Support NeoGAF

[Hot5pur]

I recently decided to get a steam deck and have been researching some nice indie/smaller games to play. The trouble is I think the rating system on Steam being either thumbs up or down is severely restrictive and tends to exaggerate how bad or good the games are. There are many titles that you'd think are incredible but going into the reviews you'll see a lot of generally positive but not that excited reviews.
Basically Steam ratings can give you an impression of something is good enough or not, but doesn't have enough nuance to differentiate the really good stuff from just "good enough".
I think a 5 star system or at least a 3 level system (thumbs up, down or just meh) would go a lot way to being more informative. Also adding a average playtime per player would be great, there are a lot of reviews like "I put 200 hours into this game, utter trash". Any game you put that much time into deserves at least a "good enough" rating.

 

[winjer]

I have to agree that a 5 star system would work much better.

 

[KyoZz]

It's not perfect but still quite useful and I trust it more than journalists' reviews.

 

[Cakeboxer]

You are not wrong, but i still trust Steam much more than that Metacritic quagmire with mixed together rating systems and dubious and biased reviewers.

 

[linko9]

Would be interesting if they could implement something where you rate the games you've played, and then compare to other games based on players that have your same tastes.

 

[HogIsland]

I never trust user reviews for anything on any platform. Steam's is just slightly above average for avoiding bad quality ports.

 

[SHA]

I recently decided to get a steam deck and have been researching some nice indie/smaller games to play. The trouble is I think the rating system on Steam being either thumbs up or down is severely restrictive and tends to exaggerate how bad or good the games are. There are many titles that you'd think are incredible but going into the reviews you'll see a lot of generally positive but not that excited reviews.
Basically Steam ratings can give you an impression of something is good enough or not, but doesn't have enough nuance to differentiate the really good stuff from just "good enough".
I think a 5 star system or at least a 3 level system (thumbs up, down or just meh) would go a lot way to being more informative. Also adding a average playtime per player would be great, there are a lot of reviews like "I put 200 hours into this game, utter trash". Any game you put that much time into deserves at least a "good enough" rating.

I prefer western games especially shooters and RPGs, Japanese games are worse in terms of value yet get better reviews, the rating system is flawed.

 

[Oppoi]

The either or system does tend to lift games made for a specific audience to that overwhelmingly positive note.

 

[LectureMaster]

It's already the best rating systems available, albeit having shortcomings.

Given Steam's pro-consumer attitude, I don't think Valved never thought to improve. But how to implement a five-star system that's compatible with the current Y/N system can be extremely challenging.

 

[T4keD0wN]

Thats why you actually read the said reviews because they have all of those information instead of just looking at a number.

 

[SScorpio]

There's no perfect review system. Gaming mags played around with 3, 5, 10, up to 100 point systems. But how do you rate a game that has amazing graphics, a story that draws you in, but clunky bad game play? Or something that has a obtuse design, and very primitive pixel art. But if it clicks with you, you end up losing 2,000 hours of your life to it.

Steam's system is just do you recommend this game to other people? Yes or No? It then shows you how many hours each written reviewer has played the game, and you can read people's experiences and thoughts. The recent versus overall ratings also lets you see a game that had issues come back and redeem itself. Or a game that released a broken update and the developer then disappeared.

But the reviews that appear on the store page are only part of the equation. Just like movie and book reviewers where you find one that seems to have a similar taste in movie to yourself. Steam has Curators. Find some that are focused on the gaming genres you are interested in. You can then see games the curator has reviewed, but also the community behind it where you can post to the discussion forum.

 

[Alexios]

Thats why you actually read the said reviews because they have all of those information instead of just looking at a number.

Tbh the number is about as accurate as systems with full rating numbers anyway. Ie a ~70% metacritic (critic or user) review game generally will have that % of recommendations on Steam too. But yeah, for more, read folks, lol. Or try the game, demo or no it's Steam, insta refunds for under 2 hours.

 

[SHA]

There's no perfect review system. Gaming mags played around with 3, 5, 10, up to 100 point systems. But how do you rate a game that has amazing graphics, a story that draws you in, but clunky bad game play? Or something that has a obtuse design, and very primitive pixel art. But if it clicks with you, you end up losing 2,000 hours of your life to it.

Steam's system is just do you recommend this game to other people? Yes or No? It then shows you how many hours each written reviewer has played the game, and you can read people's experiences and thoughts. The recent versus overall ratings also lets you see a game that had issues come back and redeem itself. Or a game that released a broken update and the developer then disappeared.

But the reviews that appear on the store page are only part of the equation. Just like movie and book reviewers where you find one that seems to have a similar taste in movie to yourself. Steam has Curators. Find some that are focused on the gaming genres you are interested in. You can then see games the curator has reviewed, but also the community behind it where you can post to the discussion forum.

2000 hours isn't normal, the number suggest the player isn't living his life, an escapist.

 

[Gameplay Gods Bless]

I recently decided to get a steam deck and have been researching some nice indie/smaller games to play. The trouble is I think the rating system on Steam being either thumbs up or down is severely restrictive and tends to exaggerate how bad or good the games are. There are many titles that you'd think are incredible but going into the reviews you'll see a lot of generally positive but not that excited reviews.
Basically Steam ratings can give you an impression of something is good enough or not, but doesn't have enough nuance to differentiate the really good stuff from just "good enough".
I think a 5 star system or at least a 3 level system (thumbs up, down or just meh) would go a lot way to being more informative. Also adding a average playtime per player would be great, there are a lot of reviews like "I put 200 hours into this game, utter trash". Any game you put that much time into deserves at least a "good enough" rating.

Nah I think it's great. But you have to understand who the reviewer is. If neptunia rebirth has 90% positive you have to understand the context of that.

 

[poppabk]

All score systems lack sufficient detail. You have to read I'm afraid.