Add a neutral option for reviews.

[Mr.Spookyman]

Some games might be eh for some people to review. So adding a neutral option could be pretty useful besides having positive and negative. The neutral icon can look like a ~ or a - in a tan color perhaps. Just a random idea is all

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Black Blade님이 먼저 게시:

That is not how it works :D:
You are not alone, that is one thing i keep repeating in these treads, you are not alone, you are not a lone reviewer, you are not the sole reviewer, and that is the thing with these system, it works on mass

That may apply to the score aggregation, but the individual reviews are all there for everyone to read.

Black Blade님이 먼저 게시:

how is the 3rd sitting helping the buyer? as the review, is not for the reviewer, its for the user that comes to buy
The two way system, helps to filter it to one line, i will buy it again (yes) will not buy again (No)
And there for make it easy to filter the sides, and see why yes, why not
A third opsin is pointless, as i cant not and do buy it, and as the reviewer is not alone, even if he points out only the bad things with the game, likely someone else will say the good things abut it

You're assuming that the reviewer's tastes match the reader's tastes.

If the reviewer's tastes and the reader's tastes are the same, then this recommendation is useful.

If the reviewer's tastes and the reader's tastes are different, then this recommendation is not useful.

Black Blade님이 먼저 게시:

let the user pick from the reviews what fits him the most

This is exactly why we let the reader read individual reviews.

Black Blade님이 먼저 게시:

Why give it a neutral? to just say "someone may like it"?

Because some games I can recommend without reservation, some games I can only recommend with some reservation, and some games I just can't recommend at all.

For example, some games may essentially require that you be very famiilar (or unfamiliar) with a certain genre, or really want to play that genre, otherwise you probably won't enjoy the experience. That is what a recommendation with some reservation means.

Take for example, Nethack. You have got to really like this high level of complexity coupled with a high level of difficulty to appreciate this game. I would not give this an unqualified recommendation. But I would say that it's worth playing if you like these specific things.

Or take the example I gave earlier. I'd recommend Oozi to someone who hasn't played many platformers but enjoys them, or someone who likes platformers but just wants something to idly kill some time. But I wouldn't recommend it to someone looking for an epic life-changing experience.

SeniorMic님이 먼저 게시:

The problem here is that the "thumsup/down" can falsly represent the entire story arc of a review. Someone who sees both positive and negative elements equally and can neither recommend nor not recommend the game has no opinion worth sharing???. Is half the population just sociopathic robots who can't see beyond bianary code and their own opinion?

A mixed review is not the same as "undecided" Does that compute?

I don't get why some people in this thread are so dead-set against allowing reviewers to express mixed feelings about a game.

shs님이 먼저 게시:

Quint the Turtle Fence님이 먼저 게시:

Why are you asking ME to tell YOU whether you should buy a game? Can't you decide whether you like a game based on others' assessments of the features and factors of a game?

I chose this text of yours more or less at random as they all maintain the same logic in the same even-handed way. My rebuttal, though, is that there is already a filter to look up useful reviews irrespective of their yea-nay judgment, and that is the "Helpful" tag. If that doesn't work for you and you just want to ignore thumbs up or down, well, you can just ignore them and read the text.

You have a point, though the helpfulness of a review is too often judged by biased readers themselves -- which is why we get far more positive helpful reviews than negative helpful reviews.

So much so that one of my common practices is, if I am actually interested in a game, I check the negative reviews because they're more likely to contain information I will find useful.

Also, joke reviews being upvoted because they're funny rather than because they're helpful.

shs님이 먼저 게시:

Not only would the Neutral option contribute nothing, it would be incompatible with every review already written unless every previous critic were willing to revisit his years old review solely for the sake of changing the category they fall under.
This is Steam's most functional feature, why is everyone in such a hurry to muck it up?

It's easily compatible. Every review that currently exists retains its original recommendation choice. Those reviewers who want to change it can change it. The score will now be calculated either by totalling only positive and negative recommendation reviews, or better yet, by giving the overall rating in words (e.g. "very positive") alongside a list of the percentages for each recommendation type.

shs님이 먼저 게시:

As I've said at least once already in another of these threads, the only thing that should change is the wording, from "Positive" and "Negative" to "Recommended" or not. That would give the current "Negatives" a less censorious tone.

I agree with this change.

Washell님이 먼저 게시:

SeniorMic님이 먼저 게시:

Someone who sees both positive and negative elements equally and can neither recommend nor not recommend the game has no opinion worth sharing???

For me, the inherent question being asked of the reviewer on the Steam store page is: Was it worth the money you spend on it? That only has a yes or no answer, which you can elaborate on and nuance the ♥♥♥♥ out of, but meh simply isn't an option. People who can't tell whether it was worth their money, are too chicken to actually give their own opinion, unable to be honest with themselves, or simply poor writers who forget that writing 101 covers picking your audience, and try to write a piece for everyone.

Keep in mind that this isn't even the proper question to ask unless you also ask "how much money are you spending", because different people have different expectations for different price points.

In any case, though, the fact that you say that people who don't answer with a simple yes/no are "chicken" shows that you still don't seem to get that people can be considerate of the fact that they have tastes different from others', and thus their raw yes or no may not be strictly applicable.

Washell님이 먼저 게시:

Writing for everyone only delivers bland, uninformative pieces of drivel. A writer should have a voice.

So is this English class or Steam reviews?

[shs]

Quint the Turtle Fence님이 먼저 게시:

Because some games I can recommend without reservation, some games I can only recommend with some reservation, and some games I just can't recommend at all.

For example, some games may essentially require that you be very famiilar (or unfamiliar) with a certain genre, or really want to play that genre, otherwise you probably won't enjoy the experience. That is what a recommendation with some reservation means.

Take for example, Nethack. You have got to really like this high level of complexity coupled with a high level of difficulty to appreciate this game. I would not give this an unqualified recommendation. But I would say that it's worth playing if you like these specific things.

Or take the example I gave earlier. I'd recommend Oozi to someone who hasn't played many platformers but enjoys them, or someone who likes platformers but just wants something to idly kill some time. But I wouldn't recommend it to someone looking for an epic life-changing experience.

This is interesting because I recognise these qualifications as necessary to good reviewing, without these recognitions the reviewer would be blinkered, yet I firmly believe an absolute opinion can develop from them.
For example, Descent. It's very challenging, awfully unwieldy without a specialty controller, leans somewhat on save-states, and contains one of the most irritating faults in action gaming, namely auto-equip of weapons. Being a six degrees of freedom game it's necessarily disorienting for those uncomfortable with 3D and totally unthinkable for those prone to motion sickness. In terms of objectives it's remoreslessly repetitive. Descent II does everything better, including the ability to disable auto-equip, and the most competent AI companion ever (sorry Sheva!). Then Forsaken came around and did it all much, much prettier.

None of those things change the fact for me that Descent is a 100% must play recommendation. If you don't like it, fine; if you don't try it, you're crazy.

Regarding Nethack, I can't even count how many times I've enjoyed games centered on mechanics I never previously enjoyed. Everybody has something he doesn't like until he finds a specimen that breaks down his barrier.

I don't get why some people in this thread are so dead-set against allowing reviewers to express mixed feelings about a game.

Because those mixed feelings can be expressed in the body of the review. Mixed feelings are precisely what most readers are searching for, not "Whoot! Sh!t is da bomb!" or "My cat said this game stinks, 1/10". People, including me, read those more in depth, more balanced reviews and upvote them for their help. However, if a game can inspire you to write four hundred words for random strangers, but not convince you it's worthwhile there's something lacking with the game or the reviewer.
And again, not worthwhile equals not recommended.

You have a point, though the helpfulness of a review is too often judged by biased readers themselves -- which is why we get far more positive helpful reviews than negative helpful reviews.

True, that really hurts the "Helpful" tag.

So much so that one of my common practices is, if I am actually interested in a game, I check the negative reviews because they're more likely to contain information I will find useful.

That's a good method, but you should later skim the positive side for corrections to assertions from the negative side.
Ever play L.A. Noire? One of the common complaints is that the interrogations are guesswork. Thing is, every chapter has a set number of case clues you get graded on finding afterwards. If you do find all the clues before the interrogation (pro tip: afterwards doesn't help) you will have enough information to deduce an intelligent course of action with the suspect. What, is it shocking that clues make a difference in a detective game? Naturally there is also an ideal witness/suspect progression, such as cracking a weak-willed accomplice before tackling the main suspect.

Now, you could've read that complaint twenty times in the negative section and come to belivee it, so don't get completely sucked in.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

shs님이 먼저 게시:

Regarding Nethack, I can't even count how many times I've enjoyed games centered on mechanics I never previously enjoyed. Everybody has something he doesn't like until he finds a specimen that breaks down his barrier.

shs님이 먼저 게시:

However, if a game can inspire you to write four hundred words for random strangers, but not convince you it's worthwhile there's something lacking with the game or the reviewer.
And again, not worthwhile equals not recommended.

But how can I, as a reviewer, predict whether someone else will find it worthwhile?

Alternatively, how can I, as a reader, trust that what the reviewer finds (not) worthwhile is what I will find (not) worthwhile?

The burden should not be on the reviewer to figure out the tastes of the reader. They should know their tastes and come to a review knowing what they care and don't care about. The only exception is if the reader is explicitly asking for recommendations.

I guess you could argue that Steam is, essentially, explicitly asking for recommendations. Though it is also asking for reviews...and the two are different.

If a neutral category were implemented, I'd probably bee-line to those reviews actually, because they'd be more likely than either side to tell me pros and cons and let me decide, based on what I read, whether I still want to buy the game.

shs님이 먼저 게시:

So much so that one of my common practices is, if I am actually interested in a game, I check the negative reviews because they're more likely to contain information I will find useful.

That's a good method, but you should later skim the positive side for corrections to assertions from the negative side.
Ever play L.A. Noire? One of the common complaints is that the interrogations are guesswork. Thing is, every chapter has a set number of case clues you get graded on finding afterwards. If you do find all the clues before the interrogation (pro tip: afterwards doesn't help) you will have enough information to deduce an intelligent course of action with the suspect. What, is it shocking that clues make a difference in a detective game? Naturally there is also an ideal witness/suspect progression, such as cracking a weak-willed accomplice before tackling the main suspect.

Now, you could've read that complaint twenty times in the negative section and come to belivee it, so don't get completely sucked in.

Fair point.

And to be fair, sometimes I don't actually check the reviews. If I like the game enough and I can get a feeling that the devs know what they're doing (by reputation, by the way they've described their project, etc.) sometimes I just jump right in.

[shs]

Quint the Turtle Fence님이 먼저 게시:

But how can I, as a reviewer, predict whether someone else will find it worthwhile?

That's not up to you. To an equal extent that I believe far too many people resorting to reviews of anything put far too much stock in what is said, and blind stock at that, I also believe that the same proportion of readers go in aware that reviewers essentially write for themselves. The readers who interpret glowing reviews as any sort of guarantee for their own enjoyment are rare enough they shouldn't burden conscientious reviewers like yourself.

Alternatively, how can I, as a reader, trust that what the reviewer finds (not) worthwhile is what I will find (not) worthwhile?

Every point made in every review in history could be checked off this way.

The burden should not be on the reviewer to figure out the tastes of the reader. They should know their tastes and come to a review knowing what they care and don't care about. The only exception is if the reader is explicitly asking for recommendations.

The burden is never on the reviewer. Or, rather, the same burden is on the reviewer that is on the game developers--to convey his enthusiasm. (When the developer fails, this will create proportionate disgust in the reviewer).
A game may do a third of the things you care about well, another third poorly, and the final third not at all, but in a truly quality game that good third will be executed so well you're able to enjoy the game without missing the other elements, perhaps without even noticing they were missing till you sat down to criticize the game. As a critic you then cite the poor, cite the lacking, but praise the excellent.
If a reviewer following this course can't make it clear he really enjoyed the game then it's time for him to give up writing. (The inverse holds true when the game is mostly sound but ultimately no fun).
If a reader who encounters the above can't get any use of it then it's time for him to stop reading.

If a neutral category were implemented, I'd probably bee-line to those reviews actually, because they'd be more likely than either side to tell me pros and cons and let me decide, based on what I read, whether I still want to buy the game.

you're kidding yourself. 90% of the neutral reviews would be waffling screeds. Don't forget the large volume of players who feel that a totally mediocre, nondescript piece of software can still be worthwhile if on sufficient discount.

And to be fair, sometimes I don't actually check the reviews. If I like the game enough and I can get a feeling that the devs know what they're doing (by reputation, by the way they've described their project, etc.) sometimes I just jump right in.

That's funny, right on the tail end of bit you had quoted in reply I originally got halfway through typing exactly this suggestion. Somehow suggesting you instead just dive in blind seemed to defeat the purpose of the thread though.
And I think you'd like LA Noire.

[Nevarine]

These threads are an interesting exercise. It always comes down to "I like it the way it is therefore get use to it!" AND of course, the people who don't like it the way it is explain away to deaf ears.

There is a difference though, between the two sides. One see's it only one way, and the other see's it both ways. Surely a solution for both is better than a solution for one? Oh, wait... I'm sure that logic will come under fire somehow.......

[Black Blade]

SeniorMic님이 먼저 게시:

These threads are an interesting exercise. It always comes down to "I like it the way it is therefore get use to it!" AND of course, the people who don't like it the way it is explain away to deaf ears.

There is a difference though, between the two sides. One see's it only one way, and the other see's it both ways. Surely a solution for both is better than a solution for one? Oh, wait... I'm sure that logic will come under fire somehow.......

So if I disagree I must not be seeing your view, but you see my point of view?
How can you tell? What if it's the other way around?
If you really see both sides, how can you pick one on top of the other? As it seem you say in reviews that is not done

Quint the Turtle Fence

Sorry not qruting on mobile and it's going to be a mess with so many parts
You may have miss understand me
I assume that the reviewer and the reader are likely not the same
But again you are note alone
In the buttom line the buyer has only 2 options buy the game, don't buy the game
And you are not picking that for them, not with negative or positive
You said your self, when you look at reviews you look at negative
Also you said some games you do want to put positive/negative? Can you say anyone will like them?

Abut it may not fit everyone, well sure, no game fits everyone, but you are not the only reviewer, you put the side you know the best your own, and let users that know there side the most to give theres, tell us what's you over all experience recommend or not? You do not need to give me my experience, that is up to me

What is the negative/positive there for? To help users not to pick, but to find reviews of all sides, told by someone that know that side the best
In no system.you tell a user buy/do not buy, you just tell your experience so they can pick
One filtered to help find sides second need has no.fillers

SeniorMic님이 먼저 게시:

The problem here is that the "thumsup/down" can falsly represent the entire story arc of a review. Someone who sees both positive and negative elements equally and can neither recommend nor not recommend the game has no opinion worth sharing???. Is half the population just sociopathic robots who can't see beyond bianary code and their own opinion?

A mixed review is not the same as "undecided" Does that compute?

If you can pick if a game is worth or not worth to buy, how can you make a review that will help me know if it's worth or not to buy?
You can see all sides, that's nice, but are you color blind? Can you tell me how a color blind user enjoy these game? If you like FPS can you really really see the side of who dose not?
And again you are not alone, the users don't only look at you up down, they look at hundreds of outher users up down, and Why
You can't see all sides not truly

[Joki the Disco Bandit]

SeniorMic님이 먼저 게시:

These threads are an interesting exercise. It always comes down to "I like it the way it is therefore get use to it!" AND of course, the people who don't like it the way it is explain away to deaf ears.

There is a difference though, between the two sides. One see's it only one way, and the other see's it both ways. Surely a solution for both is better than a solution for one? Oh, wait... I'm sure that logic will come under fire somehow.......

Didn't take long, did it?

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

shs님이 먼저 게시:

If a reviewer following this course can't make it clear he really enjoyed the game then it's time for him to give up writing. (The inverse holds true when the game is mostly sound but ultimately no fun).
If a reader who encounters the above can't get any use of it then it's time for him to stop reading.

As a reviewer, I can state quite clearly that I did not much enjoy Oozi: Earth Adventure, while I do very much enjoy Nethack.

However, that enjoyment does not necessarily translate to others' enjoyment, so it is more meaningful that they read my review than simply see my thumbs up or thumbs down.

As a reader, I find it much more useful to see details about a game that I can't easily see from screenshots and trailers, as people describe their gameplay experiences.

shs님이 먼저 게시:

If a neutral category were implemented, I'd probably bee-line to those reviews actually, because they'd be more likely than either side to tell me pros and cons and let me decide, based on what I read, whether I still want to buy the game.

you're kidding yourself. 90% of the neutral reviews would be waffling screeds. Don't forget the large volume of players who feel that a totally mediocre, nondescript piece of software can still be worthwhile if on sufficient discount.

How can you decide for me whether a given piece of software is "totally mediocre" and "nondescript"? Why don't you let me decide whether or not I want to buy a game, on the merits of the game that you tell me about?

For example, if you tell me that a game's platforming is slow and deliberate, that might interest me, but turn off others. Heck, if you tell me a game has chiptune music, that might interest me, turn off others who feel that it's part of a copycat trend they don't enjoy, and have no effect on others who don't care about this issue.

shs님이 먼저 게시:

And I think you'd like LA Noire.

Sounds vaguely interesting; I'll keep it in mind. Thanks.

Black Blade님이 먼저 게시:

Also you said some games you do want to put positive/negative? Can you say anyone will like them?

Yes, I can definitely say that I myself enjoyed or didn't enjoy the game.

And when I want to write a mixed review, I can also say that I am pretty sure not everyone will enjoy the game.

Black Blade님이 먼저 게시:

Abut it may not fit everyone, well sure, no game fits everyone, but you are not the only reviewer, you put the side you know the best your own, and let users that know there side the most to give theres, tell us what's you over all experience recommend or not? You do not need to give me my experience, that is up to me

I can tell you my experience, but you won't necessarily find my telling you whether I enjoyed the game useful.

If you want more details, they are there. If you don't want them, simply look only at my thumbs-up/thumbs-down/thumbs-sideways however you wish, and don't blame me when that is missing information when I have supplied a more thorough review.

Black Blade님이 먼저 게시:

What is the negative/positive there for? To help users not to pick, but to find reviews of all sides, told by someone that know that side the best

It's too much work to determine the best reviewer out of hundreds of reviews.
What is probably the best option is to skim through multiple reviews, to get an understanding of what are common issues with the game.

Black Blade님이 먼저 게시:

In no system.you tell a user buy/do not buy, you just tell your experience so they can pick
One filtered to help find sides second need has no.fillers

If you want to force people to give recommendations so much, then how about a compromise:

Thumbs-up
Thumbs-slightly-up
Thumbs-slightly-down
Thumbs-down

Black Blade님이 먼저 게시:

If you can pick if a game is worth or not worth to buy, how can you make a review that will help me know if it's worth or not to buy?

I can indeed say whether I enjoyed a game.
Whether I would buy the game depends on its price, so technically you are also asking the reviewer to input how much they paid for it. Are you?
In any case, in my reviews, I prefer to give you the information on which you can base your own assesment of whether you'd enjoy it or not.
Presuming that your tastes are the same as mine is pretty irresponsible and would likely get you to play games that you don't enjoy and miss games that you like.

Black Blade님이 먼저 게시:

You can see all sides, that's nice, but are you color blind? Can you tell me how a color blind user enjoy these game? If you like FPS can you really really see the side of who dose not?
And again you are not alone, the users don't only look at you up down, they look at hundreds of outher users up down, and Why
You can't see all sides not truly

But I can see those sides that I care about, and I can report about them, which provides other people more information to make their own decisions.

[Washell]

Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ebert#Critical_style

[gotika10]

hmm

[cinedine]

SeniorMic님이 먼저 게시:

The problem here is that the "thumsup/down" can falsly represent the entire story arc of a review. Someone who sees both positive and negative elements equally and can neither recommend nor not recommend the game has no opinion worth sharing???. Is half the population just sociopathic robots who can't see beyond bianary code and their own opinion?

A mixed review is not the same as "undecided" Does that compute?

What is the problem with saying what you like and dislike about a game IN THE BLOODY REVIEW?!
What is the problem to weigh the pros and cons and come to a conclusion that
(a) either you like the game enough for the negative aspects to not matter too much and you employ others to at least give it a try when in doubt or
(b) that the negative aspects outweigh the positive ones and while the game has its merits, you can't recommend it carte blanche.

Reviews to not cater to the general public. They do not try to convince you the game is the biggest tosh ever and you should stay the hell away from it (without good reasons) or that it is the second coming for video games and you're life will be empty if you have not played it. They do not employ you to play a game in a genre you know you dislike. They do not try to convince you that this casual time waster is way better than the latest AAA release.
If any review does, it's ♥♥♥♥. Plain ♥♥♥♥.

Reviews are mainly for people on the verge of buying. A long elaborated product description which comes out as "buy it or leave it" is simply not helpful at all. It doesn't matter if this is accompanied by a positive, negative or neutral icon. But a neutral "rating" will certainly not make me want to read your 8000 characters verbal diarrhea. A positive or negative one with an interesting and qualifying intro might.

And FFS stop with this "the world isn't black and white" BS. Yes, it's not binary. But if you don't have an opinion about something, you have no business talking about it. Ever seen those 'please-all'-politicians in a debate? That's how you will come across.
Also stop calling other people binary thinking inhumane robots you indifferent stoners slacking through life.

[Joki the Disco Bandit]

Waiting for the big petition to remove "mixed" from the aggregate....

Scratch that. Waiting for the pitchfork-wielding mob so upset at even the *idea* of a neutral/mixed/undecided review to descend on Valve HQ and *demand* the removal of "mixed" from the aggregate.

cinedine님이 먼저 게시:

But if you don't have an opinion about something, you have no business talking about it.

I hate to be the one to break this to you but there are several thousand newspapers, magazines, journals etc. in the world that do nothing but talk about things they (at least in spirit) have no opinion on. (Well, sans the Editorial/Opinion pages of course.)

[cinedine]

Hotblack Desiato님이 먼저 게시:

cinedine님이 먼저 게시:

But if you don't have an opinion about something, you have no business talking about it.

I hate to be the one to break this to you but there are several thousand newspapers, magazines, journals etc. in the world that do nothing but talk about things they (at least in spirit) have no opinion on. (Well, sans the Editorial/Opinion pages of course.)

I hate to break it to you but the the very fact that they DO spend the time to report on such issues mean they do have an opinion about it. Either the way they do talk about it fits their agenda or they are of the opinion that you at least should know about a certain issue. That's why you can currently read thousands of orbituaries about David Bowie but read nothing about Wei Li, the hundrest Chinese factory worker to die this year. Until you do.

[shs]

Quint the Turtle Fence님이 먼저 게시:

shs님이 먼저 게시:

If a reviewer following this course can't make it clear he really enjoyed the game then it's time for him to give up writing. (The inverse holds true when the game is mostly sound but ultimately no fun).
If a reader who encounters the above can't get any use of it then it's time for him to stop reading.

As a reviewer, I can state quite clearly that I did not much enjoy Oozi: Earth Adventure, while I do very much enjoy Nethack.

However, that enjoyment does not necessarily translate to others' enjoyment, so it is more meaningful that they read my review than simply see my thumbs up or thumbs down.

As a reader, I find it much more useful to see details about a game that I can't easily see from screenshots and trailers, as people describe their gameplay experiences.

Why would a "Neutral" tag incline readers to pay your review's useful details more mind than the +/- tags currently do? Unless they already own the game or are reading sheerly for amusement people don't click +/- on the lookout for the most polar opinions possible.
If I've bought a game that stinks I may search for Negative reviews that hightlight its problems and thumb them up so that future buyers can be warned; and vice versa for games I've enjoyed, even if they aren't trenchant criticism. However, if I want information I look for balanced reports. My bet is that's what most readers do.

I just don't see how "Neutral" equates to more balance than the standing options. Once you get past the tag they're all on equal footing.

Your Oozi review, which I've read since this topic began, is something I would call utterly misleading under a Neutral banner. You make it very clear the game is average at best, which to me marks a bad game.
See next.

How can you decide for me whether a given piece of software is "totally mediocre" and "nondescript"? Why don't you let me decide whether or not I want to buy a game, on the merits of the game that you tell me about?

That is what I'm doing. Telling you the game has no particular merits is the plainest way of informing you a game is mediocre and nondescript, as you have done with Oozi.

Take a different game I purchased in the winter sale, Adventure in the Tower of Flight.
It has beautiful graphics and music, plenty of space to explore, functional lucid stage design, and mechanics that are a pleasant mashup of early arcade-NES platformers like Kid Icarus, Wardner, Milon's Secret Castle, and so forth. Sadly, it's uneventful. Which means a definite Negative from me, even if a Neutral category were invented.
My question to you is does my unwillingness to place a game that certainly has a number of merits under a Neutral tag invalidate my review? If it doesn't then I don't see the need for a Neutral tag.
Just to be clear, I haven't played it long enough to give up on it yet and am hoping it does become more eventful. Maybe it will.

For example, if you tell me that a game's platforming is slow and deliberate, that might interest me, but turn off others. Heck, if you tell me a game has chiptune music, that might interest me, turn off others who feel that it's part of a copycat trend they don't enjoy, and have no effect on others who don't care about this issue.

There are also people who refuse to try anything that isn't distinctly great, so labelling a game with Neutral will not get its merits any more attention than putting it under the Negative class.

"Neutral" sounds like a nice distinction because it doesn't exist. But once it does exist everybody with any confliction will rate every game they review as "Neutral" and the term will lose all meaning.

[Nevarine]

Black Blade님이 먼저 게시:

SeniorMic님이 먼저 게시:

These threads are an interesting exercise. It always comes down to "I like it the way it is therefore get use to it!" AND of course, the people who don't like it the way it is explain away to deaf ears.

There is a difference though, between the two sides. One see's it only one way, and the other see's it both ways. Surely a solution for both is better than a solution for one? Oh, wait... I'm sure that logic will come under fire somehow.......

So if I disagree I must not be seeing your view, but you see my point of view?
How can you tell? What if it's the other way around?
If you really see both sides, how can you pick one on top of the other? As it seem you say in reviews that is not done

Thats exactly right. Your pretty high ranking as far as steam folks go so I would hope you should have some bipartisan abilities. As stated in the other post: Is a review with proper context, not better than a review with context that misrepresents the review?

So one side of this question believes that the otherside has to "conform" to a simple thumbs up/down, and that such a misrepresented review is easily "fixed" by the contents of the review.

The otherside recognises (in a 5 star system) that such a limited context is still there to choose for the side that see's things in black and white, while giving the otherside themselves proper freedom of choice and context for their reviews.


Thus, one see's it only one way, and the other see's it both ways. Surely a solution for both is better than a solution for one? This is why I propose a descriptive 5 star system, with 3 being the "mixed" review that is neither recommended nor not recommended. This gives both sides the tools to do it the way they want, and have the review represented much more correctly.