Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: JAB <noway@nochance.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Subject: Re: Steam's Revising Reviews
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 09:52:37 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <v9scol$2as5a$1@dont-email.me>
References: <j7atbj94f6flnhbhb343qmeagl1d2f663g@4ax.com>
 <v9n36p$1cd73$1@dont-email.me> <ppqubjdp8nui5cdti739ssfe7lsjfud9u3@4ax.com>
 <v9pp65$1rnpj$2@dont-email.me> <3tk1cj9agclmm46ahbvbng1re2oajcqkcs@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 10:52:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7ecd80b23967a8bca03c329c09b0fd0a";
	logging-data="2453674"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Gw9lk44w3uIzrePJXs11D"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+z2fFucb6ujGVTJhVMmEdrEwW3s=
In-Reply-To: <3tk1cj9agclmm46ahbvbng1re2oajcqkcs@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3819

On 17/08/2024 17:49, Xocyll wrote:
> 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.
> 

I do use that as part of my will I click on the store page choice and 
anything that gets below 'mixed' I'm generally not even going to consider.

> 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.
> 

Yeh, that's always hard as you need that extra context to help you 
determine how much the reviewer's (dis)likes line up with yours. That's 
why I don't like the a couple of sentences with this was boring or crap.

> 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.
> 

My two favourite reviews. A Tamiya Panther tank model kit on Amazon, one 
star as you had to build and paint it yourself. Well that's what a model 
kit is. The next a restaurant review on Trip Advisor, one star as they 
said there was no record of their reservation and unfortunately no 
tables where now available. The manager did add their response, the 
restaurant that you reserved a table at was a different one with a 
similar name ... oooppps!