Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Usually, people writing them won't write only one, and devs buying them won't only buy one either.
So :
1) Check out the user's reviews. To do that, go to the URL [(steam_profile_url)/recommended], works even on private profile.
If there's a bunch of positive reviews that are four liners, on games that look they really should've been ignored, it's a clue.
Bonus point if those reviews are partially (or completely) copy-pasted.
2) Check out other reviews. Devs will sometimes provide example reviews and terms to mix and match so the review will look more genuine by highlighting some of the game's specificity.
It's pretty obvious when you know what to look for.
3) Look for surge of reviews. It sometimes happen an ignored game suddenly receive a bunch of reviews from seemingly nowhere in a short amount of time.
Checking the achievements is nice and all, but a ton of new games susceptible to feature fake reviews don't have them.
And I disagree with the playtime parameter to spot fake reviews, at least in how you present it : a review can be not "valid" in your point of view, but still not a fake one.
A low amount of playtime can be a clue alright, but it also can be someone giving a low-informed but otherwise sincere opinion.
If a game has a bunch of reviewers that review the same games (and they are niche games that no one has heard about) thats a red flag
and/or
The reviewers have the exact playtime (down to the minute) and the same amount of games owned and reviews posted, also a red flag
I also agree with Hibachi on the play time as well. I've seen reviewers that spent very little time in the game and hated it (or the concept of the game) instantly. I wouldn't call them fake reviews. They definitely either should have read the game's description better or given the game an actual shot before reviewing it, but it doesn't mean their review was fake.
Yeah some games do that but very few. I suggest checking multiple games of a specific person to see if that person scripts achievements. In my experience i had maybe 2-3 games in all my time that had unlocks on exit - but it can happen, that's right.
Reviews made with like 1-2 hours of playtime when the game for example lasts 30 hours, or has deep mechanics with a high learning curve... are garbage. How can anyone even give an informed opinion by having seen not even 5% of what the game has to offer, in terms of mechanics, content, and so on? Well, you can't. So if you don't want to call them fake, call them trash.
Actually, you can have an informed (enough) opinion in a short amount of time. For example :
The Witness is a long game if you're willing to do more than the minimum required - and can still be pretty long for said minimum, but it doesn't take more than an hour to get the game is about guessing the rules of the puzzles and the solutions are about drawing lines.
DJMax : takes a long time to finish 100% even on its base version, and have a very high skill ceiling, but at the end of the day it's a classic rhythm game : in one to two hours you already have a good feel of what this game is and what kind of music its soundrack features.
Works for most, if not all rhythm game that aren't too gimmicky.
Burnout Paradise : in two hours you've seen all game modes, all type of cars and most of the city.
The rest of the game time is just repetition of the same stuff with a few parameter changes.
Those are just a few examples, there's a lot more of them.
What I mean is with some background in gaming culture and depending on the game, you can still produce a defendable opinion even with very little playtime.
Heck, the reviewer can even simply recognize it's first opinions. if they're not outright factually lying inventing features that aren't there or praising to heaven something that's barely functional : that would still be a valid opinion.