Re: Steam's Revising Reviews

JAB <noway@nochance.com> 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 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.

 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.

>
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.

Xocyll