in a game love it, and then the dev puts out a patch that ruins the game for you. In that case the game you loved is no longer in existence only this current game. Do you write your review based on the game that was that no new person will ever play, or on the game that is actually in existence.
It doesn't even take an update. Take a multiplayer game. LOadout for example. Fun game . Enjoyed the heck out of it. Butv then the community went south and the game experience suffered for it. In this case it basically died. The same can happen if the games say get overrun with bots, cheaters and griefers..
You need to broawden your scope of thought m8.
This is also making me think how other's value their time. it's interesting. [/quote]