Game Reviews Update Suggestion!

[ploopploop]

Hello and thank you for your time in advance. As the title says, this suggestion has to do about game reviews. As things stand I personally think that reviews can have too much influence on helping a customer decide whether they will buy the game... well actually some might not even go to the game page if a game has a to low positive vs negative rating.

Reviews have on average a too big impact. For example either positive or negative reviews can be aimed for a lot smileys and not be honest which might make a game look bad due a low % of positives, while the negative reviews mostly state "go look at the positives as there are no negatives."

I will explain in detail some of the solutions that can be implemented to make reviews at least better for in the future, because as of now the reviews are getting messier and messier. Note that the methods with a * behind it won't be optional as, based on the current opinions on it, it wouldn't simply cut it. Feel free to tell me improvements though if you can think of any.

The given methods will be adjusted accordingly to the given feedback of the community. This goes both ways such as improving it or leaving it out. An underlined method means that the given method is the most fail proof and would result the best compared to others.


Suggestion:
Changing the impact and value a review can have. To make sure short funny reviews won't have the same effect as serious reviews that describe many game mechanics.


Reason:
The current way of reviewing games is unfair to the company and the game itself. For example most of the negative reviews aren't based on the game at all or what the game delivers, but usually they are about performance issues. Now this sounds pretty logical right? Well it should be, however most of the peoples experiencing performance issues usually don't have the minimal required hardware. For example if the game states that it requires at least 4gb of vram, you will see peoples complaining about performance issues with 2gb of vram.

Most peoples base their click on a store item due the % of positive reviews. Currently it is getting a hype to downrate a game when you don't meet the requirements, resulting in less sales for both Valve and the games.


Methods of fixing this:
Now there are a few methods to fix this or at least to make the reviewing system a lot more fair than it is now. This will benefit not only Valve and the game companies, but the players aswell. You will be able to find more proper game related negative reviews to find the flaws in a game before purchasing it, instead of performance based (with hardware lower than the requirements) reviews.

• Play time requirement of at least 1.5 hours/review achievement.

  Putting some time in a game instead of just starting it will allow you to get at least past the first level/hurdle you will encounter in the game. The player will have been able to play the game for a bit to experience at least a few game mechanics. So the reviews won't be based on first impressions anymore. Also at this time the player is still able to get a refund if he/she hates it. It can also be refunded earlier, however he/she won't be able to write a review then.
  
  Also I am fully aware that some games can be finished in less than an hour whilest it can be a pretty good game and worth the purchase. An alternative to this could be that you need to have earned a "review" achievement in the game. This achievement can be assigned by the devs. For example if you complete level 1 you will get this achievement. This will allow you to write a review regardless of your gametime.
  
  This achievement should be gained somewhere when the user has experienced most of the game mechanics or have get to know enough about the story to judge. If the devs choose not to include this achievement you can still write a review after afking until you reach 1.5 hours. In the review you can write then that this achievement was left out most likely because the devs knew the game wouldn't deliver proper quality compared to the promises and pricing. This will also have a great impact to make sure that the devs won't simply ignore this when their game is really utter garbage.
  
  

• Hardware requirement verification.*

  Trust me, this sounds a lot more fancier than it is. Players shouldn't be able to write reviews if they don't meet the minimum requirement for hardware as this will usually result in reviews based on performance issues due to their weak hardware. I mean come on we will just look up some benchmarks if we wait to know the performance.
  
  This can be done with either some tool from Valve that automatically detects your system and saves it when you want it to. This way it can check whether you are eligable or not for writing a review. If you have the minimum requirements or better for the engaged game, you'll be able to write a review either negative or positive.
  Edit:
  I recently noticed that steam already has an option of showing your system specs so all it has to do would be to save it in their database or so, at least the vital information such as cpu, gpu, ram and os.
  
  Another way could be a verification system in which you have to send through steam a ticket or message to Valve with a screenshot of for examply speccy that shows your hardware and your steam profile in the background. This method will require more men power at the Valve HQ though.
  
  

• Review format field.*

  With this all reviews from now will be basically written newly. As of now it is up to the player his own imagination to make it look fancy or dull with heaps of text (like my current suggestion). But an example for this is that when reviewing a game you will have several input fields with each telling you what to describe.
  
  For example the first would be "How was the game experience?" and then you write out your answer, the next "Were there any game breaking encounters?" and you fill out your answer etc. So basically a questionaire. This will make reviewing a game easy for anyone that is new to it and it will result in a lot more usefull reviews.
  
  

• Downvote percentage.*

  A current existing usefull mechanic could be utulized for this. The amount of downvotes and the percentage of it (positives vs negatives). If for example a review has more than 70% downvotes with at least 100 downvotes, it will be checked before getting removed.
  
  I've seen from most the reviews that the reviews get up and down votes based on their review, so this could work without a check. I guess a lot of peoples would be against this since peoples can troll. But then again, honest reviews are always voted with a high percentage of positives compared to negatives.
  
  

• Filter system updated.

  The new filter system allows users to give tags to their reviews. For example 2 potentional tags could be "funny" and "serious". If you check in the filter list the category "funny", you will see all reviews with the funny tag. Same goes for serious. This should make it for users easier to find what they seek.
  
  There can be a big list of tags that can be used and these can be enabled/disabled when you are going through the reviews. For example someone might prefer to see all reviews while someone else only wants to see funny positive reviews. Toggling multiple tags would make things a lot easier for those who are searching specifically.
  
  As an addition to reward those who write reviews that delivers quite a lot information, they might be able to earn a steam badge such as "review master". Ofcourse this is purely optional but meant to motivate peoples to write more usefull reviews.
  
  

• Show pc specs.

  Users will have to enter their pc specs (from which they played the game) as addition to writing their reviews. Simple tools such as speccy can help you determine what specs you have. Peoples with below minimum specs writing reviews based on optimization will not have a major impact if the game doesn't run well. Peoples with below minimum rig that can run the game might make it more populair due to good optimization.
  
  Ofcourse there are games that simply can't be run even at good specs, these will be noted as badly optimized as you can see the users rig.
  
  The specs should be shown through a screenshot perhaps with your steam profile in the background (including profile url) and a software tool such as speccy that shows your hardware.
  
  This idea will be updated later and has been made due a suggestion in the comments.

Pros:

1. More honest reviews.
   
2. Reviews based on actual gameplay experience.
   
3. Games will get a review which reflects on both the company and the game.
   
4. Peoples doubting about purchasing it will have no difficulties in finding honest reviews.
   
5. More sales!

Cons:

1. Depending on the chosen method it might require more men power.
   
2. Depending on the chosen method writing a review might become to easy due which you can't use it as actual experience for reviewing games and such, at least not with steam.

Some last words:
Alright if you came this far with reading I honestly thank you for taking your time reading this! I have to say that nothing can be perfect, but should that stop us from aspiring to make something perfect? Hell no! So hit me up in the comments with suggestions about this or things that could be either changed or added!

Perhaps you totally disagree with this suggestion and absolutely hate it, feel free to share your opinion as I might be able to learn a thing or two from it and adjust this suggestion to get as close as possible to everyone their needs.

You are also free to comment if you would love to see this, make the word spread!

* = not a good method based on different point of views.
If you have a solution to make it an option, feel free to point it out. This thread is a suggestion and I would love to improve the suggestion with the given methods if it is possible.

PS: please keep this free from spam.

PPS: Steam has enough revenue to be able to afford all these methods together. Don't tell me they are in money trouble as an arguement. We have to look at the best quality, not about the cheapest method. If they will give a look at this thread then we can start talking about how much each method would cost and which would deliver the best quality for the price of establishing it.

[cinedine]

Any proof for the bold statement that most complains are because of not meeting the minimum speccs? Like, more than one game? That isn't Arkham Knight? :P

Playtime
Has been brought up frequently and it will skewer the reviews far too much to positive since people won't endure a game they don't enjoy and thus not recommend for a set period of time just to write about it. Also if a game doen't run despite meeting the speccs, you silence those reviews as well.

Hardware requirements
Has been brought up frequently in another context (store filtering). Detection is faulty, given speccs are all but acurate in wording ("or AMD equivalent") and rather arbitrarily based on the QA experience or just guestimates. And via support? Really?!

Pre-format
Won't cut down on joke reviews and even give them more space for lame memes and jokes. It would make the review section in general very dull and reviews with more effort put into would be obscured while it could even block useful information which is more easily to give in a free text.

Downvote percentage
The voting is already far too influenced by haters and fanboys. Beloved games would have no negative reviews anymore because the later would simply downvote every single one of them until they're deleted. Also trolls would do so for any side just because they can. Also giving users a way to basicallyhold smaller studios which are more reliant on mouth-to-mout and reviews than press coverage hostage with the ability to delete every positive review is plain ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. And it will happen. It already happens with just writing negative reviews.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Publicado originalmente por ploopploop:

Play time requirement of at least 1.5 hours.

Not all games are even 1.5 hours long; I can't support any suggestion that would actively outlaw the reviewing of short games. Others often bring up the "you don't need to eat the whole sandwich to know it's got rotten meat in it" argument, which is also pretty reasonable.

Rather than restrictions on writers, I would prefer that the system let you, as a reader, filter out reviews based on various criteria of your choosing. If you don't want to see reviews below 1.5 hours playtime, that's absolutely fine with me, but Steam can give you that option without having to impose it on everyone.

Publicado originalmente por ploopploop:

Hardware requirement verification.

It's understandable to not want to see a bunch of performance-related complaints from people who don't meet the minimum requirements. But your solution doesn't just affect those reviews. I'm not really sure why people who are below the minimums shouldn't be able to write about other aspects of the game, or say they liked it.

If we're going to make suggestions about the review system auto-detecting people's hardware, then, again, rather than restricting reviews based on that, I would prefer simply adding a button to display the reviewer's hardware, so you can make your own decision on how to interpret their comments.

Publicado originalmente por ploopploop:

Review format field.

I can see the potential for some brief suggestions on what it means to write a review; might help out some of the younger users I suppose. But I wouldn't stretch that to having specific input fields. I would much rather everyone continue write reviews in their own individual way, describing whatever mattered to them, without just following prompts on what to say. I don't think homogenising the way people respond to games is healthy in the long run.

Publicado originalmente por ploopploop:

Downvote percentage.

[...]
I guess a lot of peoples would be against this since peoples can troll.

Yep. The internet has too many angry mobs for me to want any kind of automated system that empowers them further. I realise you said that they'd be checked, but there's already a report function if you want a review to be checked by a moderator. I know from experience that "honest reviews are always voted with a high percentage of positives" is not true.

[ploopploop]

Thanks both for taking your time to read and comment :P

Once I get home from work I will try to get a better alternative.

And yes I've seen similar reviews as arkham knight on basically any game released during summer and autumn. For example Just Cause 3 as of recently and previously fallout 4. There are more examples, but I started to notice that reviews are getting more thing of a troll instead of a honest review.

The thing I hate is that you see next to the game the % of positive reviews compared to negative ones. A single troll review has no impact on this, but it is no single anymore. Seeing a game with a low amount of positve reviews has a big influence on whether someone will buy it or not. There are ofcourse peoples that will regardless of this purchase it or give it a look/try.

But what I try to achieve with this is that the positives vs negatives will be more fair. A very good game might get 60% positive reviews and when you filter out the troll ones or complaints that could've easily been prevented it would actually have a 83%. Same thing goes for a game that has 95% positive reviews while most of them are trolls whilest it would actually get a 55% of positive reviews.

Peoples are more likely to give the one with 95% a shot than the one with 60% even if the 60% is by far better than the 95% one.

Ofcourse there are games that can be fininshed in less than 2 hours while delivering a great experience to the user. I have played in the past this small horror game themed in a attraction park (forgot the name), finished it in 45 minutes, but it were well spend 45 minutes. With this I wouldn't be able to share my opinion on the review section though even it is good with the given solution method.

As gus stated, the best way would be to have filter options for playtime and percentage of votes. (why didn't I think of this?? xD)

Once I get home from work I will try to go in depth with each of your points and to see whether it is better or not to adjust my given methods.

Cheers for your time both of you!

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

I think that consumers need to stop seeing the review as merely a score but instead see the review as informational content.

The point should not be the up or down result; the point should be what the person says about why.

What is probably the best idea at this point is to downvote reviews that are really short or silly or stupid that don't actually give any useful information, even if they are hilarious. Reviews -- positive and negative -- that actually discuss aspects of the game and go into detail, should be upvoted.

[Start_Running]

Publicado originalmente por Quint the Land Salmon:

I think that consumers need to stop seeing the review as merely a score but instead see the review as informational content.

The point should not be the up or down result; the point should be what the person says about why.

See that require analytical skills and reading. You know how some people lack one and hate doing the other.

What is probably the best idea at this point is to downvote reviews that are really short or silly or stupid that don't actually give any useful information, even if they are hilarious. Reviews -- positive and negative -- that actually discuss aspects of the game and go into detail, should be upvoted.

But wait.. that is exactly what exists. You can vote a review helpful or unhelpful.

[Mr. Shaggnificent]

Publicado originalmente por Start_Running:

But wait.. that is exactly what exists. You can vote a review helpful or unhelpful.

Except people don't always vote based on how helpful a review is. Many people vote based on whether they agree with it or not. A review could be a thurogh and detailed explination of the many flaws in plot, gameplay, graphics, etc., yet fanboys will only look at the thumbs down, and vote against it because they love the subject(Star Wars for example).

I suppose a partial fix would be to let people either review a game, or vote on other reviews(if they add a review, any vote would be canceled). Or, only allow people who don't own the game to vote on reviews. Though there would of course be those few no life basement dwellers who will use alt accounts to vote anyway, but I don't think there would be enough of them to make much of an impact.

I also think the "funny" option should be removed as it tends to encourage trolls more than anything.

[Start_Running]

Publicado originalmente por Mr.Shaggnificent:

Publicado originalmente por Start_Running:

But wait.. that is exactly what exists. You can vote a review helpful or unhelpful.

Except people don't always vote based on how helpful a review is. Many people vote based on whether they agree with it or not.

And who are you to judge? Do you judge them to be doing one or the other based on whether or not you agree with their vote on the review? Slippery Slope, no?

A review could be a thurogh and detailed explination of the many flaws in plot, gameplay, graphics, etc., yet fanboys will only look at the thumbs down, and vote against it because they love the subject(Star Wars for example).

Or some people didn't like the fact that they mentioned too much about the plot. Again we're talking about opinions here.

I suppose a partial fix would be to let people either review a game, or vote on other reviews(if they add a review, any vote would be canceled). Or, only allow people who don't own the game to vote on reviews. {/quote] People can have multiple accounts so it one stop haters and fan boys but handicap genuine good reviews.

I also think the "funny" option should be removed as it tends to encourage trolls more than anything.

Hey I think some of those revies are very funny. :) And that option was added because they didn't like that people kept on writibng funny reviews and not having a way to filter them out.

[cinedine]

Publicado originalmente por ploopploop:

[....]
Peoples are more likely to give the one with 95% a shot than the one with 60% even if the 60% is by far better than the 95% one.

Publicado originalmente por Quint the Land Salmon:

I think that consumers need to stop seeing the review as merely a score but instead see the review as informational content.

That's the real problem. But that's something Steam cannot fix. Not attaching a score to reviews was a brilliant move, but people complained that they actually have to read the reviews. So they added the ratio on the storepage. In theory it can be helpful to gauge whether or not you should buy a game. But the risk remains that you are among the 5% which dislike a game with 95% approval or vice versa, and maybe for reasons you could have find out reading.
The whole fixation on numbers and at-a-glance systems needs to vanish from the face of earth. When you herer that some people don't buy games with at least 85 point in metacritic (or Steam approval), you can't but facepalm over all the games they miss out they don't even give try.

Someone who is into gaming for more than a year should know wheat he prefers and what to look for and what to avoid. These points are as individual as opinions about games and the only way to ensure that these information can be found is not to artificially hinder people to share them. People also weight differently. If e.g. TotalBiscuit were to give a summarizing score on his "reviews", I wouldn't get anything out of it because I don't give a rats ass about FOV or 30fps locks for every game, which surely would influence a rating of his. So I'm left enjoying his videos and can make up my own mind based on what I see and hear instead of seeing "68/100".
On the other hand for someone who wants to try something new, this ratio is superb first gauge. Afterall if the game has 95% approval, it has a high chance to also grant me enjoyment.

So for short: people just need to learn to read reviews and interpret them. I agree with Gus, that the access to certain reviews should be made easier, for example through filtering. Seeing 9 out of ten joke reviews and one oneliner isn't helpful for someone who is looking for fleshed out opinions. Likewise there are enouhg people who won't read walls of texts and rather have a simple pro/contra list.
I think working from that perspective solves more than trying to revamp the reviews themselves.

[TheStoryteller01]

Publicado originalmente por ploopploop:

Well hello there! I will get straigth to the point, the way games are/can be reviewed must be either changed or updated. Currently it is getting more and more messier by every word you've read here so far! This is usually due an unrightful negativity/hate on a game.

So there is nothing as unrightful praise on a game?

All positive reviews are mostly written by unbiased, objective and fair people while the negative ones are mostly from haters?

Is that really your standpoint?

[TheStoryteller01]

Publicado originalmente por cinedine:

Seeing 9 out of ten joke reviews and one oneliner isn't helpful for someone who is looking for fleshed out opinions.

Unfortuately it WAS Steams most recent 'improvement' for the reviews to add the "funny" button - which brought an inproportional increase of one-liners from would-be comedians and made the valuable reviews even harder to find.

Personally I would prefer Steam not to improve the reviews again.

[cinedine]

Publicado originalmente por TheStoryteller01:

Personally I would prefer Steam not to improve the reviews again.

Right, that's my point. Not messing with the review system itself anymore but the way it is presented.
Who looks for funny reviews specifically? Wouldn't an option to filter OUT funny reviews be more beneficial to most users? The presentation is a mes as it is. On the hub I can't filter positivte/negative, on the store page I can't filter languages or most recent, and all sorts of reviews are tossed together with some arbitrary (or at least hard to comprehend) weighing algorithm.

[Start_Running]

Publicado originalmente por cinedine:

Publicado originalmente por TheStoryteller01:

Personally I would prefer Steam not to improve the reviews again.

Right, that's my point. Not messing with the review system itself anymore but the way it is presented.
Who looks for funny reviews specifically? Wouldn't an option to filter OUT funny reviews be more beneficial to most users? The presentation is a mes as it is. On the hub I can't filter positivte/negative, on the store page I can't filter languages or most recent, and all sorts of reviews are tossed together with some arbitrary (or at least hard to comprehend) weighing algorithm.

COnsidering Steam added the FUnny Tab as a respnse to user requests.

[TheStoryteller01]

Publicado originalmente por Start_Running:

Publicado originalmente por cinedine:

Right, that's my point. Not messing with the review system itself anymore but the way it is presented.
Who looks for funny reviews specifically? Wouldn't an option to filter OUT funny reviews be more beneficial to most users? The presentation is a mes as it is. On the hub I can't filter positivte/negative, on the store page I can't filter languages or most recent, and all sorts of reviews are tossed together with some arbitrary (or at least hard to comprehend) weighing algorithm.

COnsidering Steam added the FUnny Tab as a respnse to user requests.

You're right, sometimes one might wonder if they deliberately choose to listen to some stupid ideas just so that CTs like you can say: "The stupid things never come from Steam but from the users" ^^

And yes, I would pefer Steam not to listen to ANY of the current community ideas how to 'improve' the reviews further.

[Start_Running]

Publicado originalmente por TheStoryteller01:

Publicado originalmente por Start_Running:

COnsidering Steam added the FUnny Tab as a respnse to user requests.

You're right, sometimes one might wonder if they deliberately choose to listen to some stupid ideas just so that CTs like you can say: "The stupid things never come from Steam but from the users" ^^

Or perhaps it's more a case of: The majority of ideas are myopic and stupid.. They listen to the good ones too but no one really notices those.

[ploopploop]

Skimmed through the comments so far and I will adjust my opening line, as TheStoryteller01 said, this isn't only with negative reviews but also with positive ones.

I will read through detail at all comments once I get home from work, I appreciate all of you taking your time to give my your opinion about this and what should be changed or optional things.