PA Steam Review - Analysis

An outdated review has no point to help anyone decide if they want to play the game though.
What does a buyer today care about the issues of the past?

I actually agree completely with cola_colin a outdated review won´t help anyone.
This doesn´t change the fact that most reviews will never get ANY updates.

The release date is your D-Day, at this day the unwashed masses will judge you -like it or not.
The average reviewer will NOT be a well informed critic but a basement dwelling neckbeard that hates your game because it has no waifus in it.

**** game no waifus/10

PA was incomplete at launch, the developers stated, and “We consider release to be a part of the developmental process”. They got penalized for the release state of the game. No do over, no second chances. They were flamed, as was the latest Assassin Creed and Civilization beyond Earth.



P.S: We didn’t flame X Rebirth, we nuked it. PA got off easy.

If you want to act like a broken record instead of answering questions we have about your posts, you might want to leave this thread.

To be honest I have no issue with your launch review- it is after all dated as such. The only issue I have really is with the way Steam handles reviews. Older reviews should stay and be readable by anyone who wants to. That said if someone *doesn't own the game now* then reading a load of old reviews that are no longer applicable isn't really very helpful buyers advice. Having said that PA does appear to be selling despite it's unfortunate release so I guess like me many consumers are using the 'most recent' filter.

It's fine to be unhappy about an incomplete launch and all. It just depends on what you want from a review. Punish a developer for releasing early? Or offer others who are interested into a game a chance to see what they might like about the game they might buy right now? For that they need up to date reviews that state what they actually get right now when they buy the game. Not what they had get if they had bought the game many month ago.

Is the Steam review system fair? No its not. It’s a tool that gamers use; we employ it, to punish developers and publishers for releasing shoddy and unfinished material. The review is final, no pardons are issued, no leniency offered. It’s not meant to be fair.

The purpose of reviews is giving potential customers an idea of what they're considering purchasing, not for self righteous consumers to punish developers they think have sinned.

I think the idea of the need for players "to punish" game developers is pretty weird and childish to be honest.

its not meant to be fair? so basicly you telling me you will lie about it and give missinformation ? i know which reviews i will ignore then ...

If you release a product that is unfinished, its flame bait. If I buy it, and I find that it’s incomplete and buggy, I will lead the flame parade. As I said in an earlier post, you get one shot, I don’t amend reviews. I signed a petition for a PC version of “Fable Anniversary”, what dumb-head Studios (Lion Head Studios) gave us was crap. I did not lead that flame offensive, but I was a proud soldier. I despise developers that release incomplete products. The white knights need to understand this fact, when developers release shoddy and or incomplete products on Steam, the users will flame them. Check the reviews for Assassins Creed Unity, Call of Duty Advance Crap, and Civilization Beyond stupidity. We don‘t discriminate, we are equal opportunity flamers. I love The Witcher series, but if The Wild Hunt is crap…it will get flamed.


http://store.steampowered.com/app/289650/
http://store.steampowered.com/app/65980/
http://store.steampowered.com/app/209650/

None of which is a reason for inaccurate reviews to be listed as "most helpful". This isn't about changing existing reviews. This is about the point of the review system, which is to provide information to prospective buyers. Not for people to conduct flame wars or be 'proud soldiers'. That's what discussion forums are for.

"This game does not have offline" is not providing information to prospective buyers. It is not "most helpful". It is a false statement. It may have been true at the time of writing, but there is nothing to suggest that it has changed. If it had only just happened, then fair enough, there's naturally going to be a period when such reviews are going to appear still in the most helpful list. But it's been many months now, and the same reviews are still there. There is no justifiable reason for that.

Nor is asking for accurate and up-to-date "most helpful" reviews "white knighting". Such a review might well be explaining what is wrong with the game, it's launch and other negative points. Whether the review is positive or negative is irrelevant, it needs to more accurate than several months old, and there's no excuse for the system to have such old reviews, since there are more reviews being made all the time. It makes even less sense because there are more recent reviews than the ones listed with a higher percentage of people that found the review helpful.

The simple fact is, whatever algorithm Steam uses to determine the "most helpful" reviews does not weight Age of the review negatively enough so that the older they get the less "helpful" they are treated. They are also too heavily weighted towards quantity of votes rather than percentage, which practically guarantees the same reviews will always be visible (because people tend to only vote on what is immediately visible). Which all amounts to a broken review system, whether you recommend the game or not.

Outdated reviews are simply not helpful in making a purchase decision. That's an inarguable, objective FACT. You can bitch about the devs all you like in your review but at that point it has nothing to do with whether or not the game is fun.

It doesn't matter if the launch of a game was crap, because if they didn't fix anything the reviews would still reflect that. If they did fix it, then people can make an informed decision. Nobody in their right mind would say "I'm not going to buy game X because patch Y was shite" when patch Y.1 fixes everything.

Emotional investment in a game is not a good idea. You’re blinded by the facts, a system that has worked fine, must change because it adversely affects your game. PA 1.0. Was a cluster plough. Unless the developers were "%^&*8 &^% %^*&^", they had to know how it would be received, and yet they chose to release it. I choose to ignore the current state of the game; I choose to like all negative reviews of this game. I choose not to change my review. I hope Steam will chooses to leave the review system status quo.

WHY!?

This isn't 1974! We can patch things now!

Not sure, if accusation or self reflective statement.

@ufarax :

A Supermarket stocks a product on its shelf. It does not contain "Ingredient A".
Many people write reviews about the product, complaining about the lack of "Ingredient A" in it.
The supermarket changes the product, to include "Ingredient A" in it.
But the old reviews remain that claim there is no "Ingredient A" in the product, and these continue to show as "most helpful" to everyone. You dislike the product, so you make sure these reviews stay on top because they harm the product.

A person who is allergic to "Ingredient A" comes along. All the "most helpful" reviews show that the product does not contain "Ingredient A".
Person eats product, and gets incredibly sick, or worse, because of the "most helpful" reviews.

Now, according to your arguments in this thread:

• You think that review system is working well
• You don't think it should change
• You think the only people opposed to the review system are people "emotionally invested" in the product, rather than those simply wanting accurate reviews

While everyone else is scratching their heads wondering how you can support such a system.

You seem to have lost sight completely of the point of reviews, and I think it's simply because you like the fact the current "most helpful" reviews shown support your view against this game. I also suspect you aren't even reading my replies, because you think this is all about hiding reviews that are negative towards the game. If you are correct about the game, then there will still be negative reviews shown.

Reviews aren't a popularity system, to see which side can mark the most of the other ones as unhelpful and their own as helpful. They exist to give accurate information about a product to people before they buy them. The good and the bad information, but accurate information. That is their sole purpose. You are actively promoting the opposite: A broken review system that ensures that inaccurate reviews are kept highly visible by turning the whole thing into a farcical popularity contest that has nothing to do with reviewing at all.

Your own post goes on to prove just how broken it is:

The fact that you are using a button meant to mark a review as "helpful", as a "like", shows you aren't even using the reviews as they are intended. You aren't "liking" anything. All you've done is claimed that inaccurate reviews are "helpful", if you've done this on any of the outdated ones. Please explain how an inaccurate review is helpful?

That's your choice, but it's not what people reading the reviews are interested in.

How is a system that can't even achieve it's sole purpose for existing (providing accurate information for potential buyers), not broken?

It is always surprising to see how much investment people can make into hating some random computer game. There are many other things in this world about which I could understand that it makes sense to throw that much anger at them. But stupid computer games?
.... speechless

Thanks for letting me know why the most helpful page is almost all negative. Had no idea this concerted effort was going on.