Don't you think it's time for Steam to update its review system?

[Valken]

I think Steam needs to revamp or improve the game review system it currently uses. I think the current recommended/not recommended thing is quite insufficient to give people an idea. In addition, many people just look at the "recommended" or "not recommended" text in the title without reading the article.

I think these two options give very sharp results and many games do not fully meet these two options.

What do you think about it ?

[Tanoomba]

While it could be argued that a binary "recommend/don't recommend" system doesn't allow for a lot of nuance on an individual level, I do believe that we get a lot of nuance about what the player base as a whole feels when a game gets a lot of reviews.

The problem with a review system that would allow individuals to rate a game on a scale (like a score out of ten, or a 5-star scale) is that it would be inevitably abused by people giving the most extreme ratings (0/10 or 10/10) in order to have the strongest effect on the overall aggregate. While this might allow some individuals to be more precise about their opinion of a game, it would ultimately lead to LESS accurate aggregates due to the aforementioned exploitation of extreme scores. And that's not theoretical, either: Look at the user side of Metacritic and you'll see lots of scores of 0/10 leading to tanked aggregates, especially when there's any kind of "controversy" about a game.

As it is now, everyone's review has the same value so people can't abuse the system to skew results (well, besides review bombs, of course, but Valve at least has ways to counter those). Also, a simple binary choice is much more accessible to a wider range of people who don't necessarily want to nitpick about where on a scale their opinion would fall, and the strength of Steam's review system is in getting as many reviews as possible.

[BJWyler]

I would like to see a three or five point rating system. I tend to prefer those over anything else when researching a product, and when I researched rating systems in and of themselves it seems the five point system tends to give the most bang for the buck. Steam even uses a variation of this when showing the aggregate rating of reviews.

However, it's unlikely that this will be changed as there is a specific reason and purpose that Steam had when implementing the system. And, generally speaking it suits Steam well enough.

[Crazy Tiger]

To me the issue is that it doesn't matter what changes they make, it won't work for a bunch of people anyway. Many people only look at the rating, correct, without looking at the context. Unless you remove the rating, that won't change.
For me 3 or 5 star ratings, or something similar, is pretty useless especially regarding the question asked. It's a yes/no question, so more flavors aren't needed for that.
Issue is also that the review system on Steam is about whether a game gets recommended, not whether a game is good. Those are two vastly different things.

Ultimately which review system works is subjective to personal preference. Me, I'd remove the rating and keep the 2 options as they are. Other people will like it differently.

I think the current systems works well for Valve, which is why it won't change in my opinion. And that's fine. I mostly look at negative reviews with low playtime anyway and I'm merely interested in why people stop playing a game, not whether they think the game is good or bad.

[Valken]

Tanoomba lähetti viestin:

While it could be argued that a binary "recommend/don't recommend" system doesn't allow for a lot of nuance on an individual level, I do believe that we get a lot of nuance about what the player base as a whole feels when a game gets a lot of reviews.

The problem with a review system that would allow individuals to rate a game on a scale (like a score out of ten, or a 5-star scale) is that it would be inevitably abused by people giving the most extreme ratings (0/10 or 10/10) in order to have the strongest effect on the overall aggregate. While this might allow some individuals to be more precise about their opinion of a game, it would ultimately lead to LESS accurate aggregates due to the aforementioned exploitation of extreme scores. And that's not theoretical, either: Look at the user side of Metacritic and you'll see lots of scores of 0/10 leading to tanked aggregates, especially when there's any kind of "controversy" about a game.

As it is now, everyone's review has the same value so people can't abuse the system to skew results (well, besides review bombs, of course, but Valve at least has ways to counter those). Also, a simple binary choice is much more accessible to a wider range of people who don't necessarily want to nitpick about where on a scale their opinion would fall, and the strength of Steam's review system is in getting as many reviews as possible.

Actually, when you think about it, this is true in a way. We have seen examples of this in recent years (Cyberpunk 2077, The Last of Us Part 2 Metacritic incidents).

[Start_Running]

Valken lähetti viestin:

I think Steam needs to revamp or improve the game review system it currently uses. I think the current recommended/not recommended thing is quite insufficient to give people an idea. In addition, many people just look at the "recommended" or "not recommended" text in the title without reading the article.

I think these two options give very sharp results and many games do not fully meet these two options.

What do you think about it ?

System works fine as is. and is unlikely to be changed because syuch a change would require discarding all the previous reviews.


That people don't always read the text is there own business. Nothing is going to change that, Recommend/Not recommend works fine. as it allws for clarity and flexibility.

[Valken]

I would like to elaborate a little more on what I said in the first post. For example, I recently played Rage 2. I think the game's combat system and gunplay were fun. But there were huge problems in the remaining parts. Well, gameplay is kind of the basic building block of a game after all. I think directly saying "I recommend it" or "I don't recommend it" would be too definitive suggestion.

[DiceDsx]

Valken lähetti viestin:

I would like to elaborate a little more on what I said in the first post. For example, I recently played Rage 2. I think the game's combat system and gunplay were fun. But there were huge problems in the remaining parts. Well, gameplay is kind of the basic building block of a game after all. I think directly saying "I recommend it" or "I don't recommend it" would be too definitive suggestion.

Do you think the gameplay is good enough to support the game despite the issues? Recommend it.
The issues you mentioned bring down the game too much? Don't recommend it.

The important part is the text that explains your thoughts. Without it, the thumb is pointless.

Starting your review with something like "The gameplay is really fun, but there are too many issues with the rest of the game for me to recommend it" or viceversa might also lead people to read more of what you wrote instead of stopping at the thumb's direction.

[Tanoomba]

Valken lähetti viestin:

I would like to elaborate a little more on what I said in the first post. For example, I recently played Rage 2. I think the game's combat system and gunplay were fun. But there were huge problems in the remaining parts. Well, gameplay is kind of the basic building block of a game after all. I think directly saying "I recommend it" or "I don't recommend it" would be too definitive suggestion.

This goes back to what I said about individual nuance vs aggregate nuance.
You're worried that you can't express the specifics of your opinion with a binary choice, and perhaps you think that there are many people who might have a similar opinion as you but if you all say "recommend" or all say "don't recommend" then the aggregate will not accurately reflect your opinions.

But this is a problem solved with numbers. Rage 2 has over 13,000 reviews overall, which is more than enough to get a very accurate and detailed picture of what the player base thinks. It got overall "mixed" reviews, with 63% of the 13,000 recommending it. A quick scan of the reviews on the bottom of the store page shows that there are positive aspects of the game people like, but it also has issues (both technical and on a design level) that get in the way of its enjoyability. There are people who considered the game worth recommending despite its issues, and there are people for whom the problems dragged the game down to "not recommended".

This shows us that, despite the binary choice, the mixed reviews are not between people who absolutely loved the game and people who despised it. Rather, the game is mediocre enough that most people think it's OK but has issues, many of whom will recommend it anyway and many of whom won't. This is the system working as intended and accurately communicating what the player base thinks of the game.

As for your specific case, I think you're over-analyzing. Ultimately, it doesn't really make a big difference whether you choose "recommend" or "don't recommend", because thousands and thousand of people have already made that same decision and painted a nuanced picture that your review will become a part of. You can express why you chose what you chose with all the detail and nuance you want in the text area, explaining what you liked and didn't like.

So, basically, the nuance on an individual level comes with the text box, and the nuance for the aggregate comes with a simple binary with many, many participants. (Sorry to be so long-winded!)

[William Shakesman]

No. There is no need to.

[Zefar]

BJWyler lähetti viestin:

I would like to see a three or five point rating system.

Anything with a multipoint system will be getting extremes of 0s or 5s.
This also make any group willing to just tank the review score can just rile up hate and have people put 0 on the game for no reason.

You might have a minority that puts it anywhere from 1 to 4.

[Tito Shivan]

Valken lähetti viestin:

many people just look at the "recommended" or "not recommended" text in the title without reading the article.

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
No system can really make all people read the reviews. That's human nature whay you want to change, not the reviews system.

BJWyler lähetti viestin:

I would like to see a three or five point rating system.

In regards ratings it'll deviate itself to the extremes anyway. Which was the reason why Youtube ultimately ditched the system for their videos.

Having a 'neutral' option would squeeze a few more reviews into the system. But doubt it'd be asignificative number.

[76561199559798421]

i never trust review systems anyway, often times they are just full of lies or angry players that cheated and got banned and then speak out badly about the game.

review system is broken , so not much more to say then that.

If you really want to review a game, you should look for videos of the game content, check it out see if you actually find the game interesting or appealing and if you want to still play it , go for it.

blindly choosing if a game is good or bad by others declarations is non productive to your own experience. I have spend a lot of times on games, 100's of hours on some and when you hit 100 hours on a game it has done its job, kept you entertained. Yes a lot of times game run outta content, but you will see a number of reviews from players who have played games for years and then don't enjoy a new update or don't like that the game reset its user base or tiered up gear. where they lose the progress they had and have to start playing again like everyone else.

Also keep in mind that many simple and dumb down games get good reviews simply because of the broken review system. question for yourself the content of the games and you will be better off.

some game reviews you should note that tried to tank gaming studios, where Cyberpunk 2077, fortnite, Fallout 76 those are just a few in recent years that where given bad reviews that i believed only later to play the games and find out they where not half bad and that the other all review system lied.

[William Shakesman]

I can't imagine being so empty as to think a game's job is to simply whittle away 100 hours of your free time.

[Tanoomba]

Welcome, Everyone is Invited lähetti viestin:

i never trust review systems anyway, often times they are just full of lies or angry players that cheated and got banned and then speak out badly about the game.

If a game has tens of thousands of reviews, then lies or angry rants from banned players aren't going to have a big effect on the aggregate.

Welcome, Everyone is Invited lähetti viestin:

blindly choosing if a game is good or bad by others declarations is non productive to your own experience.

Seeing what a game's player base thinks of the game or reading people's personal opinions is literally the opposite of "blindly choosing". While aggregates don't contain a lot of information in and of themselves, they do give an accurate impression of what the player base thinks which can certainly be useful. And a well-written review can give you a good idea of if a game will appeal to you or not even if your tastes are entirely different from those of the reviewer.

Welcome, Everyone is Invited lähetti viestin:

Also keep in mind that many simple and dumb down games get good reviews simply because of the broken review system.

How do you figure?

[RamiroRa]

Not gonna read everything above, but basically that's the idea of reviews, you have to answer to the basic question, do you think the game is worth it? Yes/No, if you can't answer the question just like that, maybe you shouldn't review it. Allowing more options would make Recommendations, that's what reviews should be called, to miss their point, even with all the joke reviews nowaday.