安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
该主题的作者已标记一个回帖作为问题的解答。
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
If your gripe relates to the game itself, then it is relevant, regardless of what the thousand other people feel about the game.
So why did Steam not add simply an option to rate the developers/publishers separately?
gameplay rating/ functionality rating/company rating. Problem solved.
Example For Honor:
gameplay rating 10/10 #### is really good
functionality rating 1/10 #### but servers do crash a lot
company rating 1/10 #### Ubisoft fix servers!
or
gameplay rating positive #### is really good
functionality rating negative #### but servers do crash a lot
company rating negative #### Ubisoft fix servers!
I also mentioned in another post in another thread that tagging negative reviews with content type tags is an idea I like.
Why the heck shouldn't it have this depth? This actually makes the choice more meaningful. Someone else telling me "No, I don't recommend the game" is nearly meaningless because I don't know why they don't recommend it or how their tastes compare to mine -- but a large number of "No, because the game crashes" reasons is very different picture from a large number of "No, because I don't like the gameplay" reasons.
And I have a bad feeling to recommend a game that does crash a lot, but is fun.
Or there are games that do work, but they are just boring. I dont want to give such games a negative rating, rather a neutral one, just describe what the game is, not ruin or promote the "indie/ casual" developer, who simply can't better.
+1
Indeed the problems are not the review bombs,
but rather a system that allows only thumb up or down.
And it would be up to the people what they want to rate.
Like a simple or advanced games rating.
All you need to mention, "Look, there is a problem that is stopping me from having such a great time from playing this game that i cannot grant the game with a great opinion."
That is only a example of something constructive, only that you could use it and improvise on it.
Anthem and fallout 76 did not fail because they were simply bad games, but because people already were not happy with Fallout 4 and Andromeda. Yes people did buy Fallout 4 and Andromeda, but at an achievement that they avoided next game.
But what about ethics and morals ?
Sure you can still play Grand Theft Auto 4 without some songs that got removed,
still its legit complain that your game was downgraded.
https://www.polygon.com/2018/4/27/17292836/gta-4-soundtrack-removed-song-list-patch
Problem is this, you can't trust the developers any more.
And there are a lot who "lets say don't do illegal stuff", but is considered not ethical.
Yes the licence for the songs did expire,
but people who did buy the game expected a certain experience from it.
Sorry, but if such system would block those reviews, the entire review system will become worthless. As usual, it is backed up by vague rules, what does lead to even more distrust.
Distrust is the worse thing you can create.
You'd be grateful that some would go out of their way to give it to Rockstar for even some royalty.
The trust in a developer is irrelevant, but we all have to squeeze in some time to open a prompt dialog with them.
I even contacted someone over at Ninja Theory since i was very interested in Senua and their response was very well received.
As far as ethics and morals go, i always tend to make the right decisions and take that course of action. I am not someone who creates, never has created chaos. If someone doesn't truly understand me, well i can't do much, although i always reason with them.
As a matter of influence, people blindly follow for the wrong reasons and off go the pitchforks at some point.
And they got that experience. See at no point did the game state the experience would be perpetual or stay the same. The licenses expired. they had the choice between leaving them in and commiting a crime, or patching the songs out in compliance with the law.
No reviews are being blocked. They just aren't being counted.
And SR is correct, they certainly aren't blocking the reviews.
absolutely not.. Video game development seems to have cycles,, when games are in full swing on development, more people are hired,, as the development winds down, those people are no longer needed..
You also mentioned Telltale games, which had nothing to do with how the gaming industry was doing and everything to do with Telltale being poorly mismanaged for years.. Their whole business model was doomed pretty much from the moment they ceased creating original IP's and moved into only doing licensed content..
Expensive licenses, combined with poorly timed sales (everyone knew when Episode 5 released the game would be on sale for 7 - 10 bucks every time).. Each new episode saw the game have a pretty hefty 50% off sale.. Why buy the product early for more money, then sit around nearly a whole year waiting for the full project to be delivered..
They also streamlined their production to put more games in faster periods of time.. Which really hurt the overall quality of their products.. The first walking dead was amazing.. then they streamlined each episode to fit in that 1 1/2 - 2 hour window and cut lots of content from the finished product..