Gameplay Hours to Have The Right to Review?

[Parody-of-Eve]

Hello.

I've been wondering for a while and I want to know what everyone's opinion on this.
How many hours of gameplay should one Steam user should have the right to make a review for a game?

Commonly, people would write having about less than 2-5 hours of time, whether it be negative, positive, or just plain funny. Though it doesn't seem fair and just to the game or whatever it is. Unless they have played it on a different platform, I guess they have the privilege to do so. Everything depends, many different situations.

Would people care about it? Maybe not, maybe so. But back to the question:
How many hours should you have to have the right to make a review?


Note: Guys, I'm not wanting to make this as a thing and let it be in the system.

[Seretti]

None. Some games can be finished in 5-10 minutes. I don't want to be forced to idle such a game for hours just to write a review.

[Parody-of-Eve]

Originally posted by Seretti:

None. Some games can be finished in 5-10 minutes. I don't want to be forced to idle such a game for hours just to write a review.

Yeah, I can understand that ahaha.
Imagine someone played a game with short minutes to complete and having about 4K of game time.

[SpunkyJones]

Shouldnt be a minimum, someone thinks a game sucks after 30 minutes is completely valid.

[Xitreon]

The current system works fine

Even if they were implement something like this people would simply find the obvious ways of circumventing it

[Parody-of-Eve]

Originally posted by Xitreon:

The current system works fine

Even if they were implement something like this people would simply find the obvious ways of circumventing it

Not like I'm thinking of making this a system lol.

Everyone has the freedom of making a review, no matter the game time. But would it be more fairer if maybe they have played it more? Maybe to give a proper review.

[Parody-of-Eve]

Originally posted by SpunkyJones:

Shouldnt be a minimum, someone thinks a game sucks after 30 minutes is completely valid.

That's very short.

[Xitreon]

Originally posted by Parody-of-Eve:

Originally posted by Xitreon:

The current system works fine

Even if they were implement something like this people would simply find the obvious ways of circumventing it

Not like I'm thinking of making this a system lol.

Everyone has the freedom of making a review, no matter the game time. But would it be more fairer if maybe they have played it more? Maybe to give a proper review.

And you need an arbitrary amount of hours play to write something to sum up your thoughts on the game? Methinksnot.
I can usually tell whether or not I'll lije a game or not fairly quickly.

The only fair thing to do is let the consumer make public his personal opinion without restriction.
If a gamer absolutely hate a game he's playing he shouldn't be forced to play it for a set amount of hours before being able to share his opinion. The current 5 minutes time limit is fine.

[soolee.]

Personally, I think they should at least have an hour or two. I've seen people buy the games or download the games, with no game time or less than an hour, always bad reviews too. But the game itself is actually good, it's just different perspective of games for others. It may seem fun for them, but not fun at all for others. I don't really like reading reviews because most of them are just trolls and I have different interest. I may like it, who knows?

[Smugass Braixen-Chan]

The fact that people write reviews based on 6 minutes of playtime, which is inclusive of watching the movie that plays when you start the game for the first time, navigating the main menu, setting up graphics options, load times, watching the opening cinematic because modern games never drop you right into the action (Even Doom 4 had a short cut-scene where you break out of your chains and smash a demon's head in), getting used to the controls, and doing the tutorial, is the reason I do not trust Steam Reviews.

I earn approximately $25 for an hour's work. So excuse me, princess, if I demand that people spend a comparative amount of time and effort playing a game before they tell me what spend that money on.

[Exiled Alchemist]

Playtime shouldn't matter, because it's too easy for someone to abuse the system. All it takes is someone to idol the game over night when they sleep. This means that they can have a fake playtime just so they can post a trolling review.

It also doesn't take into account for older games that don't work on a more modern os. Those games tend to only work if the user installs an unoffical fix for that game. If that fix is used to bypass, or make a change to the file that Steam uses to track it then you won't get any playtime showing on Steam at all. This means that a system using playtime for reviews would be broken for that game.

Finally other games have been released on Steam in the past where Steam wouldn't clock the games hours at all, because it can't track the main file that the games uses to run. The original Binding of Isaac had that issue at one point where Steam wouldn't keep track of playtime. It has been fixed now, but it's still an example of how going by playtime for a review is just useless.

If you really want people to look at a game based on reviews then you have to do the work by finding the most detailed reviews that are listed for that game. Yes it's a a lot to read, but I would rather read a well thought out review that was in great detail then a shot trolly one that doesn't explain anything.

[Spawn of Totoro]

After two hours you can no longer get a refund, so anything over that will only skew the reviews into the positive.

If someone can't even run the game, then they can't get the time to play in order to write the review. They should not be prevented from writing a review and saying that the game will not run for them. That is still information a buyer needs to know, even if the counter only reads 5 minutes.

Making a requirement beyone showing you own, or have played the game, is not needed as it will only server to silence those who may need to leave a bad review.

[Parody-of-Eve]

Originally posted by Xitreon:

Originally posted by Parody-of-Eve:

Not like I'm thinking of making this a system lol.

Everyone has the freedom of making a review, no matter the game time. But would it be more fairer if maybe they have played it more? Maybe to give a proper review.

And you need an arbitrary amount of hours play to write something to sum up your thoughts on the game? Methinksnot.
I can usually tell whether or not I'll lije a game or not fairly quickly.

The only fair thing to do is let the consumer make public his personal opinion without restriction.
If a gamer absolutely hate a game he's playing he shouldn't be forced to play it for a set amount of hours before being able to share his opinion. The current 5 minutes time limit is fine.

5 minutes is a really wierd short time, but I guess I can see where you're heading on what you said. Thanks for your insight.

[Spawn of Totoro]

Originally posted by Parody-of-Eve:

5 minutes is a really wierd short time, but I guess I can see where you're heading on what you said. Thanks for your insight.
:sgsmile:

Five minutes show the user at least tried to launch the game a few times.

[Smugass Braixen-Chan]

You mob gleefully tried to censor those of us who buy our games outside of Steam. Why not add an option to filter out people who's playtime is equatable to that of a Tech Assisted Speed Run of Kirby's Dream Land on the Original Game Boy

[Parody-of-Eve]

Originally posted by Spawn Of Totoro:

After who hours you can no longer get a refund, so anything over that will only skew the reviews into the positive.

If someone can't even run the game, then they can't get the time to play in order to write the review. They should not be prevented from writing a review and saying that the game will not run for them. That is still information a buyer needs to know, even if the counter only reads 5 minutes.

Making a requirement beyone showing you own, or have played the game, is not needed as it will only server to silence those who may need to leave a bad review.

Wait, no no no no. I'm not saying that should be a thing or a system that a gamer should have an amount of hours to play so they can have the right to make a review. That woud be ridiculous.

This is more of a moral conscious of oneself when a gamer makes a review for a good amount of game time. Negative or positive, it would be fair.

People who can't run the game, I forgot that it happens to others.
Yeah, it'd be foolish if you can't refund the game just to know if a game is good or bad.
Good points, my apologies.