Star-based Steam Rating System

[Remenion]

Instead of a "thumbs up or down"-system I would love to see a star-based rating system.

I've recently come across several titles that had some elements that I loved, and other elements that ruined the game(s) for me. It still feels unfair to just rate them down, because for someone else it might not be a dealbreaker, and it completely disregards the aspects I did like.

With a star-based rating system (or similar), I could in those cases have given 3/10 (for example), detailing what I liked and what I didn't in the review; with only a binary option I have to decide if I want to give a recommendation to a game I can't wholeheartedly recommend, or give a thumbs down to a game that I found disappointing on some level, but that also had some good elements.

Clearly, I'm not the only person struggling with that - I often find it confusing to come across a review that is marked as a recommendation, but then says mostly negative things about the game (or the other way round).

As a comparison, if you look at movie ratings, star-based is also helpful to set your expectations - you might be willing to give a movie a shot even though it doesn't have topmarks, but still decent ratings, without setting your expectations too high.

Vote star-based! :)

[Ettanin]

It's a yes-or-no question, not a "maybe" question.

[Remenion]

Originally posted by Ettanin:

It's a yes-or-no question, not a "maybe" question.

I understand what it is now. The suggestion was to change that.

[BJWyler]

This has been asked for many, many, many times in the past, as a search would have revealed.

As much as I support a change to a five star rating system (which seems to be that happy medium in these such systems), it's simply not going to happen on Steam. The current binary system seems to be what Valve and developers want in this particular business model as it encourages more participation than a system with more tiers.

We'll just have to make due with the aggregate tier system that rates games from the mostly negative to overwhelmingly positive scale.

[Justice]

200% agree and all for it!
There is a lot times that I have mixed review on game / feeling about content on steam.
Having 5 or 10 star review would solve so much issues and let me vote my genuine raitng instead of just yes or no.
A lot of companies seem to afraid / hate raiting systems.

Like for example early youtube used to have 5 star system, then it's just like or dislike and then removed/hide dislikes... Honesty and accountability is very short supply these days

[Tito Shivan]

The main problem is Steam loves to give things the wrong name. The Steam reviews aren't really reviews. They're actually endorsements for the products.
Steam wanted something that directred users to the product or not. Hence why the selection is binary 'Do you recommend this game?'

Regardless of that a gradient review score is bound to its defects, we'd be getting extreme ratings anyway.

[Tanoomba]

The problem with any system that scores games on a scale is that it would be exploited by people giving the minimum or maximum rating just to have the biggest effect on the aggregate. We see this happen on the user side of Metacritic all the time.

If you want to give a score out of ten stars, you can do so in the text of your review. In fact, you can use whatever scoring rubric you want. Don't worry about whether you review "counts" as positive or negative. The strength of Steam's review system is in its numbers. The more people write reviews, the more accurate the aggregates end up being. So if you just barely recommend a game that has a lot of problems, or don't recommend a game you think has a lot of potential, then there are definitely many more people with similar opinions that will lead to an aggregate that accurately reflects the player base's mixed feelings.

[Justice]

Originally posted by Tanoomba:

The problem with any system that scores games on a scale is that it would be exploited by people giving the minimum or maximum rating just to have the biggest effect on the aggregate. We see this happen on the user side of Metacritic all the time.

That sounds like an excuse. And review bombing or boosting happen regardless of like/dislike or star system. And you are missing very important detail - users have to buy the product in order to rate it. Customers are always right

Imagine on internet store for buying like really expensive stuff ranging from 100 to several thousands $ and the only raiting you can give and see is either like or dislike!
The only who abuse and exploit and benefit from all of this are store and sellers. This is so bad for customers.

[Remenion]

Originally posted by BJWyler:

This has been asked for many, many, many times in the past, as a search would have revealed.

As much as I support a change to a five star rating system (which seems to be that happy medium in these such systems), it's simply not going to happen on Steam. The current binary system seems to be what Valve and developers want in this particular business model as it encourages more participation than a system with more tiers.

We'll just have to make due with the aggregate tier system that rates games from the mostly negative to overwhelmingly positive scale.

I agree, people should do their research - and I did. I'm also one of the people who read forum rules and abide by them.
However, three separate searches for "star rating", "rating system" and "star based rating system" yielded pages and pages of every post that ever contained the word "rating", which were mostly on CS and other unrelated topics, which told me that at least recently there couldn't have been such a suggestion.
Having to go through 1671 pages of posts is a bit much to ask :)

[nullable]

Originally posted by Remenion:

Originally posted by Ettanin:

It's a yes-or-no question, not a "maybe" question.

I understand what it is now. The suggestion was to change that.

The reality is anything less than 8/10 is just a synonym for bad and you don't like the game enough to give it a good score. And 8-10 you do. So... you should use your star based 1-10 system. And then do the simple conversion to Steam's system when reviewing on Steam. 0-7, thumbs down. 8-10 thumbs up.

Feel free to mention how many stars you give it in your review.

[Tanoomba]

Originally posted by Justice:

That sounds like an excuse. And review bombing or boosting happen regardless of like/dislike or star system.

That doesn't mean Valve should make it easier for people to manipulate a game's score aggregate. The system is designed so that everyone's review has the same weight. That ensures that a game's aggregate accurately reflects what the player base thinks of the game. Adding a score scale would compromise the system's accuracy for no real gain.

Originally posted by Justice:

And you are missing very important detail - users have to buy the product in order to rate it. Customers are always right

They most definitely are not.

Originally posted by Justice:

The only who abuse and exploit and benefit from all of this are store and sellers. This is so bad for customers.

It's really not. It benefits the customer to have a review system that accurately represents what the player base thinks. It would be BAD for the customer to see misleading aggregates that have been manipulated by people exploiting the system.

[Nx Machina]

5 star - must buy. Recommended.

4 star - nearly a 5 star, buy. Recommended.

3 star - avoid. Not recommended. Gameplay lacking.

2 star - avoid. Not recommended.

1 star - avoid. Not recommend.

[Start_Running]

OP. When you can clearly and consistently elaborate on the difference between any two neighboring points on the star scale, then we can talk. Otherwise. Yes and No are fine. ANd the simple truth is. You know what the answer is every case. you self admittedly just don't want to be harsh.

If you wanna do stars and shirt, gho review on metacritic.

[Tanoomba]

It's also worth noting that the value of an individual review is derived entirely from its content. On an individual level, it doesn't matter at all whether a review is positive or negative. All that matters is how the reviewer expresses their opinion about the game.

The value of a game's aggregate is derived from its numbers. When a game has thousands of reviews, then any individual "positive" or "negative" review is irrelevant. With lots of reviews, we get an accurate idea of what a game's player base thinks of it.

People tend to get too preoccupied with how their review will affect the aggregate or whether or not the binary accurately represents their opinion, but none of that matters. All that matters is how you express yourself in the text of your review. The aggregate will take care of itself when lots of other people leave their own reviews.

[RiO]

Originally posted by Tanoomba:

The problem with any system that scores games on a scale is that it would be exploited by people giving the minimum or maximum rating just to have the biggest effect on the aggregate. We see this happen on the user side of Metacritic all the time.

And right now it's being exploited by Valve periodically 'reminding' buyers that they haven't reviewed the game they're playing. Which means those people will, eventually, to be rid of the pestering make a simple one-liner review to be rid of it. And then they'll naturally be more inclined to leave a 'recommended' rating than a "not recommended" - because, well; they actually are playing the game and probably having some fun from it.

In other words: the system is already being psychologically gamed in favor of publishers looking for favorable reviews.

In lieu of Valve removing the periodic 'reminders' they could add at least add a third neutral option. Which wouldn't be able to bias the system by using extremely positive or extremely negative ratings. Because there wouldn't be. It'd just be a "no, I wouldn't recommend"; "yes, I would recommend" and an "I'm not sure I should recommend".



Shout out to Tito on the use of the 'review' terminology, actually:

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

The main problem is Steam loves to give things the wrong name. The Steam reviews aren't really reviews. They're actually endorsements for the products.

I would say this is not the wrong name as in an unintended fluke, but is done with cold premeditated and rational reason behind it.

I believe it is likely that Steam is labeling it a review rather than an endorsement, so are you inherently more disposed to avoid handing out a "not recommended" because it correlates in your head with the game being 'bad' as in you're giving it a bad review score. And since you're still playing it (long enough to be reminded multiple times to leave a review) you obviously can't rate it with a poor review score. This is also why it's a simple binary choice. Yes; or no. Good; or bad. If presented with such a thing, we tend to err to the side of caution, naturally.

[Remenion]

Originally posted by Start_Running:

OP. When you can clearly and consistently elaborate on the difference between any two neighboring points on the star scale, then we can talk. Otherwise. Yes and No are fine. ANd the simple truth is. You know what the answer is every case. you self admittedly just don't want to be harsh.

If you wanna do stars and shirt, gho review on metacritic.

The whole point of my suggestion is that yes or no isn't always clear.
It has nothing to do with not wanting to be harsh; it has everything to do with wanting to be fair.