Top
270°

Steam asks user if they want to “revise” Destiny 2 review after 93 more hours

Looks like Valve is nudging users to update their opinions after more play time.

Read Full Story >>
pcgamesn.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Blu3_Berry397d ago

This is one of the main reasons why I find the review system for Steam is extremely flawed. People can leave a negative review for a number of reasons, yet still end up putting hundreds of hours into that said game. Maybe all the technical bugs were fixed, but sadly those negative reviews may remain unchanged. Something does need to be done about it.

ElementX397d ago

You can filter out reviews by time played

nowitzki2004396d ago (Edited 396d ago )

On the games page, on Steam they have "All Reviews" but above it is "Recent reviews"

397d ago
397d ago Replies(11)
Rachel_Alucard397d ago

Why is it so hard to understand that people can tell other people not to waste their time like they did? Games aren't stationary anymore, they keep changing and early access is designed around that. You can play for hundreds of hours and then some things the dev does to the game could put you off of it causing you to go negative despite your playtime. How else are you supposed to look like you know what you are talking about without having a high playtime?

Teflon02397d ago

Alot of times you can tell if a review is still relevant. I actually don't see irrelevant reviews honestly. Steam does a good job of it. But I do think this is good. I think They should have a average time per game and prompt a review adjustment. Like If Ni no Kuni 2 on average takes 30-60 hours to beat, after 30 hours you're prompt and maybe at like 60 or 80. Also one for 100%ing a achievement list. I think that ones a key thing that should be done

rainslacker397d ago

I think all user reviews should be allowed to be changed on online stores. I mean, sometimes one's initial impression changes as they play. I've played games that after 5 hours or so I may not review that well. But, for some reason at maybe 10 hours, they get really good.

Granted, this is usually more a story thing, and game play is typically good enough, so it wouldn't be for games that I'd rate really low, but the principal still applies to a lot of things.

Rude-ro397d ago

I have over a thousand hours in the game...
And are you saying that more time spent in a constant world game can not go negative?

The base core grind is two years old.

$10 an event for something to do while you still have to grind the core grind for power turns the game negative.
Having to rebuild armor not once more, but two times while the offerings are still the base armor of the game is a negative.
The fact pvp is back in alpha after TWO betas while launched is a negative.

To a new player that has not played.. sure.. it can be a good game.... but for how long?

The game is 4 out of 10 now for a long time fan.
The hardcore that will not hate the game... hate the game but play due to their addiction to the game.

Orionsangel397d ago

I've seen Steam reviews where they destroy a game and give it a red thumbs down and by the end of reading it they say, but I still recommend it.

Wait, what?

KillBill396d ago

I can order a meal and finish it completely and still give it a negative review. I can watch a movie and sit through the entire show and still write a negative review. I can be in a relationship with someone and eventually move on from it after trying to make it work... and still give my assessment of how bad the relationship was. I can purchase a video game spending well earned money and try my damnedest to get to the end of it in hopes it improves later in the game. And still write a negative review.

I can play BF1 and think it has some bugs and such but hope it gets better... play it online for hours on hours and they keep patching it to the point I simply can't put any more time into it and stop buying Battlefield games all together because of how they completely jacked up the game. And still write a negative review about it.

yoshatabi396d ago

I don't see how that's a problem with steam. More like a problem because of the person. And you can filter reviews. You're just reaching

xTonyMontana396d ago

While your example makes sense, I still think Steam has one of the best review systems. Seeing how much time a person has put into a game gives the reviews credibility. Take Amazon for example, someone can leave a review on there and say "I have over 300 hours played" but most either don't or can't back that claim up with the proof like with Steam.

Fist4achin396d ago

But, what about reviewing something at the time near release and it's a buggy mess. I'm tried of unfinished/unrefined games being released by triple A developers. Is this what you would want with a car or home repair? Unfinished shoddy work that needs to be fixed over and over again?!

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 396d ago
Spenok397d ago

I agree with this. They should have a required review update every so many hours.

Every 10... maybe every 50 hours of playtime? Or maybe, have the hour limit change depending on the genre/type of game.

Whatever way they review it (favorable or not), if they don't update it based on the additional game time they put in, valve will delete the review.

That way we know the reviews are more current. And, if the person REALLY cared for their review to stay up, they can "update" the review, but just leave it the same as before. I get that's circumventing the whole idea I'm presenting... but many wouldn't care to make sure their review stays up. And then we'd only have (for the most part) reviews from gamers who DO care about what they have to say about the games they review.

And again, it's only based on game time. So if someone plays a game for 3 hours, leaves a negative review, but never plays it again. They won't ever have to update that review because they never hit the next threshold for a required "Review update".

Just my two cents.

xX1NORM1Xx396d ago

This is cool, I hate that reviews will be left up when they no longer apply but it’s a hard thing to manage obviously if a game has game breaking bugs you want to warn people but what about when those bugs are fixed does the game still deserve the possible hit in sales?

Microsoft’s store is fucking awful but the fact that by default it only shows reviews of the current version is a really good way to get around this problem, however that also means the positive reviews and reviews that talk about problems that aren’t just launch issues or bugs go away too.

It’s a very hard thing to manage I don’t envy steam/Xbox/PSN smaller indies live and die on reviews if a game gets review bombed for political reasons or some stupid bullshit besides the quality of the game it can kill a indie studio. I almost feel like user reviews shouldn’t be on the clients but then obviously you can’t warn people when something dodgy is going on... I really can’t settle on a solution every time I think about this I just spiral and end up arguing with myself.

Some will say it encourages companies to launch in the best state possible but I don’t think that’s true and what about accidents like uploading the wrong build? I’ve heard of a few indies doing that or what about great games that have server issues day one and get review bombed? As I said I do not envy these platforms.

MAULxx396d ago

What's the point of even having user reviews if you want them to change or update their review? If the game launched with issues then that's what happened. Why should reviews be deleted because the game was patched as some seem to suggest.

BrainSyphoned396d ago

I ’m enjoying the new train wreck wwe2k20 even though it is a terrible game. Just because I am playing it to see how bad it is doesn’t mean it is suddenly worth spending money on or giving it a thumbs up.

If we go by hours played Clicker Heroes 1 is the greatest video game of all time.

Show all comments (32)