Harnessing the power of positive reviews
You hear that? That's the sound of an amazing tree falling over in a forest and no one finding out about it. A tragedy,…
www.gamesindustry.biz
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
How Steam's review system helped Size Five Games' Dan Marshall to sell Lair of the Clockwork God
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
www.gamesindustry.biz
I like curation (tho admittedly ive dropped out of paying attention of game sites cause well....im cheap and my interest has waned in gaming these days) but if i encounter a game on my own, my first browse is the steam reviews. the ability to read dozens to hundreds of reviews is just too useful to ignore.
OP
OP
Wise words of one person that I won't mention: "Into the see with User Reviews".
First place I look when I'm considering any game I see on Steam that interests me.
I've started finally writing reviews after years of not, because I wanted to help in whatever little way I could.
I still don't understand how me leaving a positive review helps sales of the game though?
Positive reviews doesn't mean more people will see the game will it? It just means those who do find
it will be more likely to buy it? lol well I'm glad it works and I'm trying to review games I love on Steam nowadays.
Lair of the Clockwork God is actually already on my wishlist and I will be buying in the next sale :)
I've started finally writing reviews after years of not, because I wanted to help in whatever little way I could.
I still don't understand how me leaving a positive review helps sales of the game though?
Positive reviews doesn't mean more people will see the game will it? It just means those who do find
it will be more likely to buy it? lol well I'm glad it works and I'm trying to review games I love on Steam nowadays.
Lair of the Clockwork God is actually already on my wishlist and I will be buying in the next sale :)
Steam user reviews can absolutely be used maliciously and I don't think the positive experience here suddenly makes that irrelevant
I think the way people review bomb games the second there's a server outrage is obnoxious and toxic. I'm happy things worked out for Dan here, since I've heard nothing but good things about Clockwork God, but that doesn't magically invalidate the negatives of the Steam review system.
I guess I'm not sure what algorithm he's talking about. I thought Valve has said multiple times that a game with positive reviews is better treated by the store than one with a mixed or a negative. When you go through your queue there is even a line about how this game is presented to you because it has high reviews. But I could be misunderstanding.
The reviews are shown everywhere. Someone doesn't need to actually hit the store page for a game to see the review score. If a game is good and you leave a positive review then someone is less likely to skip over it when searching.
Ultimately, for the vast majority of indie games, Steam user reviews are going to be the sum total of coverage they're going to receive. So, in the case whereby the user reviews are positive (and having 418 out of 420 review being positive is a damn fine ratio), that's going to open doors (with the article giving the example of Dan meeting with Nintendo and pointing at said Steam reviews).
Interesting thanks for the info. It's great to see an indie with success on Steam. I buy tons of indies on Steam but have always worried lots of great games are buried on the store. I dig deep to find the crap I'm looking for and I'm sure a lot don't.
Think he's talking about how its meant to just show you things that you might be interested in, regardless of reviews. So if you play a lot of space or crafting games, it should recommend No Man's Sky even when it was sitting at Mixed reviews (let's ignore it also sold millions and that would bolster it, just for the sake of the example).
I think the algorhythm just doesn't know how to categorize some games or users effectively so it slots positively reviewed stuff regardless of genre in front of a lot more people than it does that tailored recommendation.
I base most of my purchases on PC on user reviews and watching gameplay footage. It's been really useful to me. Lots of small games have close to no coverage otherwise, and sampling both positive and negative reviews gives a decent overview of what people do or don't like about a game. The one thing I find a little tricky with them is that they tend to skew more positively for games that are not actively bad, so it's sometimes difficult to distinguish decent from good or good from great. It's very common to find a game that's 60-ish on MC, for example, but have a "very positive" rating on Steam.
Last edited:
Stating that a game you bought is unplayable for days isn't obnoxious or toxic even if the developer goes on Twitter and yells REVIEW BOMBING.
It's a valuable information to know that a game is currently not playable before one buys it.
Steam user reviews are a godsend, and by far the best on the internet by my reckoning.
Especially for more 'niche' titles, you'll often get a far better picture of the quality of a game through Steam user reviews than many major games sites (who may well simply not cover the game at all).
Especially for more 'niche' titles, you'll often get a far better picture of the quality of a game through Steam user reviews than many major games sites (who may well simply not cover the game at all).
Steam reviews in aggregate are better than any other reviews for me because they hit the game from many different perspectives in a short span of time, and I see very very little actual review bombing. It's usually the opposite that it's obvious a reviewer has packed in a few to bolster their numbers.
Absolutely. Not only do they cover smaller games that mainstream sites don't bother with, the vast majority of them is from people who have actually purchased the game. I always spend a few minutes reading positive and negative Steam reviews of a game before deciding whether or not to pull the trigger.
Many people on this forum would certainly have you believe that.
I reviewed this game. It's a very very good game. It felt like it was flying under the radar for whatever reason back around release, so I'm glad to hear these reviews have been giving it legs. Hopefully console raises will give it a bump too.
Steam reviews provides at least some feedback on hundreds and hundreds of games that are not even on the radar of review sites.
Steam user reviews along with YouTube player reviews are the only reviews worth a damn.
All of the big name company reviews are worthless to me. Times have changed.
All of the big name company reviews are worthless to me. Times have changed.
This here, is the first factor in which I decide if I should or should not buy a game:
Second is going through the reviews to see if the game has any bugs or performance problems.
Steam User Reviews are a blessing for me as a custumer.
Second is going through the reviews to see if the game has any bugs or performance problems.
Steam User Reviews are a blessing for me as a custumer.
They feel trustworthy to me in a way that, say, Amazon user reviews or Metacritic user reviews don't.
Maybe it's that they're usually more detailed, maybe it's that I can see a playtime associated... whatever it is, Steam user reviews feel right in a way that very few others do.
If we're talking days then OK sure I agree.
But there's plenty of MP games where the servers go down, in only a couple mins they get tons of neg reviews, servers come back up in less than an hour, and most of the neg reviews don't swap back to positive at all.
I guess I'm not really sure what you do about that (specifically the people not swapping back to positive when the game works if they like it, people just seem to forget about their reviews lol), but it's still shitty. There's a big difference between "I haven't been able to play this game for 3 days and when I do I get disconnected after qualifying through tail tag" and "I haven't been able to play this game for a whole 5 minutes WAAAAAAAA".
Especially when on Steam's end both of those reviews are treated equally negative for the game.
That must be it. I have gotten recommendations for negatively reviewed games before on the front page and that must have something to do with it in that instance.
That's not a review bomb, though. Reviews are fluid, and can represent the current state of the game. If I'm buying a game, I'd like to know if I can even play it.
The weirdly nice side of Steam reviews is that they are so derisively scrutinized that...I feel like if there is ever a review bombing situation or publisher astroturfing situation...i'll know about.
There's so much policing of the Steam review system that for something to slip through the cracks...seems not super likely?
Whereas something like an Amazon product review or Newegg part review...I kinda take all of that with a grain of salt cuz it, both, doesn't have the tools (like ownership, number of games on account, number of reviews done by the author, an overall graph of the review numbers and ratios, comments on reviews) and doesn't have the scrutiny.
Valve has stated that things have to drop below "Mixed" for it to affect the game's presentation in the store (so "somewhat negative" or "very negative).
And honestly, can someone find a game on Steam with a somewhat or mostly negative user review rating that is unjustly reviewed?
There's so much policing of the Steam review system that for something to slip through the cracks...seems not super likely?
Whereas something like an Amazon product review or Newegg part review...I kinda take all of that with a grain of salt cuz it, both, doesn't have the tools (like ownership, number of games on account, number of reviews done by the author, an overall graph of the review numbers and ratios, comments on reviews) and doesn't have the scrutiny.
Valve has stated that things have to drop below "Mixed" for it to affect the game's presentation in the store (so "somewhat negative" or "very negative).
And honestly, can someone find a game on Steam with a somewhat or mostly negative user review rating that is unjustly reviewed?
I give Steam reviews a lot of credit because they generally get enough feedback to be generally useful; it's nice to know it's paying off for devs, too. I should probably review more than I dl.
...and today I learn there's third game in the series Ben There, Dan That started. Neat.
...and today I learn there's third game in the series Ben There, Dan That started. Neat.
It's interesting that the two aforementioned negative reviews the developer has responded to.
I think the response function is underutilized in responding to specific criticism, but at the same time I can't blame developers for not wanting to engage with the faceless mass of people that can quickly harass and terrorize you out of the industry if they decide to be bored one day.
Also, I can't be completely sure but it kind of looks like at some point there were 4 total negative reviews, and I think 2 of them were turned positive. I would presume because of the developer response.
I think the response function is underutilized in responding to specific criticism, but at the same time I can't blame developers for not wanting to engage with the faceless mass of people that can quickly harass and terrorize you out of the industry if they decide to be bored one day.
Also, I can't be completely sure but it kind of looks like at some point there were 4 total negative reviews, and I think 2 of them were turned positive. I would presume because of the developer response.
I've purchased so many games blind based off the positive reviews on Steams. There's plenty I would have never even looked at until I saw the "Overwhelmingly Positive" score on them. Even when things get bombed, it's incredible easy to see, so the overtly negative scores don't even necessarily detour me.
Wait, a positive review thread? We can't overreact to review bombing in this thread? No games journalist crying about review bombing again? Oh no! Glad to hear about success. Steam user reviews on a whole are great. Especially for smaller games no on else is discussing. Plenty of deep dive reads too that help you make a decision on a title.
So many games basically don't get noticed by professional critics and user reviews are invaluable in those instances. If I see something that looks cool I don't have to hope other websites even know it exists and can look down and usually there are a few well written reviews there giving a good overview of what the game is.
I mean in the Fall Guys incident the game was completely unplayable for what ... 12 to 24 hours? And barely playable for 72 hours? Even tho the Devs were calling all kind of negative reviews - be it for the fact that ppl couldn't play the game they bought or other criticsm like bugs or lack of content - simply "Review Bombing!" and rallied their players to positive-review-bomb I still believe that you should be able to voice your opinion if a game is not playable at all.
There are several ways in which Steam is trying to combat actual review bombing like they give release-day reviews "less weight" or if there is a flood of negative reviews within a small time period then there's a warning and they aren't counted at all. Long term reviews will always have a higher impact on the overall score than reviews made 5 minutes after the release of a game. I really hope that Valve can find ways to improve that review-bombing prevention even further more including potential positive-abuse like what Fall Guys did. People usually trust the Steam reviews and manipulation should be prohibited in both directions.
Btw I doubt that "I haven't been able to play this game for a whole 5 minutes WAAAAAAAA negative review" thing is close to beeing true.
Look at for example the reviews for Dota which has often several unplaned downtimes a day lasting between 10 minutes and 2 hours. Doesn't seem that negative:
Steam reviews remains one of the best review systems in a gaming platform. This holds true for PC in general where there are occasionally other things to consider also.
It has been so ideal to have access and ability to filter reviews effectively, view metrics over time, locate periods of change and ascertain why, explore reviews via locality, overall summary, history of the respective reviewer / their profile, understanding of their purchase circumstance etc.
This has also helped understand wider issues such as unreliability of review aggregate scoring for games predominantly reviewed through free keys / free events, niches with fandoms that overstate positive reviews etc.
There's more I want to see from Valve, such as the ability to highlight a date range of reviews and see the over "zoom in" summary update to that range; filter for video content, developer responses etc.
Overall though, it is a stellar system vs competitors, and it remains hysterical to see some of the amazing claims of how apparently terrible it is for users to have a voice to push back on games at issue / praise excellent games, despite the obvious ways in which to view all the data so each user can determine what details are valuable / relevant / justified to them and help with their purchase decision
I played Fall Guys with a friend every day for the first week, and we never got to play a single game. I had no problems in the beta outside a couple of disconnects. That is easily to me justified reason to leave a negative review. I agree that Steam has many different ways to represent this fairly, especially as it takes genuine review bombing into account (which this case is not), and is able to represent reviews over time appropriately, as well as surface appropriate reviews based on criteria a user may choose to search through.
It has been so ideal to have access and ability to filter reviews effectively, view metrics over time, locate periods of change and ascertain why, explore reviews via locality, overall summary, history of the respective reviewer / their profile, understanding of their purchase circumstance etc.
This has also helped understand wider issues such as unreliability of review aggregate scoring for games predominantly reviewed through free keys / free events, niches with fandoms that overstate positive reviews etc.
There's more I want to see from Valve, such as the ability to highlight a date range of reviews and see the over "zoom in" summary update to that range; filter for video content, developer responses etc.
Overall though, it is a stellar system vs competitors, and it remains hysterical to see some of the amazing claims of how apparently terrible it is for users to have a voice to push back on games at issue / praise excellent games, despite the obvious ways in which to view all the data so each user can determine what details are valuable / relevant / justified to them and help with their purchase decision
I mean in the Fall Guys incident the game was completely unplayable for what ... 12 to 24 hours? And barely playable for 72 hours? Even tho the Devs were calling all kind of negative reviews - be it for the fact that ppl couldn't play the game they bought or other criticsm like bugs or lack of content - simply "Review Bombing!" and rallied their players to positive-review-bomb I still believe that you should be able to voice your opinion if a game is not playable at all.
There are several ways in which Steam is trying to combat actual review bombing like they give release-day reviews "less weight" or if there is a flood of negative reviews within a small time period then there's a warning and they aren't counted at all. Long term reviews will always have a higher impact on the overall score than reviews made 5 minutes after the release of a game. I really hope that Valve can find ways to improve that review-bombing prevention even further more including potential positive-abuse like what Fall Guys did. People usually trust the Steam reviews and manipulation should be prohibited in both directions.
Btw I doubt that "I haven't been able to play this game for a whole 5 minutes WAAAAAAAA negative review" thing is close to beeing true.
Look at for example the reviews for Dota which has often several unplaned downtimes a day lasting between 10 minutes and 2 hours. Doesn't seem that negative:
I played Fall Guys with a friend every day for the first week, and we never got to play a single game. I had no problems in the beta outside a couple of disconnects. That is easily to me justified reason to leave a negative review. I agree that Steam has many different ways to represent this fairly, especially as it takes genuine review bombing into account (which this case is not), and is able to represent reviews over time appropriately, as well as surface appropriate reviews based on criteria a user may choose to search through.
Dakkon
Oh no! Look at how it was being "destroyed" by the totally-valid criticism it received for the state they shipped the game in.
And that's for a game which hasn't even been out for 30 days yet.
This is what the page for No Man's Sky, another game which deserved its negative reviews, looks like now:
Look at that: they shipped a bad product - or at least sold it as something other than it was; managed to turn it around, and go on to sell millions. And the reviews reflect that.
It's pretty clear to see when there were big content updates released for the game on that timeline as well.
Most of the "criticism" of Steam user reviews comes from people that don't use the platform at all and just assume it to be something that it's not; or only buy whatever the latest big game is without exploring the store at all.
They're a huge positive for both indie games/developers and users of the platform alike.
Everyone should be looking at how Steam handles user reviews and taking lessons from it.
Nintendo's eShop seems like the perfect example of what a digital storefront ends up like without any of the tools that Valve have created to deal with the huge influx of games on the platform - and it's not even open to all, like Steam is.
Let's see what Fall Guys' alleged "review bomb" on the 4th actually looks like:
Oh no! Look at how it was being "destroyed" by the totally-valid criticism it received for the state they shipped the game in.
And that's for a game which hasn't even been out for 30 days yet.
This is what the page for No Man's Sky, another game which deserved its negative reviews, looks like now:
Look at that: they shipped a bad product - or at least sold it as something other than it was; managed to turn it around, and go on to sell millions. And the reviews reflect that.
It's pretty clear to see when there were big content updates released for the game on that timeline as well.
Most of the "criticism" of Steam user reviews comes from people that don't use the platform at all and just assume it to be something that it's not; or only buy whatever the latest big game is without exploring the store at all.
They're a huge positive for both indie games/developers and users of the platform alike.
Everyone should be looking at how Steam handles user reviews and taking lessons from it.
Nintendo's eShop seems like the perfect example of what a digital storefront ends up like without any of the tools that Valve have created to deal with the huge influx of games on the platform - and it's not even open to all, like Steam is.
Fun fact, people who say that don't use Steam. It's an easy way to write off someone's opinion about Steam in Era (or the internet).
User reviews are extremely consumer friendly. So many people on this forum are corporate bootlickers so obviously they would be against it.
I'm not sure what the take away from this is supposed to be for other developers. Most developers aren't going to make a game capable of garnering 99.4% positive reviews. So I guess the way to go would be to figure out how to game the review system since it seems to be tied so tightly to sales of smaller indie games. This seems more like an extreme outlier rather than a path other developers can follow.
This here, is the first factor in which I decide if I should or should not buy a game:
Second is going through the reviews to see if the game has any bugs or performance problems.
Steam User Reviews are a blessing for me as a custumer.
Exactly. And negative reviews are my main purchase decision when it comes to games I am unsure about.
A game with mixed reviews and a plethora of negative reviews can still be more excitable than a game with a 90% user score when I read the reviews and don't care about specific issues or gameplay elements, or the specific element is a positive in my books. I am deciding like this since I first read negative reviews about the X series (X: Beyond the Frontier) about the game looking like an excel spreadsheet and how complicated it was. And I was like, Give it to me! And I have invested thousands of hours into the series.
Most people who moan about negative reviews are mostly corporate fanboys who try to defend their
Maybe not, but if their reviews are positive overall then that's a win too.
Most developers aren't going to be able to point at a publication's review of their games, because there won't be any.
I am laughing about your takeaway about a game getting 99,4% review score, means it "gamed" the system, instead, you know, making a great game.