31 déc. 2013 à 16h54

Originally posted by Orresnei:

I really would like to see an option to insert screenshots into reviews. As it stands now longer reviews become giant walls of text. I do not mind long reviews, I actually like them if they are well written. But having a lot of text paragraphs without any option of vertical pausing (for example via images) just hinders the readability.

Tying the review screenshots up to the existing screenshot system is ofcourse the obvious solution and would as suggested keep screenshots relevant to the game being reviewed. I would like to append a suggesion however. Because different reviewers will get varying degrees of visual fidelity it would be nice to see what kind of specs the game was reviewed with. Steam already collect hardware information and this information could be inserted into the review; the reviewer asked for its correcteness.

I also agree on the point about a more finely grained review scale. A possibility would at least be to add a neutral rating. In this case a neutral rating would be given to a game that does not merit a clear recommandation, but that is not directly bad either. Average games must now be given a positive or negative review which does not make any sense.

A pro and con summary at the ends of reviews are not uncommon in technology reviews, and I don't think it is necessarily a bad idea. I do believe a reviewer should be able to clearly express their thoughts in more natural language through the review text itself, but this might not be the case for all reviewers. But I do not think you need a mandatory and, slash or, dedicated system for this. A simple + and - list should suffice. It might even become a practice in the community all by itself.

Would i recommend Stellar Tactics and Gloomwood both EAG's? Yes.

Would i recommended No Mans Sky And Call of Duty non EAG's? No.

Neutral does not answer the question asked "Do you recommend" so defaults to no.

Recommend: To endorse or not, in the same way you recommend or not, a new restaurant, movie, book, holiday destination etc to friend when asked.

Experiences, observations, nuanced and constructive feedback are the same for any well written recommended or not recommended review irrespective of whether a game is AAA, AA, Indie, EAG etc.

In development has zero relevance when games are considered still in-development when they are still being patched or have additional content added that then requires patching.

Total War: Warhammer 3 a non EAG, is still considered in-development as it is not yet deemed a complete product. The first two games are complete.

I understand your point of view, but it’s based on a fundamental misunderstanding between a finished product and one still in development.

An Early Access game is not a final product. It is sold with the explicit disclaimer that it is incomplete, subject to change, and may contain bugs or missing features. In this context, asking players to choose between “I recommend” or “I do not recommend” is forcing them to deliver a definitive verdict on something that is, by nature, still evolving.

A neutral review is a clear signal, not a lack of opinion. It says: “Here’s my current experience, but it does not yet reflect a finished product.” This is valuable information for both developers and players—it shows the project has potential, but it’s too early for a final judgment.

Statistics should not outweigh the quality of information. The primary purpose of a review is to inform, not to feed an algorithm. Forcing a binary choice on an unfinished game distorts perception: a “No” may unfairly discourage, while a “Yes” may mislead. A neutral review reflects reality without skewing the data.

Nuanced feedback is more constructive. It allows players to explain what already works, what needs improvement, and what shows promise. This is exactly the kind of feedback developers need to improve, and the kind of insight players need to decide whether to support the project now or wait.

Saying that “in development” doesn’t matter because some released games still get patched is misleading. A released game is already judged as a complete product; an Early Access game is sold with the clear statement that it is unfinished and may change significantly. These are not the same.

A “Neutral” option does not dilute information—it makes it more honest. It protects players from premature judgments, helps developers focus their improvements, and accurately reflects the evolving nature of an Early Access title.

Originally posted by V:

I understand your point of view, but it’s based on a fundamental misunderstanding between a finished product and one still in development.

There is no misunderstanding on my part. You can have game X an EAG or a non EAG and recommend it or not.

You do not recommend Gray Zone Warfare an EAG yet recommend Lords of the Fallen (original version) a non EAG, a game i consider a poor Dark Souls imitation, a game i would not recommend.

Secondly the question you are asked is: Do you recommend this game to other players. You are not asked do you recommend this AAA, AA, Indie, EAG etc game to other players.

As stated i recommend Stellar Tactics and Gloomwood both EAG's and do not recommend No Mans Sky And Call of Duty non EAG's.

Originally posted by V:

An Early Access game is not a final product.

And neither is Total War: Warhammer 3 as it is still in-development. Just had patch 6.3 with more content and patching to come. It is a game i would recommend despite not being complete.

Then there are other examples: Warhammer: Vermintide 2, Warhammer 40,000 Darktide both getting content updates and patching, both live service games, both games i definitely recommend.

Neutral is a shrug of the shoulders, defaults to no because it does not answer the question asked whether in a review or a question from a friend about that new restaurant you went to etc. Do you recommend X? Shrug is not an answer to the question.

You believe that question cannot be answered if it an EAG, yet it can. I recommend Stellar Tactics and Gloomwood, both EAG's and I also recommend the other 11 EAG's i have in my library. https://ibb.co/kg274rQM

You also believe experiences, observations, nuanced and constructive feedback cannot be given for an EAG yet they can because it is the personal viewpoint of the actual reviewer who writes well written reviews. Should those reviews be disregarded? No, after all your review of Gray Zone Warfare, an EAG, contains those elements, a game you do not recommend.

Originally posted by V:

Hello :d2rubick:,

I would like to share a suggestion regarding the Steam review system, specifically for Early Access titles. At present, posting a review requires choosing between “I recommend” and “I do not recommend.” However, for a game still in development, it can be difficult to make a definitive judgment.

NO it it's not. DO you think it's worthiy of yopur recommendation? No? Well there's your answer.
Not rocket science.

Originally posted by V:

I believe it would be valuable to add a “Neutral” option, allowing players to share their experiences and observations without giving a conclusive recommendation.

And what use is that?
Why waste time on the observations of people who can't take the time to evaluate their own observations. Why lower the bar to include people who haven't thought about their experience enough to know whether or not it meets their own standards for recommendation? Why coddle and encourage those too cowardly to honestly state what their opinion is?

M'dude the system does need tow 'No's'. One is enough.

We’re constantly told that the internet is a space of fairness, open dialogue, and balanced critique. But in reality? It’s quite the opposite. Nuance has become inconvenient — it slows things down, disrupts the algorithm, complicates the narrative. So we discard it. We sort, we label, we judge. And above all, we draw hard lines.

Even the realm of leisure — supposedly a space for freedom and spontaneity — is now governed by rigid standards and arbitrary criteria. Every idea must fit neatly into predefined boxes, tailored to invisible rules that favor conformity over creativity.

🎭 Pleasure is now a product. Expression, a performance. Originality? A liability.

This isn’t leisure anymore — it’s branding. It’s not about sharing, it’s about selling. And in this business, free thought is the first thing to go.

Oh really? So now we’re not allowed to shrug anymore? And apparently, we’re required to give an answer? That might be your priority, but it’s not necessarily everyone’s. No one is obligated to say whether something is “good” or “bad.” Why force a verdict where hesitation, doubt, or even indifference are perfectly valid responses?

And now what ...we’re seeing people shrug in the comment section on Steam?

Take platforms like Facebook or YouTube all you see are thumbs up. Even the absurd or the appalling can be validated by a flood of likes and views. For someone discovering content for the first time, without any critical lens, that can easily pass as a recommendation. It’s ridiculous.

And if what you’re describing is the direction we’re heading, then yeah that’s a problem. A world where nuance is inconvenient, where not giving a definitive opinion is frowned upon? Where we’re expected to make a call, even when we’re not ready to?

Let me remind you of something deeply human: the right to shrug. The right to step back, to not rush to judgment. But also the right to express both pros and cons, with nuance and objectivity. Because in the end, it’s not the thumbs up or down that matter. What matters is how you feel as a user, as someone who’s lived the experience. That’s what counts.

And sure, if there have to be statistics as is currently the case, driven by automated systems then fine, that’s business. That’s algorithmic control. But ultimately, it’s all skewed. What you thought was certain at first can easily turn into doubt. And that, my friend, is experience. And experience isn’t just about usage or online comments it’s about what you live, what you adjust in your own life.

That’s the real nuance. That’s the truth of being human compared to what I’ll call computational statistics. A number doesn’t reflect. An algorithm doesn’t hesitate. But we do. And that’s the difference.

And just to be clear I’m talking about Early Access games, not fully released titles. Once a game is officially out, yes, it makes sense to take a stance. At that point, the product is presented as complete, and it’s fair to expect a clear opinion.

But when we’re dealing with a game still in development, the conversation should remain open. If we’re not even allowed to discuss it to explore its strengths, its flaws, its potential then sometimes it’s better to say nothing at all. And on that point, we might actually agree.

Because forcing a binary response in a context that demands nuance doesn’t serve anyone. It’s not about dodging the question it’s about respecting the process.

And sure, if statistics have to exist as they do now, orchestrated by automated systems that’s understandable. It’s business, algorithmic control. But in the end, it’s all skewed. What you thought was certain at first can easily turn into doubt. And that, my friend, is experience. Experience isn’t just about usage or online comments it’s about what you live, what you adjust in your own life.

That’s the real nuance. That’s the truth of being human. compared to what I’ll call, for lack of a better term, computational statistics. A number doesn’t reflect. An algorithm doesn’t hesitate. But we do. And that’s the difference.

I’ll stop here, because the conversation doesn’t need to go any further. I’d rather take a clear stance with you, and I’m not just shrugging. I’m telling you this frankly. If someone else brings more nuance and a broader perspective on the core topic, you’ll see me again. As far as I’m concerned, the essential points have been said.

Nuance can be written with the current review system, yet you deem it cannot be.

Neutral, a shrug, a maybe does not answer the question asked, a question you voluntarily choose to answer when you write a review, especially when there is no nuance with Do you recommend this game to other players, It is a direct question. Yes or no.

Originally posted by V:

We’re constantly told that the internet is a space of fairness, open dialogue, and balanced critique. But in reality? It’s quite the opposite. Nuance has become inconvenient — it slows things down, disrupts the algorithm, complicates the narrative. So we discard it. We sort, we label, we judge. And above all, we draw hard lines.

DO you even know what that word 'Nuance' means?

Originally posted by V:

Even the realm of leisure — supposedly a space for freedom and spontaneity — is now governed by rigid standards and arbitrary criteria. Every idea must fit neatly into predefined boxes, tailored to invisible rules that favor conformity over creativity.

SOmethings are like that. That kionda how reality works.

Originally posted by V:

🎭 Pleasure is now a product. Expression, a performance. Originality? A liability.

Think about what you tyoped there and you'll realize the level of word-salad you just invoked.

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

Nuance can be written with the current review system.

Neutral, a shrug, a maybe does not answer the question asked, a question you voluntarily choose to answer when you write a review.

There is no nuance with Do you recommend this game to other players, It is a direct question. Yes or no, neutral is no.

Irony is that some people need a defined checkbox to express nuance.

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

Nuance can be written with the current review system, yet you deem it cannot be.

Neutral, a shrug, a maybe does not answer the question asked, a question you voluntarily choose to answer when you write a review, especially when there is no nuance with Do you recommend this game to other players, It is a direct question. Yes or no, neutral is no.

A neutral opinion may indicate a provisional stance, leaning either toward agreement or disagreement, or simply a deliberate choice to abstain from making a judgment. This allows someone to express their viewpoint without explicitly endorsing or rejecting the subject, or the entirety of a project, a piece of work, a film, or a game.

Originally posted by V:

Hello :d2rubick:,

I would like to share a suggestion regarding the Steam review system, specifically for Early Access titles. At present, posting a review requires choosing between “I recommend” and “I do not recommend.” However, for a game still in development, it can be difficult to make a definitive judgment.

Then wait to review the game until you can make a judgement.

Originally posted by V:

I believe it would be valuable to add a “Neutral” option, allowing players to share their experiences and observations without giving a conclusive recommendation. This would encourage more nuanced and constructive feedback, benefiting both developers and other players, while better reflecting the evolving nature of Early Access games.

Thank you for considering this proposal.:lampoff:

Kind regards,

If it's not a yes, it's a no. That simple. Do not recommend isn't negative, a game can just not be your thing and that's fine. And while we can understand the appeal to some users for a "neutral" review option, it's not like something Valve didn't even think about in twenty years. It's not an oversight.

Make a decision, or don't. The system doesn't need to accommodate your uncertainty.

Originally posted by V:

A neutral opinion may indicate a tentative stance either leaning toward agreement or disagreement or simply a deliberate choice to withhold judgment. It allows someone to express their view without explicitly endorsing or rejecting the subject.

And what is the value of that exactly?

There's so many reviews, agonizing over a yes or no doesn't make sense. And you can change your review later which further makes your choice less of an issue.

Users way overthink this and over estimate the importance of their reviews. If you can't recommend a game, then you don't recommend it. If you change your mind later, so what? What's the worst thing that happens if your review is a no for a while? Or a yes for a while? Nothing.

Originally posted by V:

Oh really?:d2naturesprophet: So now we’re not allowed to shrug anymore? And apparently, we’re required to give an answer?

There's an option for that. It's called not doing anything. If you can't answer the question. Don't write a review. I mean if you can'rt answer such a basic question the informative value of that review will be poor at best,

Originally posted by V:

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

Nuance can be written with the current review system, yet you deem it cannot be.

Neutral, a shrug, a maybe does not answer the question asked, a question you voluntarily choose to answer when you write a review, especially when there is no nuance with Do you recommend this game to other players, It is a direct question. Yes or no, neutral is no.

No, a neutral opinion is a no waiting or a yes waiting.

It's a No. Period.
If at somepoint your opinion chanages. You can change the review (yes you can do that)
You can also convey the tentative and conditional natuire of that 'yes/no' in the text.

Originally posted by nullable:

If it's not a yes, it's a no. That simple. Do not recommend isn't negative, a game can just not be your thing and that's fine. And while we can understand the appeal to some users for a "neutral" review option, it's not like something Valve didn't even think about in twenty years. It's not an oversight.

Make a decision, or don't. The system doesn't need to accommodate your uncertainty.

You don't have tio hate a game to say No. The game just means it didn't live upn to your standard for recommendation. Some people have high standards, some people have low standards, and some people have fluid standards.

Originally posted by V:

However, for a game still in development, it can be difficult to make a definitive judgment.

Nah, don't agree on that.

Which Early Access game you like got negative reviews you don't like?

Originally posted by V:

No, a neutral opinion is a no waiting or a yes waiting.

It is a no. Are you recommending the game? No.

You took a direct stance with Gray Zone Warfare (no, i do not recommened it) and with Lords of the Fallen (yes, i recommend it) and in both cases answered the question asked.

Do you shrug when asked by a friend if you recommend X? No you will tell them why you recommend the new restaurant or not.

Great decor, good atmosphere, friendly staff, great food (recommended) or you do not recommend it because the food was greasy and semi warm, not hot etc.

Can we stop with the "a neutral is a no since you aren't saying yes" angle? Cause in the same logic it *also* is "a neutral is a yes since you aren't saying no".

Two sides of the same coin. Stop cherrypicking.