Support NeoGAF

[Senua]

Poor people can be idiots, just like anyone else. That's a factual statement.
It is fine to call an idiot an idiot, no matter what amount of money they have.

Interesting that you seem to think that people must be poor because they are idiots?
Not even I would say that and I'm elitist af.

At least you're self aware

 

[Zheph]

Kinda wish I had a high horse too

 

[digoutyoursoul]

I wish MS invested in their studios instead of buying any developers and publishers.

Of course, I agree with you. It should of been done when the 360 was doing well to prepare for the Xbox One generation. I never liked the bulk of their studios being singular IP factories.

 

[ulantan]

...I've played several bad games to completion just because I found the badness fascinating. Sometimes you just want to see the depth of the design choices, or you are fascinated by the "how the fuck did this happen" feeling you get when something dumb happens. I've suffered through mass effect Andromeda 4 times because I found it funny as fuck. Sure I enjoyed it but for all the wrong reasons and that would reflect in my review. Not that Starfield bad, but thier are many reasons to keep playing a meh to bad game

 

[TheSHEEEP]

That's absurd. Someone can do all the research in the world and still not like a game they bought.

Theoretically, but that's insanely unlikely if they do their research right.
I have very high standards on what I play, do a lot of research and maybe end up with 1 in 30 games that I end up not enjoying at least for a time.

And with a game like Starfield, where critics are giving the game scores ranging from 40 to 100, what good is that research again?

Easy. Maybe a bit time intensive.
You actually read the reviews, watch gameplay, etc. You'll see enough shared facts to make a well informed opinion if the game would be for you or not.
You don't just look at numbers and make a decision based on that.
There's also demos.
And "demos", if you catch my drift.
And Gamepass. And friends. And...

There are so many possibilities (all free or practically free) to avoid purchasing something you'd not enjoy at all, there is no real excuse (other than having money to waste).

At some point people have to decide for themselves, research be damned. If they make that decision to buy the game and end up not liking it then that doesn't make them an idiot.

Leave me with that participation trophy kindergarden shit.
People are responsible for their own actions.
That includes wasting their extremely limited money on purchases they'd regret making.

I also don't see the issue in calling someone an idiot when they are being an idiot. I'm an idiot sometimes, too.
It's fine.
People have such laughably thin skin sometimes.

At least you're self aware

And I'm fine with it.
Elitism is used as something negative mostly by people who think they couldn't reach a standard that seems out of their reach.
I see elitism as striving for reaching higher standards and demanding that of myself and others, while not holding back in making assessments (I'm not here to make you feel good about yourself).
There are things I am good at and things I suck at, call me an idiot about those as much as you want, you are probably right.

 

[Hudo]

who are just there to breed their party members.

I've been very vocal about interpreting Fire Emblem as a coomer game! I've got Advance Wars for everything else.

 

[digoutyoursoul]

This game was never going to leave up to the hype ... specially after becoming the savior of Xbox brand because of "reasons" since it was always gonna be there anyway.

Time for the next exclusive COD game to became the savior of xbox brand, whenever xbox choose to say fuck it to contracts and regulators and work around them to make this happen.

If the leadership at Xbox was so great, the game would not have had the pressure it did to deliver. People dance around the clear issues with the management and at the same give themselves away by inadvertently highlighting one of the major problems.

The usual suspects are going to give Forza high scores next , they are fucking shameless

 

[Topher]

These Starfield takes are really something to behold. It's facinating.

I thoroughly enjoyed Starfield, but obviously there is significant percentage of people who didn't. That's fine. I'm still of the opinion that Starfield will rebound in Steam reviews when Bethesda gets off their ass and provides the updates they promised. The people giving the game negative reviews on Steam are NOT the problem. Steam's review system is NOT the problem. Starfield has a large number of flaws, many of which are completely self-inflicted by Bethesda for things like not implementing basic features day one and building a 2023 game off a ten plus year old engine. If I'm going to point to problems then start with the game itself.

 

[Lucie Goosey]

Knowing that Elder Scrolls is their baby, I haven't really worried about it....

Till now.

To launch a new IP with an engine like this, makes me question a lot of their choices as I was one of those that accepted them using the same engine, that was until I played it myself. Its painfully clear this should have never been made on this engine and its time for them to move on.

We will see these same excuses when Elder Scrolls VI releases.

be like "mods save us" lol

If this is what TESVI is like then count me out.

 

[Topher]

Theoretically, but that's insanely unlikely if they do their research right.
I have very high standards on what I play, do a lot of research and maybe end up with 1 in 30 games that I end up not enjoying at least for a time.


Easy. Maybe a bit time intensive.
You actually read the reviews, watch gameplay, etc. You'll see enough shared facts to make a well informed opinion if the game would be for you or not.
You don't just look at numbers and make a decision based on that.
There's also demos.
And "demos", if you catch my drift.
And Gamepass. And friends. And...

There are so many possibilities (all free or practically free) to avoid purchasing something you'd not enjoy at all, there is no real excuse (other than having money to waste).


Leave me with that participation trophy kindergarden shit.
People are responsible for their own actions.
That includes wasting their extremely limited money on purchases they'd regret making.

I also don't see the issue in calling someone an idiot when they are being an idiot. I'm an idiot sometimes, too.
It's fine.
People have such laughably thin skin sometimes.


And I'm fine with it.
Elitism is used as something negative mostly by people who think they couldn't reach a standard that seems out of their reach.
I see elitism as striving for reaching higher standards and demanding that of myself and others, while not holding back in making assessments (I'm not here to make you feel good about yourself).
There are things I am good at and things I suck at, call me an idiot about those as much as you want, you are probably right.

So basically every game should have damn near 100% positive reviews and if it doesn't then the negative reviews are by idiots who didn't do enough research. Got it.

 

[PotatoBoy]

I've been very vocal about interpreting Fire Emblem as a coomer game! I've got Advance Wars for everything else.

100%. The phenomenon of people using venerable franchises as "cover" for indulging in their insanities is widespread and getting worse. It's killing a lot of games. One day when I'm bored I'll post a huge screed in a new thread. But something must be done.

 

[Klayzer]

So basically every game should have damn near 100% positive reviews and if it doesn't then the negative reviews are by idiots who didn't do enough research. Got it.

 

[MadchesterManc]

This thread is aging like a fine wine, the last few pages have been an interesting to-and-fro regarding Steam reviews.

So basically every game should have damn near 100% positive reviews and if it doesn't then the negative reviews are by idiots who didn't do enough research. Got it.

That's a novel way of describing an echo chamber

 

[TheSHEEEP]

So basically every game should have damn near 100% positive reviews and if it doesn't then the negative reviews are by idiots who didn't do enough research. Got it.

No?
No idea how you would get to that conclusion, either.

You can enjoy a game and not recommend it, we've had enough legitimate examples for that.
The opposite is also true, but probably more rare? Not sure.

You can also have enough disposable income, buy a game on a hunch (or just quickly browse some reviews or such) and be wrong about it. Doesn't make you an idiot. This is probably how most people end up with games they don't like. Damn hunches, man.
You are an idiot, though, if you don't have that income, don't do that research and end up with a game you can't stand at all. I don't see how that is even a point of contention.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

You are an idiot, though, if you don't have that income, don't do that research and end up with a game you can't stand at all. I don't see how that is even a point of contention.

You're looking for the weirdest points to argue with people.

 

[Madflavor]

I expect over time as the performance issues are ironed out, the Steam rating will go up. I do however hope Bethesda do take notice and rethink how they want to approach TESVI. Are they going to do the exact same song and dance since 2006, or are they going to try and truly evolve their formula and deliver Todd's Swan Song as best they can?

At the end of the day, Starfield sold a shit ton, so I'm not so sure.

 

[TheSHEEEP]

You're looking for the weirdest points to argue with people.

I didn't argue with anyone until people started claiming nonsense and twisting my words.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I didn't argue with anyone until people started claiming nonsense and twisting my words.

All I saw was you making a dumb argument, people calling you out on it, and then you flip-flopping and adding asterisks to your argument when you realised how dumb it was

 

[TheSHEEEP]

All I saw was you making a dumb argument, people calling you out on it, and then you flip-flopping and adding asterisks to your argument when you realised how dumb it was

Nah, people just misconstrued my argument and jumped to the most insane conclusions about what I said.
So, what should I do? Not correct the insane assumptions by providing more context?

Going into more detail is not adding asterisks.
It's how grown ups have discussions and come to agreements.
Most topics are more complicated than one or two sentences.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Nah, people just misconstrued my argument and jumped to the most insane conclusions about what I said.
So, what should I do? Not correct the insane assumptions?

Going into more detail is not adding asterisks.
It's how grown ups have discussions and come to agreements.
Most topics are more complicated than one or two sentences.

You're on neogaf. You don't need to pretend to be a grown up. Especially when your first thought is to openly call people idiots for things you can't grasp.

 

[jorgejjvr]

Man, Xbox newest IP and hyped up game is only a 71? Wild

 

[Topher]

I expect over time as the performance issues are ironed out, the Steam rating will go up. I do however hope Bethesda do take notice and rethink how they want to approach TESVI. Are they going to do the exact same song and dance since 2006, or are they going to try and truly evolve their formula and deliver Todd's Swan Song as best they can?

At the end of the day, Starfield sold a shit ton, so I'm not so sure.

I'm guessing they expected it to sell more than it did even if they make a lot of money from it. The flaws in the game and the many complaints from the community highlight all of it, particularly that which points directly back to their use of an ancient engine. Hard for me to imagine they are going to knowingly, needlessly bring all those inherent flaws forward to TES VI. Perhaps Todd Howard is an old dog now and can't be bothered with new tricks? I hope not.

 

[TheSHEEEP]

You're on neogaf. You don't need to pretend to be a grown up. Especially when your first thought is to call people idiots for things you can't grasp.

I'm still waiting for the person to show me you are not an idiot when you blindly waste money you can't really afford to waste.

Read my initial statement again (here, I'll make it easy for you), which was nothing but an assessment of acting financially responsible, and see how it develops from there by some people jumping to absurd conclusions with paraphrasing nowhere near what I said.
Then Topher came in with easily falsifyable statements (which I did), such as enough research into a game not enabling you to tell with high chance if you'd enjoy a game or that forming a well informed opinion wouldn't be possible just because reviews have a wide rating spectrum.

You could say I could have left it well enough alone, but I enjoy having discussions, so... uh... sue me?

 

[M1chl]

You hate to throw money out the window yet you decided to pay for 5 days of early access? Weird

FOMO kicked in

 

[GHG]

There is really more to it. And more that results from it.

Just think about it. When do you thumb something down? When it is really bad? Or when it is just not that good?
Up is good, down is bad, that's what it really comes down to. But there is also the middle thumb (and any angle in-between).

As Valve/Steam itself interprets it, they aggregate those recommendations to result in a game review rating like "very positive", etc.
They very much DON'T say "50% recommend this game". They literally say "mixed reviews" - a recommendation and a review are not the same thing, though.
One is deeply personal, the other can strive for a higher measure of objectivity and detail.
Steam makes people give recommendations (or not), mandatory, and also write a review (optional, or at least you can keep it very short), and then in the end combine it into a review score.

Which ends up rather weirdly with games that might be fine to have super low rating or games that are also not that great to have super high ratings. Which in turn is really bad for developers (and gamers that might be missing out).
It's a problematic system no matter how you look at it.
Which is why I wish Steam would move away from that oversimplified system and demand more from people who want to leave a review. If that would result in less but better reviews, awesome!
But hell, as I said, just adding one more option (the middle ground) would be a major improvement.


That's not really the topic here, which is why you don't see it that much.
I don't think anyone would say that 1h positive reviews are better or more qualified than 1h negative ones. I'd even say it is the opposite!

The only argument I could see is that an unqualified positive review does not unjustifyably damage the developer.
It's not that harmful, therefore people don't get that upset about it?
Plus, negativity simply attracts more attention than positivity, that's just human nature.

But yeah, both are generally bad.

There's already a system within the steam reviews system itself whereby the reviews themselves get reviewed. Therefore over periods of time the good and more thoughtful reviews end up being highlighted.

There's no need for some arbitrary system whereby steam gets/has to decide which reviews get to be posted or not, that's absurd.

This system isn't about protecting the developers (and their feelings), it's about protecting the customer.

There are clear guidelines for reviews set out to both developers/publishers and customers on steam. In this instance only one side of the equation has failed to uphold their end of the bargain, and it's not the customers.

Not even I would say that and I'm elitist af.

You're elitist but yet you're here making the most ridiculous statements in order to defend a game that's got a 71% rating on steam?

 

[Madflavor]

I'm guessing they expected it to sell more than it did even if they make a lot of money from it. The flaws in the game and the many complaints from the community highlight all of it, particularly that which points directly back to their use of an ancient engine. Hard for me to imagine they are going to knowingly, needlessly bring all those inherent flaws forward to TES VI. Perhaps Todd Howard is an old dog now and can't be bothered with new tricks? I hope not.

They should at the very least take a page out of how Cyberpunk 2077 handled NPC interaction. And for the love of god hire a better writer.

 

[TheSHEEEP]

There are clear guidelines for reviews set out to both developers/publishers and customers on steam. In this instance only one side of the equation has failed to uphold their end of the bargain, and it's not the customers.

Did you even read the guidelines you posted a link to?

Reviewers should adhere to the following guidelines:

• Do not direct abuse or insults at other players, developers, or groups.
• Do not include threats or encouragement of harm.
• Do not use reviews for commercial purposes. Examples include: advertisements, referrals, or promotions.
• Do not artificially influence review scores. Examples include: using multiple accounts to leave reviews; coercing other players to leave reviews; or accepting payments or other compensation to leave reviews.
• If a copy of the game was received for free, this should be disclosed in the review itself.

That's all fine and dandy, but doesn't say anything about writing just patently false stuff about a game.
Plenty examples of people just making false statements about a game - the only thing developers can do in that instance is write a reply with a correction, but the negative review will be there and affect the score and possibly decisions of potential customers as well.
All based on factually wrong claims.

Don't get me wrong, what Steam has is better than what some other stores have (often, nothing at all).
And at least it does allow devs to remove harassing stuff.
It is not a terrible system. But it is still unfair towards developers IMO and it could definitely be improved upon.

You're elitist but yet you're here making the most ridiculous statements in order to defend a game that's got a 71% rating on steam?

Please show me a single line where I defended Starfield or Bethesda.
I even explicitly posted a reply TO YOU saying that I don't do that. And here you are, claiming the same shit again.
Edit: NVM, that was another poster. My bad.

You could say this entire tangent is fairly off-topic and should probably get moved to some other thread about steam rating.
But nowhere did I defend either game or developer.
Frankly, 71% seems a fair assessment from what I've seen.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Then Topher came in with easily falsifyable statements (which I did), such as enough research into a game not enabling you to tell with high chance if you'd enjoy a game or that forming a well informed opinion wouldn't be possible just because reviews have a wide rating spectrum.

Lmao what?

All you did was give your own personal anecdote to support your own argument. Are you an idiot?

 

[TheSHEEEP]

Lmao what?

All you did was give your own personal anecdote to support your own argument. Are you an idiot?

You are welcome to disprove anything I wrote about building an informed opinion before a game purchase and how that makes it highly unlikely to end up with you buying a game you won't enjoy at all.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

You are welcome to disprove anything I wrote about building an informed opinion before a game purchase and how that makes it highly unlikely to end up with you buying a game you won't enjoy at all.

disprove what exactly? Your argument is yeah but I can do it so why can't these idiots

 

[TheSHEEEP]

Your argument is yeah but I can do it so why can't these idiots

Considering all I need to be able to do to soar to such heights is being able to read, watch gameplay, know my own tastes and use the internet.... seems reasonable?

Am I going too far by assuming those things to be kind of common sense?

 

[Trogdor1123]

Anyone running it on 5800x3d and a 6800? Would like to know rough fps at 1440p

 

[Edmund]

One of very worst games I've played for many hours was dynasty warriors 9. I'm a massive fan of the dynasty warriors series since dynasty warriors 3. I grew up playing that since I was a little kid.

I wanted so bad to give it a chance so I kept playing and playing. I think Starfield is the same to many Bethesda fans.

Like you continue eating shit hoping that it'll get better.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Considering all I need to be able to do to soar to such heights is being able to read, watch gameplay, know my own tastes and use the internet.... seems reasonable?

Am I going too far by assuming those things to be kind of common sense?

Do you think just because a person prefers a specific type of genre means they're going to like every movie of that genre? And vice versa, just because they don't like a genre means they're not going to like some of those movies?

It's the entertainment industry. No amount of research is fool proof to protect you from a bad purchase. That's especially true for 100+ hour games like starfield

 

[TheSHEEEP]

Do you think just because a person prefers a specific type of genre means they're going to like every movie of that genre? And vice versa, just because they don't like a genre means they're not going to like some of those movies?

No, I don't. And neither have I claimed so.
You are, as always, making wild assumptions. It is mildly irritating, I have to admit.

It's the entertainment industry. No amount of research is fool proof to protect you from a bad purchase. That's especially true for 100+ hour games like starfield

You are right. It isn't fool proof.
But everyone else will do pretty well. Kind of my point, thanks!
Good prompt

More seriously, though, you really need to read the words people write and not just glance over them to get irritated over those that irked you. Or add more to your interpretation that weren't even said to add more fuel.
I said quite often, if not all the time, "high chance", "extremely unlikely", etc.
So, yes, there will be cases of people who did very thorough research and everything right and still they ended up hating the game, regretting the purchase - and no, those people are not idiots.
I'm not sure I'd agree long games make that more likely, but whatever.
But that is a very rare occasion.

Me calling someone an idiot applies to the vast majority of cases of the context we are talking about (barely any disposable income, not doing enough research, ending up with regretted purchase).
I say that again in awkward length, because I know people forget or ignore context very quickly here, just to jump into attack mode.
It's called generalization, and I think it is fair to do if something is accurate to a very high degree. Unless you wanna put an "*there are exceptions" after everything you say.

I really have to ask, though, because that is what confuses me the most about this whole discussion: What's the issue with calling someone an idiot that gets people so riled up?
We're all idiots sometimes, and everyone has topics or areas they are complete doofuses about and they'll act like an idiot around with astounding predictability.
I'm an idiot when it comes to language learning, but I still keep at it despite having easier alternatives to achieve what I want.
I fucking sold my SNES as a teen for a quick buck, do you think I will ever not call myself a damn idiot over it, or disagreeing with people calling me an idiot because of it?
Some people are idiots when it comes to making financial decisions. Some people are idiots when it comes to knowing their own preferences. Some people might be both.
So what? You can be an idiot about these things and still be a bad enough dude to rescue the president.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

No, I don't. And neither have I claimed so.
You are, as always, making wild assumptions. It is mildly irritating, I have to admit.

That wasn't an assumption. It was analogy in response to the taste factor you used. Sorry, I just assumed you would have used common sense.

It's probably irritating you because you're slowly starting to understanding how illogical your argument is and don't want to own up to it.

More seriously, though, you really need to read the words people write and not just glance over them to get irritated over those that irked you. Or add more to your interpretation that weren't even said to add more fuel.
I said quite often, if not all the time, "high chance", "extremely unlikely", etc.
So, yes, there will be cases of people who did very thorough research and everything right and still they ended up hating the game, regretting the purchase - and no, those people are not idiots.
I'm not sure I'd agree long games make that more likely, but whatever.
But that is a very rare occasion.

Lol. Yes, everyone is aware of what you said, and that itself is what's being contested. It's not a "high chance" or "extremely unlikely" just because of your own personal experience. Speaking of which, still waiting on you to easily falsify that statement of tophers

 

[thuGG_pl]

This thread is aging like a fine wine, the last few pages have been an interesting to-and-fro regarding Steam reviews.

It started with "you didn't play the game enough".
Now its: "you played it for too long" and "youre too poor and stupid".

 

[Raven117]

Man, Xbox newest IP and hyped up game is only a 71? Wild

Yeah...In the end...its just not as good as it should be for being a "1st Party/System Seller" type game. That's really the summary of all of this.

Spoiler

just fired up cyberpunk again for 2.0...that game is awesome and shows how far Bethesda has fallen behind

 

[Trogdor1123]

That is the quality mods for a 2011 game. Imagine starfield mods.

Holy smokes. That’s awesome. What kind of a computer do you need to run that?

 

[demigod]

I am still salty that you mofos forced me to buy early access and I could put 900CZK else where, not that I am poor, but I hate to throw money out of the window. Its bad, like straight up 4/10, maybe even 3, like look, I don't like it and I loved F4, so I am salty.

The fucking Outer Worlds is great game in comparison and I didn't like that game much either. And it had better atmosphere. This game reviews so far, its just on hype alone, since its Bethesda RPG after like a 100 years. Scores will drop like flies in the future. Only good thing about this game is physics of the objects, but its "good" because game makes zero use of that.

And I just started Phantom Liberty and someone has to explain to me, how billion dollar company, with trillion dollar company backing gets absolutely obliterated by someone from post-Bolshevik country. Fucking Cyberpunk 1.0 on Xbox One was more fun that this trash. Western games really has no soul anymore, its so bland and it makes me feel depressed, fuck Starfield.

Not sure what you were expecting, the game looked bad since last year’s trailer. There were comparisons that No Man’s Sky looked better. You could see they didn’t fix the shitty AI since last year.

 

[GHG]

Did you even read the guidelines you posted a link to?

That's all fine and dandy, but doesn't say anything about writing just patently false stuff about a game.
Plenty examples of people just making false statements about a game - the only thing developers can do in that instance is write a reply with a correction, but the negative review will be there and affect the score and possibly decisions of potential customers as well.
All based on factually wrong claims.

Don't get me wrong, what Steam has is better than what some other stores have (often, nothing at all).
And at least it does allow devs to remove harassing stuff.
It is not a terrible system. But it is still unfair towards developers IMO and it could definitely be improved upon.


Please show me a single line where I defended Starfield or Bethesda.
I even explicitly posted a reply TO YOU saying that I don't do that. And here you are, claiming the same shit again.
Edit: NVM, that was another poster. My bad.

You could say this entire tangent is fairly off-topic and should probably get moved to some other thread about steam rating.
But nowhere did I defend either game or developer.
Frankly, 71% seems a fair assessment from what I've seen.

And which of those guidelines are individuals breaking exactly? Just because you disagree with someone's assessment of the game in a negative sense it doesn't make the review false.

On the other hand here are the guidelines to developers:

Bethesda/Microsoft 100% failed when it comes to what's set out there.

 

[Gideon]

I wasn't expecting this guy to fuel the console war bullshit..

 

[TheSHEEEP]

That wasn't an assumption. It was analogy in response to the taste factor you used.

An analogy requires correlation. There is no correlation between what I wrote and your strawman.

You can't just pick one thing out of the list of things I mentioned, reduce it severely (preferences to only genre preferences) and pretend you can cleverly disprove anything by making it stand for the entire list.
None of the things I listed alone can lead to a very well informed decision. I considered that so obvious I did not specify. Apologies.

I'll rephrase what I wrote now, going from start to finish of the train of thought, as clearly as I can manage:

The more knowledge you gain about a game, the higher the chance you can correctly tell if the game will be for you.
The knowledge you gain about a game can get so high that making a wrong decision becomes very unlikely.
If you haven't gained enough knowledge yet, you can always gain more (up to everything there is to know, theoretically).
This can be done by anyone who is capable of gaining knowledge.
If you don't do any of that at all or just for very little time and you only have money for one or two games per year and you spend that little money on the game anyway, then you have made a stupid decision.
It is a legitimate jab to call someone who made a stupid decision an idiot about it.

Yes? No?

If this doesn't do it for you and you still think my argument is illogical, I give up. I tried.

Just because you disagree with someone's assessment of the game in a negative sense it doesn't make the review false.

Some opinions can be wrong. Assessments can be incorrect.
You can say "in my opinion, the Earth is flat". Does that make the opinions wrong? Yes. Yes, it does.
People have figured out thousands of years before us that opinions can be wrong if their logical basis is factually incorrect.
Having an opinion doesn't make it some sacred cow that couldn't be touched, especially if that opinion has real consequences to people.

And which of those guidelines are individuals breaking exactly?

None, and I never claimed that they do.

My motivation is: I don't think "write whatever you want as long as you don't call for pitchforks" and "reviews are combined into the most important frontpage score" mix very well.
And especially for indies (I care about indies way more than about big corpos), just a few false reviews early on can mean almost certain failure.

Here's my idea (yes, I'm aware this won't happen and I'm theorycrafting):
There should be more guidelines and they should be enforceable.
Reviews should IMO be flaggable by the developer to not count for the review score if they can prove to Valve that the review is mostly based on false statements. They can still be up there, readable, but shouldn't count for the score.
For example, "This game is shit because it is way too hard" or "I don't know what Bethesda is doing, but this is not what I have been waiting for." cannot be proven false and will always be a legitimate opinion.
But "This game is shit because there is no tutorial" can be proven false quite easily (the game does have a tutorial).

Now, I do realize this would require the arbiter to actually know the game, the decision shouldn't just be made based on the developer's words (we don't want the messed up YouTube copyright situation).
Is it reasonable to demand that Valve has people who can look up facts about a game to make such a decision? Assuming that a dev's privilege to do such flagging can be revoked if they abuse it, I would say yes.

It might also be an idea to allow such flagging only an initial time after release of a game - the more reviews there are, the less completely false reviews matter.
Maybe users, too, should be able to flag their own review to not count for the score just to enable them to write whatever crap they feel like.

Bethesda/Microsoft 100% failed when it comes to what's set out there.

That's true. At least when it comes to gameplay and storytelling.
The graphics everyone with eyes knew would not be up to recent AAA standards.

 

[Dick Jones]

I wasn't expecting this guy to fuel the console war bullshit..

Parris must be getting some chair delivered to him.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

For example, "This game is shit because it is way too hard" or "I don't know what Bethesda is doing, but this is not what I have been waiting for." cannot be proven false and will always be a legitimate opinion.
But "This game is shit because there is no tutorial" can be proven false quite easily (the game does have a tutorial).

I'd be okay with copying Twitter's excellent "community notes" feature. Not just for the devs to flag things, but also for anyone to call out fake and misleading reviews.

I would actually expect most of the flagged ones to be positive/shill reviews.

 

[StereoVsn]

So basically every game should have damn near 100% positive reviews and if it doesn't then the negative reviews are by idiots who didn't do enough research. Got it.

Idiots is a stupid term here. However for folks who don’t have much money, they should be budgeted much smarter.

I didn’t have much at all when I was young, worked part time jobs, then worked and went to University at same time.

Basically the money I spent on gaming was rentals, sharing with friends, piracy (no Steam, convenient sales, no money, it is what it is) and used games.

That way gaming budget stretched much much more. $70-90 games almost never happened and if they did it was an event. Phantasy Star 4 and FF3 (6) were freaking events.

So yeah, folks should spend their money better but on the other hand… I can see being utterly disappointed but still playing the game if I spent the resort of money back then. Like if FFVI or VII were trash, I would have still played them.

It’s just there are so many more resources and games you can access on the cheap or for free, $70 shouldn’t be a budget players approach.

 

[Kilau]

I wasn't expecting this guy to fuel the console war bullshit..

It's back to 75% positive from what I'm seeing.

We all know it’s a mid game but seeing folks go out of their way to buy it on Steam, leave a good review and immediately refund because they think it helps them win the “vidyah gamez war”

 

[Thief1987]

It's back to 75% positive from what I'm seeing.

It's not. Although very slow, but userscore is still slipping.

 

[Kilau]

It's not. Although very slow, but userscore is still slipping.

Then my Steam must be only showing me some of the reviews because it's 75% positive on mine.

 

[Gudji]

Then my Steam must be only showing me some of the reviews because it's 75% positive on mine.

Remove the "your language" filter.