Steam Reviews: What Are They Good For?

Steam is a name that shall forever be appropriate for Valve's online game platform/community/monetary black hole. It's steaming because it's such a hot commodity that drives the industry forward with fresh ideas and fantastic community integration. It's also steaming because of the heaping piles of shit that it plops out. Almost all features on Steam have elements of both singular brilliance and moronic mob mentality, but the one that exemplifies Steam's greatest ideals and follies is the community review section.

While the idea of a 100% community-driven reviews section for games is hardly novel, its integration into the monolithic download distribution platform makes the feature take on life beyond a forum. The context of a review section that promotes visibility with up votes means that there are expectations. At first amateur reviewers stuck mainly to actually reviewing the games and voicing their opinions, but as time has passed community expectations have broadened. The review section still has many legitimate, detailed reviews and short "I did/didn't like this" posts, but comedic memes have also surfaced (“10/10 would be a goat again”) along with the fishy practice of some developers deleting negative reviews of their games. Overall, the review section of a game's page on Steam is a boon, albeit one whose potential is stymied-even the posts that are earnest reviews can be uselessly positive/negative and tell a reader little about the game's features.

So what does any of this mean? I believe that the review section is useful despite its faults, but even if it were a trash heap of linked images and internet comedians parroting each other, I would want it around. This is because it's an experimental form of community that takes advantage of the sheer volume of internet users and channels it into the equivalent of a consumer neighborhood watch. Its creation speaks volumes of Valve's emphasis on users supporting each other and forming independent content. While it may be a bit of a stretch, this feature reminds me of Hammer, Unreal Editor, and other modding programs in that it is explicitly made to give users an outlet for their creative works. Be they good or bad, Steam reviews are products by the community for the community, and in an age where AAA companies want to tell people what to think of a game before it's even released, this is profoundly important.

Providing gamers with the ability to voice their opinions quickly and visibly is the real success of Steam reviews. For-profit companies that produce reviews are useful, but the opinions that are furthest from AAA bank rolling and favours are found right there in the Steam review section. They might be inconsistent, but I believe that their existence forms a sort of "objectivity standard" that improves game reviews as a whole. If a corporate sell-out gives Unfinished Game 2: The Pre-Order DLC Returns a rousing 9/10 and the Steam reviews are all signed "I'm hoping for a refund," Mr(s). Sellout calls suspicion to their objectivity. While that's an idealised example, the existence of a large, loud, unbiased population creates a small measure of accountability. And really, that's the best we can hope for from a large public forum: a raucous cacophony of voices that speaks the truth, however inconsistent its quality may be.