安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
The new reviews on Steam are a good step forward, but one of the main reasons I feel reviews work at all is that, traditionally, you can follow certain reviewers whose writing you like and get to know their tastes in relation to yours. That's not really easy to do on Steam at the moment; even if you spot a well written review, you can go to the person's profile and check their other reviews, but this isn't their job: it may be the only one that person decides to write (or the only decent one). So I feel that following dedicated reviewers that I like, watching videos, talking to friends etc, are still far more effective uses of my time than trying to figure out if this random person's word means anything to me.
I tend to read the user-reviews here on steam BUT both of them, positive and negative.
I wouldn't buy something solely because i read some reviews, but they can give you some insights on why that user liked/disliked that game, which might be helpful for some people.
In the end, none of the mentioned would define my next buy, but it can be an indication on where the strenghts and weaknesses of a game are.
Metacritic can be a useful source of reviews, but an overall metacritic score generally means nothing to me, and I flat out ignore the user review scores there, as they are massively biased and prone to spamming from irate idiots- "I love this game, and have sunk thousands of hours into it 10/10. Oh wait, no diretide. 0/10."
I also tend to take into account the developer (not the publisher)'s past output. I'm not personally a big fan of Let's Plays etc- I dislike watching other people play games- but they can be useful if I'm on the fence about a game.
I generally know what a game is about so if im looking at reviews its to see if theres a reason not to buy it. Once you filter out all the "1/10 it suxs!" and look at the number of peple complaining and what they complain about you can get a good idea about the game. Do most people complain about bugs? Do they say the game is too short etc.
If there arn't a meaningful amount of similar complaints then thats a better indication imo than any "score".
Don't just do this with games though, I look at electronic goods in the same fashion.
Then first impression reviews by Yt gamers.
http://www.image-share.com/ijpg-2472-223.html
But your average Metacritic reviewer? Oh no, not gonna listen to them.
No.
I did two similar threads to this but this one got more replies so I'll just tack them on to here:
Metacritic update
A lot of times I see a game on steam with no metacritic score, but if I go on to their website and search for the game it has a metacritic score. For example I was interested in Demonicon because it was on sale but Steam did not list the score. Then I went tohttp://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-dark-eye-demonicon and it had a score of 61. How come some games act this way and don't show the metacritic score. I doubt it is up to the game maker because I've seen somescores in the 20's listed on steam. Also, how about implementing the average metacritic user score just for kicks. I know they can be written by anyone whether they have purchased/played the game or not, but I'm always interested in finding out more before I purchase something.
Showing 1-2 of 2 comments
ReBoot 1 hour ago
I doubt the Metacritic integration will see any updates as we have Steam reviews now.
#1
thehaydencampbell 1 hour ago
Originally posted by ReBoot:
I doubt the Metacritic integration will see any updates as we have Steam reviews now.
Well until they let users assign a number to a review or generate x% of reviews were positive I think it is still needed. I like sorting through game genres filtered by metacritic score. It makes it easy to find good games I didn't know about or forgot about. Otherwise its a crapshoot because there's hundreds if not thousands in any genre and listing them in the search you have to judge based on the name whether its worth viewing. It just saves me a lot of time. Also, I like metacritic reviews because I can go to them and see reviews from gaming sites with authors I recognize and judge their opinion accordingly. With Steam user reviews, unless it's a review by a friend you have to hope they have also reviewed another game you've played in order to judge if their tastes/opinions match yours and make the review useful or not.
I know people have talked about tweaking the review section and allowing revised reviews based on updates and what not. Another simple implementation would be like a timestamp of what version of the game the reviewer has or whatever the current version is at the time of the review (though the latter would be easier it could backfire if someone were to write a review after waiting a long time from when they last played it). This would help games that are initially buggy or poor but have active developer support revive their game from the initial review/metacritic graveyard. Time/date stamps help us know how old a review is but this would further aid in the process. Also, how the "most helpful reviews" are at the top that could either be replaced with "most helpful for current version of game" or there could be a filter by game version.
Showing 1-4 of 4 comments
Fox 1 hour ago
Originally posted by thehaydencampbell:
I know people have talked about tweaking the review section and allowing revised reviews based on updates and what not. Another simple implementation would be like a timestamp of what version of the game the reviewer has or whatever the current version is at the time of the review (though the latter would be easier it could backfire if someone were to write a review after waiting a long time from when they last played it). This would help games that are initially buggy or poor but have active developer support revive their game from the initial review/metacritic graveyard. Time/date stamps help us know how old a review is but this would further aid in the process. Also, how the "most helpful reviews" are at the top that could either be replaced with "most helpful for current version of game" or there could be a filter by game version.
^This.
Outdated reviews should be distinguishable from actual reviews, BUT still readable. If I want to see the progress made by the developer, I don't want to confirm my readings every time.
As for the "current version" of th game, I'd see it as pointless. If it updates on a regular basis, reviews tend to stall after quite some time. You'd more often than not ending up with a single review, and that is if you're lucky.
A "More Recent" filter would better help, since that way, you can see at a glance the evolution. But, isn't that already implemented ? I have a doubt, now...
#1
thehaydencampbell 1 hour ago
Originally posted by Fox:
Originally posted by thehaydencampbell:
I know people have talked about tweaking the review section and allowing revised reviews based on updates and what not. Another simple implementation would be like a timestamp of what version of the game the reviewer has or whatever the current version is at the time of the review (though the latter would be easier it could backfire if someone were to write a review after waiting a long time from when they last played it). This would help games that are initially buggy or poor but have active developer support revive their game from the initial review/metacritic graveyard. Time/date stamps help us know how old a review is but this would further aid in the process. Also, how the "most helpful reviews" are at the top that could either be replaced with "most helpful for current version of game" or there could be a filter by game version.
^This.
Outdated reviews should be distinguishable from actual reviews, BUT still readable. If I want to see the progress made by the developer, I don't want to confirm my readings every time.
As for the "current version" of th game, I'd see it as pointless. If it updates on a regular basis, reviews tend to stall after quite some time. You'd more often than not ending up with a single review, and that is if you're lucky.
A "More Recent" filter would better help, since that way, you can see at a glance the evolution. But, isn't that already implemented ? I have a doubt, now...
Yeah when I was imagining it I was thinking more of version being based on .x of a game not some inconsequential patch that fixes something like a typo in a menu and is version/patch .x.x.x.x.x
#2
Fox 1 hour ago
Originally posted by thehaydencampbell:
Yeah when I was imagining it I was thinking more of version being based on .x of a game not some inconsequential patch that fixes something like a typo in a menu and is version/patch .x.x.x.x.x
Then your versions become meaningless. What if patch 1.2.54.875 fixed something in the code which affected a lot of things ? (Say, if it had a 60% chance to crash whenever you enter a vehicle, but in the end, it was because of a typo in the related game code)
For me, it's an "all or nothing" suggestion, because every patch fixes (or breaks) something, and there's no reliable way to discern small changes from big changes with version numbers only, AFAIK.
#3
thehaydencampbell 1 hour ago
Originally posted by Fox:
Originally posted by thehaydencampbell:
Yeah when I was imagining it I was thinking more of version being based on .x of a game not some inconsequential patch that fixes something like a typo in a menu and is version/patch .x.x.x.x.x
Then your versions become meaningless. What if patch 1.2.54.875 fixed something in the code which affected a lot of things ? (Say, if it had a 60% chance to crash whenever you enter a vehicle, but in the end, it was because of a typo in the related game code)
For me, it's an "all or nothing" suggestion, because every patch fixes (or breaks) something, and there's no reliable way to discern small changes from big changes with version numbers only, AFAIK.
Fair enough, I was just thinking of the more common if it's a bunch or important/key changes it's usually a full version or .x change and if its something affecting 1% of users or is an unimportant cosmetic change its usually a .x.x.x.x version update, but I see your point like borderlands 2 just updated to a x.x.x version and all it did was add support for traditional Chinese, unneccesary for most of the world but still important to a potentially large number of gamers/customers.
This could be a good idea but could work also the other way around since there are some games I don't know anything about and even the description is not very helpful.
I know it is quite difficult since it is ALWAYS another one's opinion but somehow one ends up at the "purchase for myself" button and you will never know if you going to like it before even playing it.
It would be nice to be able to track certain reviewers (who have the same flavours), e.g. typically what my brother find worth playing is the real deal. If he tells me "that's a good game, you should buy it" he's right 99% and I end up really enjoy the game (and it works well the other way around if I recommend him a game). We both like RPGs and Action-Adventure (and racing simulations), we are somewhat resistent to lack of gameplay mechanics if it's compensate by other features (etc.). I wish there were an easy way to follow reviewers among the Steam-Community (like a notifaction if a bookmarked user submitted a review).