So it seems like the latest update to Steam will now include a system
to filter out 'unhelpful' user reviews.*
User reviews on Steam often get a bad rap, and it's not entirely
unearned. Whether it's from review bombing, or developers paying for
reviews, or just that the reviews themselves often aren't worth
reading, a lot of people dislike them. And while I don't disagree with
the specifics, I myself still like that Steam has them. They're a
necessary pushback against the biased marketing that developers (and
Valve themselves) put on store pages trying to get you to spend your hard-earned cash. Both the developers and Valve have a great deal of incentive to ignore the deficiencies of the product if it gets you to
buy. User reviews are the only counter we have. It may not always be a
_good_ counter, but I'll take what I can get. And sometimes -in fact,
a lot of times- there are worthwhile user reviews that give me a much
clearer picture about whether a game is right for me than anything
else on the store page.
But sometimes... yeah. Sometimes the reviews just suck. It'll just be
some weird joke, or an inane comment, or the inevitable ASCII picture
of a cat. It's a "look at me!" post that says nothing about the game
and exists only to attract attention to the poster.
Steam's latest update is aimed squarely at those sorts of posts.
Optional (for those who enjoy the unfiltered feed) but on by default,
it will use a combination of moderation, machine learning, and user
votes to hide reviews it feels unhelpful. Whether or not they'll
target 'review bombing' posts is uncertain, but unlikely.
But just to keep things fair, the new update is also targeting
publishers as well, by setting new rules for what can be posted on the
store page. Less links to other web sites and social media (except in designated area), no mimicking the Steam store UI, no pointers to
other games on Steam. In other words, publishers can only use their
store page to sell the game that page is for, and not use it to push
you to other products.
Worthwhile changes all around. More information, less noise; who could
argue with that?
I can't say I'm against the idea but how it will work in reality I'm not >sure. To be honest the reviews I most dislike are those from someone who >gives a bad review based on it not being the type of game they wanted it
to be instead of does the game achieve what it set out to do. This is
also closely related to writing a review when it's a genre they don't
like - why on earth did you buy the game then.
On 8/16/2024 1:38 AM, JAB wrote:
On 16/08/2024 02:34, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
As for unhelpful reviews, here's a good example "I was expecting more.
It gets boring and repetitive very quickly. I lost interest after
playing it for 2 hours..." Why bother writing that, how does it help
anyone decide whether they should buy the game. I'll gladly see the back
of them.
That's not unhelpful. If it gets repetitive and boring in 2 hours,
that's very helpful information.
That's the concern I have.
It's more a concern that 'unhelpful' is based on what people are tagging >'unhelpful' (basically a like/dislike button.) which will mean review
bombers are going to start down-voting any positive reviews, and fans
any negative.
Justisaur <[email protected]> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
On 8/16/2024 1:38 AM, JAB wrote:
On 16/08/2024 02:34, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
As for unhelpful reviews, here's a good example "I was expecting more.
It gets boring and repetitive very quickly. I lost interest after
playing it for 2 hours..." Why bother writing that, how does it help
anyone decide whether they should buy the game. I'll gladly see the back >>> of them.
That's not unhelpful. If it gets repetitive and boring in 2 hours,
that's very helpful information.
Not if the person who wrote that has ADHD, and gets bored of everything
in 2hrs or less.
Without context it's extremely unhelpful information.
The TL;DR people, generally not a font of wisdom or useful anything.
That's the concern I have.
It's more a concern that 'unhelpful' is based on what people are tagging
'unhelpful' (basically a like/dislike button.) which will mean review
bombers are going to start down-voting any positive reviews, and fans
any negative.
I imagine Valve will look for the unhelpful votes on useful reviews and
block them from voting, or ban them entirely.
Abuse the process, bye bye.
As for unhelpful reviews, here's a good example "I was expecting more.From my understanding, the sort of review you suggested WILL remain available. As Valve pointed out, some people aren't good at expressing themselves and -honestly- I think there is some merit to a short
It gets boring and repetitive very quickly. I lost interest after
playing it for 2 hours..." Why bother writing that, how does it help
anyone decide whether they should buy the game. I'll gladly see the back
of them.
comment like that. Even_I_ tire of overlong reviews sometimes and a
quick, pithy comment can be a useful indicator.
On 8/16/2024 1:38 AM, JAB wrote:
On 16/08/2024 02:34, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
As for unhelpful reviews, here's a good example "I was expecting more.
It gets boring and repetitive very quickly. I lost interest after
playing it for 2 hours..." Why bother writing that, how does it help
anyone decide whether they should buy the game. I'll gladly see the
back of them.
That's not unhelpful. If it gets repetitive and boring in 2 hours,
that's very helpful information.
That's the concern I have.
It's more a concern that 'unhelpful' is based on what people are tagging 'unhelpful' (basically a like/dislike button.) which will mean review
bombers are going to start down-voting any positive reviews, and fans
any negative.
On 8/15/2024 6:34 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Whether or not they'll
target 'review bombing' posts is uncertain, but unlikely.
They've already been doing that for some time, I think at least a year.
I seem to get into games with a lot of review bombing. :/
It's been fine, as it's the same thing, You could see unfiltered reviews
if you wanted.
On 16/08/2024 16:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
As for unhelpful reviews, here's a good example "I was expecting more.From my understanding, the sort of review you suggested WILL remain
It gets boring and repetitive very quickly. I lost interest after
playing it for 2 hours..." Why bother writing that, how does it help
anyone decide whether they should buy the game. I'll gladly see the back >>> of them.
available. As Valve pointed out, some people aren't good at expressing
themselves and -honestly- I think there is some merit to a short
comment like that. Even_I_ tire of overlong reviews sometimes and a
quick, pithy comment can be a useful indicator.
Oh yeh I realise that, it was more me pointing out why create a review
those doesn't add information beyond I didn't like it. The flip side is
I still use the like/dislike ration as a guide to whether I'll even
think about buying a game.
JAB <[email protected]> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
On 16/08/2024 16:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
As for unhelpful reviews, here's a good example "I was expecting more. >>>> It gets boring and repetitive very quickly. I lost interest afterFrom my understanding, the sort of review you suggested WILL remain
playing it for 2 hours..." Why bother writing that, how does it help
anyone decide whether they should buy the game. I'll gladly see the back >>>> of them.
available. As Valve pointed out, some people aren't good at expressing
themselves and -honestly- I think there is some merit to a short
comment like that. Even_I_ tire of overlong reviews sometimes and a
quick, pithy comment can be a useful indicator.
Oh yeh I realise that, it was more me pointing out why create a review
those doesn't add information beyond I didn't like it. The flip side is
I still use the like/dislike ration as a guide to whether I'll even
think about buying a game.
If everybody hates it, in aggregate that is information.
But one review that says that means nothing, since you don't know the reviewer, and how their likes and dislikes line up with yours, it's just
null information.
Or like a review I read years ago for a product that hadn't been
released yet, it's just a work of fiction; they liked the previous games
in the series, so the next one just *HAD* to be good too.
That was for Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness, the one where they broke
the mechanics, introduced console "shoot the glowy spot to damage the
boss critter" and made you play for a time as another character
entirely.
From my understanding, the sort of review you suggested WILL remain >available. As Valve pointed out, some people aren't good at expressing >themselves and -honestly- I think there is some merit to a short
comment like that. Even _I_ tire of overlong reviews sometimes and a
quick, pithy comment can be a useful indicator.
AFAIK, Valve considers the whole attempt to be still 'in testing';
e.g., they don't consider its initial attempt to be the perfect, and
if it's not working out they're willing to roll-back and remove it
entirely.
I also don't have a problem with people posting negative reviews of games >they fundamentally aren't going to like. So what if someone who hates
RPGs posts a negative review of an RPG? It's an honest expression of
their honest opinion of the game. I don't think there needs to be be
any other qualification to review a game other than to have played it.
And it's not completely useless to say a game isn't one of those rare >exceptions that non-fans of the genre can enjoy.
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 14:22:49 -0000 (UTC), [email protected]
(Ross Ridge) wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> wrote:
From my understanding, the sort of review you suggested WILL remain
available. As Valve pointed out, some people aren't good at expressing
themselves and -honestly- I think there is some merit to a short
comment like that. Even _I_ tire of overlong reviews sometimes and a
quick, pithy comment can be a useful indicator.
I really like what Valve has done here. The reviews they're hiding now
are pretty much the same reviews that I would occasionally go through and
downvote as unhelpful. All the useless joke and ASCII art reviews that
get highly upvoted because apparently there's some weird minority of Steam >> users that think that user reviews should be some sort of entertainment.
But I also deliberately didn't downvote the "useless" short reviews that
often didn't say anything more than "good game". Sure they might not be
all the helpful in their description of the game, but like you said not
everyone is good at expressing themselves. It's easy to overlook how
hard writing can be for people when you spend most of the day reading
stuff on the Internet written by people who are very good at writing.
Similar here. I think that there's also a feeling of (unstated)
obligation when people review a game. After playing it a while, Steam
says, "Hey, you've played this game for 16 hours, wanna share your
opinion?" and then gives you a thumbs up/thumbs down option, and a
heck of a lot of white space beneath that to write something. So they
write something, but for whatever reason they don't say anything
substantial.
[It could be, as Valve suggested, that some people just are
bad at expressing themselves. Or it could be they are
reviewing on a phone (who wants to type out long-form messages
on a phone?), or perhaps they just don't have the time, or
maybe it's a form of social anxiety (not everyone is
comfortable openly sharing their opinions). It could even be
that they (in a mindset completely foreign to me! ;-)
earnestly dislike long rambling diatribes about the advantages
and disadvantages of a game and think a review should just be
"I enjoyed it" or "I hated it".]
These short "I like it it was gud" reviews certainly aren't going to
win any up-votes from me. Individually, they'll certainly have less
impact on my decision to play or not play. But in aggregate, they
certainly are useful. If I skim a game's user-review page on Steam and
see dozens of "Is good, will play more" style reviews and almost no "suuuuuuxxxxx!" type reviews, it indicates to me that --on the whole--
the game is being positively received. At that point I'll usually seek
out the longer NEGATIVE reviews to see what people think is wrong. If
it's the other way around (lots of "shit game!" reviews, few "heheh
fun!" type), then I'll look to see what the few people who liked it
and wrote long reviews thought made it worth playing). It's a quick
short-cut telling me what sort of lengthy review I should be focusing
on.
Your mileage may vary. I'll certainly grant you that these short
reviews aren't individually helpful. But I wouldn't call them useless,
and I'm glad they're there. It allows hoi polloi to express
themselves, allowing us, as potential buyers, to get a broader
overview of a game's reception rather than limiting our viewpoint to
those who trend towards the overly wordy. ;-)
I also don't have a problem with people posting negative reviews of games
they fundamentally aren't going to like. So what if someone who hates
RPGs posts a negative review of an RPG? It's an honest expression of
their honest opinion of the game. I don't think there needs to be be
any other qualification to review a game other than to have played it.
And it's not completely useless to say a game isn't one of those rare
exceptions that non-fans of the genre can enjoy.
I generally agree. After all, I myself often try games in genres I
usually don't enjoy (mostly in hopes of discovering that now I /do/
enjoy that genre. I'm usually disappointed! ;-). Saying I don't like
this game but that's probably because I don't like that STYLE of game
in general may be helpful to others who have similar tastes. My review
may not be useful to FANS of the genre, but that's why I make them
aware of my negative bias from the start. My review isn't really for
them. It's for the genre-curious. ;-)
I also don't have a problem with people posting negative reviews of games
they fundamentally aren't going to like. So what if someone who hates
RPGs posts a negative review of an RPG? It's an honest expression of
their honest opinion of the game. I don't think there needs to be be
any other qualification to review a game other than to have played it.
And it's not completely useless to say a game isn't one of those rare
exceptions that non-fans of the genre can enjoy.
I generally agree. After all, I myself often try games in genres I
usually don't enjoy (mostly in hopes of discovering that now I/do/
enjoy that genre. I'm usually disappointed! 😉. Saying I don't like
this game but that's probably because I don't like that STYLE of game
in general may be helpful to others who have similar tastes. My review
may not be useful to FANS of the genre, but that's why I make them
aware of my negative bias from the start. My review isn't really for
them. It's for the genre-curious. 😉
Now if it's a game that you didn't think you'd like but it turns out
that you do, then that I think can be helpful.
I agree that having played the damned thing is the only thing that
should be a requirement. I don't think there should be any other >qualification either. I don't think a review from me in a genre I
derive no pleasure from is going to help anyone though.
On 8/18/2024 9:15 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 14:22:49 -0000 (UTC), [email protected]F
(Ross Ridge) wrote:
Similar here. I think that there's also a feeling of (unstated)
obligation when people review a game. After playing it a while, Steam
says, "Hey, you've played this game for 16 hours, wanna share your
opinion?" and then gives you a thumbs up/thumbs down option, and a
heck of a lot of white space beneath that to write something. So they
write something, but for whatever reason they don't say anything
substantial.
I just realized why "it gud" responses are all over. You can't submit
just a thumbs up or thumbs down. You have to put something in that
white space. I was going to give a thumbs up to EDF 6, but I have to
write something, that's going to take a good bit of time to write
something substantial enough to satisfy everyone here. I'd rather be playing it, or doing something else, so I'm leaving it without a like/ dislike for now.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 07:54:47 +0100, JAB <[email protected]> wrote:
Now if it's a game that you didn't think you'd like but it turns out
that you do, then that I think can be helpful.
I also agree with you on this point.
I did not think I would like Borderlands because it is a first person
shooter first and foremost and I do not like that genre. But I
absolutely loved it and I know why I liked it so much. I would explain
in my review that even if you do not like FPS games, you may like Borderlands... here is why....
I think that can be useful.
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 09:51:43 +0100, JAB <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/08/2024 13:35, Mike S. wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 07:54:47 +0100, JAB <[email protected]> wrote:
Now if it's a game that you didn't think you'd like but it turns out
that you do, then that I think can be helpful.
I also agree with you on this point.
I did not think I would like Borderlands because it is a first person
shooter first and foremost and I do not like that genre. But I
absolutely loved it and I know why I liked it so much. I would explain
in my review that even if you do not like FPS games, you may like
Borderlands... here is why....
I think that can be useful.
B:1 I picked up on the cheap as I just fancied some mindless violence
and it seemed a good fit. I enjoyed it more, and put more hours into it,
than I imagined I would. Torchlight:II and Titan Quest are in the same
category. I'd give them a thumbs up but I don't think I can really
explain why I liked them without straying into post hoc justification.
Bioshock:1 was the other around as I was really looking forward to it
but instead found it all rather uninteresting. That's possibly because I
was sucked in by the hype and in particular using different mechanisms
to create traps. What it felt like you got was a decent shooter set in a
different from normal environment. For some reason I ended up getting
Bioshock:3 and that I rather enjoyed which I think is because my
expectations where much better aligned with what what the game actually
offered.
A shorter version is that sometimes I just don't know why I like/dislike
things I just do.
It also doesn't help that genres are becoming extremely fluid; there
is often very little distinction between role-playing, adventure,
simulation and action games these days. (Strategy and sports remain
largely distinct however). People are fairly loose with their
categorizations too. Is "Jedi: Survivor" a 'souls-like' game? I've
heard people call it one; I've also seen people strenuously argue it
is not. And if you didn't enjoy "Jedi: Survivor", was it because you
don't like Souls-like gameplay, or for some other reason (perhaps the
combat wasn't the problem but you didn't like the open-world or
platforming aspects).
I've no problem with people reviewing games outside of their comfort
zone... so long as they make their bias (or perceived bias) available
to other readers.
(Similarly, mega-fans of certain genres should do the same. 'I've play
every Final Fantasy game ever twenty times each and this newest one is
the bestest ever!!1!!' lets me know that maybe I should take their
opinion with a grain of salt. ;-)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 153:05:46 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,664 |