Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
Ez a téma zárolásra került 
Hozzászólási szabályok és irányelvek
Hozzászólás jelentése
And again the golden question: how is the engine supposed to know whether a game is similar to another? By the tags. And if the tag quality is abyssmal, there is no way to get "similar" stuff recommended. At least not if you don not consider a platformer and Red Dead Redemption 2 similar of each other becuase they share "good story" and "action".
The algorithm is fine. The data is beyond bad. And users expectations are ridiculous sometimes.
Maybe because you can't just tell an algorithm on why a game is good. If Developers knew how to do that they would already have done so.
So it goes by what you play and what tags the game you play have. Along with what other people who played the game too have played and liked.
Sometimes it works to look for games in a special genre like Metroidvania type games or Rouge like games. Then you will find similar games.
But if you love one FPS game like Modern Warfare 2 and there are several of them nearly exactly the same but you hate the rest the system will no idea why you liked the first Modern Warfare 2.
Curators can be used to find games of better quality because users are more likely to recommend games of higher quality. Also no, these are not paid advertisement. I doubt any developer will bother with them that much seeing how hidden away they are.
Yeah, it's astonishing how a programme that focuses on improving the search and recommendations comes up in a topic about improving the recommendations.
Don't you just hate it if people are on topic.
It's more a programme that focuses on taking the decision-making away from the customer, and instead serving the customer something while saying "I know what you want better than you do".
Now, I do understand that the reason is that the customer, for some reason, wants that, because apparently thinking is too hard. But still. Call me a Luddite, but this isn't going to improve anything.
Is like how people love to say their favourite TV show are documentaries but then they chug tens of hours of Survivor or Big Brother.
Where would you put your money if you were an advertiser wanting to reach that individual?
People should have the liberty to make mistakes, and that includes mistakes about their own opinions. It's frustrating sometimes, yes, but if Brave New World is people's idea of a perfect future, then I guess I'll be one of the savages.*
And don't ask me about advertising. My honest opinion about the industry is not very popular. I rate advertisers somewhere between war profiteers and sexual predators on my scale of hate.
* Yes, I know that I do have the opt-out freedom at the moment. But I wonder how this conversation goes in 15 years.
15 years ago we wouldn't have had this conversation at all.
Except we literally had. The dot.com bubble bursted and the winners Google, Facebook, Amazon ... were looking into ways to feed us with what they thought we are interested in. Wikipedia was already on its way to be the single source of truth. "The games media only is hype-training and all tests are paid adverts"-stick was even around then. YouTube began delivering content on demand.
15 years ago is quite exactly when all of this started. The mid 2000s was when the internet broke into common households and became a part of our daily reality. And it was then when governments slept through so that we are only now step into the "uncharted territory". #Neuland
I know it may be a difficult thing to wrap your brain around, but I don't count into the "we" you are talking about there. 15 years ago, none of those "winners" were relevant in my life, because apparently I lived in a different world, which made a late entry into the one we are in now. Digitalization didn't happen all over the world at the same time. So no, "we" would not have had this conversation 15 years ago. Whether or not you already had it with others is irrelevant to me, and to "we".
I think the phrase to use here would be, "check your privilege".
And it seems my point about being one of the savages in the brave new world is even pointed now. But of course, you know better.
Oh jees, here we go again ...
Why do you take something that OBVIOUSLY is meant as a generalization so personal to the point you feel attacked by it?
If you meant by
literally you and us, of course we wouldn't have had this conversation. Because we didn't encounter each other for another ten plus years. That doesn't change the fact the conversation you are referring to "the internet dictates what we like and are interested in" already happened.
Sorry mate, you are nothing but a faceless entitiy for me. I do not consider any of my posts directed at you personally unless I am very clear about it, like now.
You know, you don't have to "go again" if you don't want to. It's not like I'm entitled to your time of day.
So, with all my belief in human agency, I can only conclude that you're not writing this against your own free choice, but instead because you feel you have something to gain from doing so.
Well, maybe that's our problem. I don't talk in generalizations unless specifically stated, so I also don't expect generalizations.
So....
I of course meant...
"I would not have had this conversation with anyone, regardless of whether we've met or not, because the point I was at in my life at that time has differed fundamentally from the experience you or Start_Running had, and since I only have my experience to go on by, regardless of how much 'googling' I could have, and might have, done on the topic, third-hand information is simply not adequate to make a point in time that I haven't personally experienced relatable to me.
And while I may be a bit of a late entrant to this world where people relinquish their own choice because they enjoy greater comfort by delegating their own choice to someone else, that doesn't mean my opinion, shaped by that late entry is to be dismissed, or to be challenged only on the basis of having been formed at a later time, with a different 'entry experience' rather than to be looked at in its entirety.
Therefore, I understand you might have had an experience of such a (general) conversation before me; but just because I am here now doesn't mean that I need to adopt the stance that I would have had that same conversation then. My entry into the digital era being a bit late also means that I might have found, and still do find, certain developments shocking and even undesirable, that those who adopted them from the beginning on, might now take for granted as a fact of life.
Of course, I will not stand for anyone telling me that I should take them for granted as a fact of my life, too, therefore my allegory to Aldous Huxley's work."
Now, that's obviously a mouthful, so TL; DR - no, we would not have had this conversation 15 years ago.
See above and stop assuming my intentions please. If you're not sure, ask for clarification.
Are you sorry? It's a pet peeve of mine. If you're not actually sorry, then do not say "sorry". An apology deserves more respect than to be spoken in vain. (Another phrase I have much dislike for is "with all due respect". I just wish people didn't fake amicability when they're definitely not being amicable).
And okay, if that's how you roll - fine. I don't, and I'm not going to start to for your sake.
You really have to brush up on spoken language and idioms.
Or stop having conversations on the internet if every single reply of yours relies on knowing you personally on an intimate level to be fully understand. Even if it is a commonly used phrase.
For example "sorry mate" as in "I regret being the one who breaks it to you".
I'm perfectly aware of the idioms. I just refuse to play with them, because I consider them dishonest, rotten, and fake. After all these years, you should have picked that up. If this is all you have to say, then I can only conclude that you were not here in good faith to begin with.
And - and I'm only saying this to make it even - I never thought I'd have to report one of your posts. Maybe there is something for you to "regret" in the future.
But, eh, probably not.