@Fr3quency said:
this franchise must really be at the most embarassing, sorry, lowest imaginable point ever, if "call to arms" threads like this are needed at all. I cant remember anything remotely embarassing in any other game in my over 20 year gaming career. The pure existence of such a thread is proof enough of how dead this game is but the naysayers still continue to say that "its too early to say". Lol what? Which kind of miracle are you waiting for? Necrons DLC that will permantenly increase the active playerbase by thousands? Keep dreaming.
The call to arms to get the hate snowball rolling for the game was happening leading up to release, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a call somewhere to leave negative reviews on Steam to try to hurt the game.
I legitimately don't see what's wrong with trying to promote awareness of the Steam review situation and getting people involved. Even though it might not seem hugely influential, someone perusing Steam who is on the fence about it could very easily be swayed by the overall score, and the reviews themselves, without caring to put the time into figuring out if the negative reviews are even accurate (last I checked, many of them had many things objectively wrong, not just them saying they didn't like the game).
As a personal example, sometimes I just sift through Steam games, and one of the things I'll look at first after getting a summary of the game are the reviews. I always spot check both positive and negative reviews, just to see the flavor of both. Now for DoW 3, the negative reviews seem manic/frenzied, so I'd be personally skeptical, but I can definitely understand people seeing that as game baggage and not bothering.
Im looking that reviews and not seeing many manic ones. Do see ones that go on forever. But a lot are listing the same things as problems with the game. If anything the positive ones seem a little manic. The bad reviews at least usually give reason why they don't like it. The positive ones don't really go over the game that much and just complain about the other negative ones.
This is the third most-helpful Negative Steam Review of all time. It is also the third most-helpful Steam Review of all time for the product, combined Positive / Negative Reviews (which should give you an idea of how the Positive / Negative reviews are weighted by Steam's user voting system):
Did you ever think that witnessing the death of Command & Conquer as one of the best strategy game franchises was something you wanted to do again?
Then this is the game for you!
It has an 87% (of a total of 639) helpful vote, and 268 people marked it as funny. It has had, and continues to have, significant exposure to people viewing the game's reviews. Noting the current statistics here just for the record.
Don't get me wrong, this is only a single example. But I consider it an important one, considering how highly it's rated, how many people have voted on it, and how long it's been up there for. Contrary to some speculation I've read, Relic and / or SEGA are obviously not censoring or removing unhelpful reviews (I doubt this is even possible, as it would render the entire system moot).
@Gorb said:
This is the third most-helpful Negative Steam Review of all time. It is also the third most-helpful Steam Review of all time for the product, combined Positive / Negative Reviews (which should give you an idea of how the Positive / Negative reviews are weighted by Steam's user voting system):
Did you ever think that witnessing the death of Command & Conquer as one of the best strategy game franchises was something you wanted to do again?
Then this is the game for you!
It has an 87% (of a total of 639) helpful vote, and 268 people marked it as funny. It has had, and continues to have, significant exposure to people viewing the game's reviews. Noting the current statistics here just for the record.
Don't get me wrong, this is only a single example. But I consider it an important one, considering how highly it's rated, how many people have voted on it, and how long it's been up there for. Contrary to some speculation I've read, Relic and / or SEGA are obviously not censoring or removing unhelpful reviews (I doubt this is even possible, as it would render the entire system moot).
Opinion post.
Just on the last portion, I don't think Valve would ever let a studio or publisher touch the reviews. They sit solely in the space that the owner of the game has, and even the owner of the review can manage comments on it at their own discretion including out right deleting them. I even think some studio's (let me be clear they were bad studios) tried to take steam users to court for slander, which of course didn't work, and only managed to have valve remove the entire IP from their store.
@PrimaGoosa said:
As a personal example, sometimes I just sift through Steam games, and one of the things I'll look at first after getting a summary of the game are the reviews. I always spot check both positive and negative reviews, just to see the flavor of both. Now for DoW 3, the negative reviews seem manic/frenzied, so I'd be personally skeptical, but I can definitely understand people seeing that as game baggage and not bothering.
As a counter to that, I'm sure you also saw the quality of most of the positive reviews - which spend about as much time criticizing the negative reviews as they do actually saying anything worthwhile about the game.
Honestly when I buy a game I check Steam Reviews too, and just like you go through the positive and the negative. I do, however, tend to find the negative ones more useful, because they seem to more specifically qualify exactly what they don't like and why. This last bit wasn't a commentary on DoW III - just the Steam reviews in general.
So, more of the negative reviews do a better job of actually reviewing the game than I remember. The positive ones I'm looking at as the Most Helpful are also seemingly admitting that the game has flaws, but most just find it fun. So the "manic" comment doesn't apply nearly as much as I remember it being soon after launch.
However, to Gorb's point, people do seemingly love to hate the game. Another negative review is the following:
811/1014 people found this review helpful. Helpful. Funny, sure. I think it's a fairly funny comment myself. But 800 people thought it worth their time to vote it as helpful, and I don't see a reason other than ensuring that it pops up into a new user's face when they are trying to look for helpful reviews.
Meanwhile, 375/553 people found this review helpful:
It isn't a perfect review, but this is ranked the most helpful positive review, at 68%. Half of the reviews are positive, but they have no visibility, because while 500 people will take the time on a positive review, 5000 people will go to this negative review and mark it as helpful:
Granted, the review above is decent, at least. However, even that has inaccuracies given the current state of the game:
You can still build some structures (no defenses though)
...
And If you're looking into this game because you loved doing skirmish annihilations with friends against the AI, stop. There is none.
To his credit, he also says:
I'll probably enjoy more when they're gonna add some classic RTS modes (or when me - or any other modder - will be able to create a LARGE map without towers and other ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥t)
Maybe it is a theme where a mixture of positive and negative reviews ends up with a much larger turnout for the negatives when it comes to marking them as helpful, but it's startling how many want to fluff up negatives. This thread just seems to want to build the awareness for people to also fluff up and build some good positives.
You're probably right about there being more people looking to fluff up the negative reviews. Only game owners can leave a review, but ANYONE on Steam can upvote or downvote those reviews - including all of the folks who tried the beta and wanted nothing to do with it (c'est moi) or folks who didn't even like the pre-release videos etc.
The review Gorb highlighted is obviously garbage, and the folks who ticked it "helpful" weren't being fair, but that's not exactly how the Steam reviews work. As often as not "helpful" just means "I agree or like this". Steam Reviews have a LOT of flaws, but I consider them useful because:
1) It gives me an indication of how much the folks who bought the game like it
2) I can cherry pick the reviews and discount the ones that aren't worth reading.
I think we're giving that tongue-in-cheek review more credit than it's worth. Maybe you guys disagree, but I highly doubt that folks are going on to check Steam reviews and then search begins and ends with "Let us not speak of this heresy again." It's worth a chuckle, but very little serious thought.
I can't speak for Gorb, but I personally wasn't trying to argue that people actually thought the review was helpful. I can't imagine anyone reading that and saying "Welp, convinced me", then moving on to other things. The only point I wanted to make was how much "positive" attention it received by being voted as Helpful (which, you are right, it's more "I agree" than "This helped me make a decision", I'd bet), and the fact that I think Steam defaults to showing a set of the Most Helpful reviews first in the default filter settings.
As a result, even if it is just a popularity contest for the reviews, the highly "Helpful" reviews are going to take listing priority in that default sort, skewing the sample to the negative perceptions instead of the positive ones that say "it has flaws, but is still fun".
I don't think any review system can be perfect, but I think it could be a useful exercise to try to give the "I understand the flaws but still enjoy the game" philosophy some sunshine.
Menu
Comments
Chriskovo
Im looking that reviews and not seeing many manic ones. Do see ones that go on forever. But a lot are listing the same things as problems with the game. If anything the positive ones seem a little manic. The bad reviews at least usually give reason why they don't like it. The positive ones don't really go over the game that much and just complain about the other negative ones.
Gorb
This is the third most-helpful Negative Steam Review of all time. It is also the third most-helpful Steam Review of all time for the product, combined Positive / Negative Reviews (which should give you an idea of how the Positive / Negative reviews are weighted by Steam's user voting system):
It has an 87% (of a total of 639) helpful vote, and 268 people marked it as funny. It has had, and continues to have, significant exposure to people viewing the game's reviews. Noting the current statistics here just for the record.
Don't get me wrong, this is only a single example. But I consider it an important one, considering how highly it's rated, how many people have voted on it, and how long it's been up there for. Contrary to some speculation I've read, Relic and / or SEGA are obviously not censoring or removing unhelpful reviews (I doubt this is even possible, as it would render the entire system moot).
Opinion post.
Strangequark
Just on the last portion, I don't think Valve would ever let a studio or publisher touch the reviews. They sit solely in the space that the owner of the game has, and even the owner of the review can manage comments on it at their own discretion including out right deleting them. I even think some studio's (let me be clear they were bad studios) tried to take steam users to court for slander, which of course didn't work, and only managed to have valve remove the entire IP from their store.
Edited for links
http://kotaku.com/game-developer-sues-100-anonymous-steam-users-for-18-m-1786721306
https://www.giantbomb.com/articles/developer-threatens-gabe-newell-valve-removes-game/1100-5052/
https://techraptor.net/content/art-stealth-removed-steam-by-valve
PrimaGoosa
So, more of the negative reviews do a better job of actually reviewing the game than I remember. The positive ones I'm looking at as the Most Helpful are also seemingly admitting that the game has flaws, but most just find it fun. So the "manic" comment doesn't apply nearly as much as I remember it being soon after launch.
However, to Gorb's point, people do seemingly love to hate the game. Another negative review is the following:
http://steamcommunity.com/id/AlienBoogaloo/recommended/285190/
811/1014 people found this review helpful. Helpful. Funny, sure. I think it's a fairly funny comment myself. But 800 people thought it worth their time to vote it as helpful, and I don't see a reason other than ensuring that it pops up into a new user's face when they are trying to look for helpful reviews.
Meanwhile, 375/553 people found this review helpful:
http://steamcommunity.com/id/thatsreallyneat/recommended/285190/
It isn't a perfect review, but this is ranked the most helpful positive review, at 68%. Half of the reviews are positive, but they have no visibility, because while 500 people will take the time on a positive review, 5000 people will go to this negative review and mark it as helpful:
http://steamcommunity.com/id/sarblade/recommended/285190/
Granted, the review above is decent, at least. However, even that has inaccuracies given the current state of the game:
...
To his credit, he also says:
Maybe it is a theme where a mixture of positive and negative reviews ends up with a much larger turnout for the negatives when it comes to marking them as helpful, but it's startling how many want to fluff up negatives. This thread just seems to want to build the awareness for people to also fluff up and build some good positives.
Amoc
You're probably right about there being more people looking to fluff up the negative reviews. Only game owners can leave a review, but ANYONE on Steam can upvote or downvote those reviews - including all of the folks who tried the beta and wanted nothing to do with it (c'est moi) or folks who didn't even like the pre-release videos etc.
The review Gorb highlighted is obviously garbage, and the folks who ticked it "helpful" weren't being fair, but that's not exactly how the Steam reviews work. As often as not "helpful" just means "I agree or like this". Steam Reviews have a LOT of flaws, but I consider them useful because:
1) It gives me an indication of how much the folks who bought the game like it
2) I can cherry pick the reviews and discount the ones that aren't worth reading.
I think we're giving that tongue-in-cheek review more credit than it's worth. Maybe you guys disagree, but I highly doubt that folks are going on to check Steam reviews and then search begins and ends with "Let us not speak of this heresy again." It's worth a chuckle, but very little serious thought.
PrimaGoosa
@Amoc
I can't speak for Gorb, but I personally wasn't trying to argue that people actually thought the review was helpful. I can't imagine anyone reading that and saying "Welp, convinced me", then moving on to other things. The only point I wanted to make was how much "positive" attention it received by being voted as Helpful (which, you are right, it's more "I agree" than "This helped me make a decision", I'd bet), and the fact that I think Steam defaults to showing a set of the Most Helpful reviews first in the default filter settings.
As a result, even if it is just a popularity contest for the reviews, the highly "Helpful" reviews are going to take listing priority in that default sort, skewing the sample to the negative perceptions instead of the positive ones that say "it has flaws, but is still fun".
I don't think any review system can be perfect, but I think it could be a useful exercise to try to give the "I understand the flaws but still enjoy the game" philosophy some sunshine.