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
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Yeah, I can understand that ahaha.
Imagine someone played a game with short minutes to complete and having about 4K of game time.
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.
That's very short.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Five minutes show the user at least tried to launch the game a few times.
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.