If you spend 200+ hours on a game and give it a negative review, your review can't be trusted unless the game has suddenly changed. Only stupid people would play a game they don't like.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
>nisekoi ended 8 years ago
damn
>Ganker pirating Nintendo games.
games are services now and they constantly change. it's pretty stupid to assume it didn't have a shitty change and the person just got sick of the game
hence
>unless the game has suddenly changed
>your review can't be trusted
Is there a particular reason you should trust any review?
My only review is a negative review for a game I have 700 hours on because it doesn't work anymore
You do know that it's possible for the game to change for the worst right
You do know it's possible to read a post in its entirety before replying to it right
moron
You know who else is a moron?
I'd give EU$ and CK3 a negative review because of predatory DLC practices and I have hundreds of hours in both
What is the absolute most time played you would accept for a review that doesn't recommend the game? why?
Barring the "sudden change" clause, that depends on the game. A $2 indie story game will present its core content faster than a $100 RPG. However long it takes to experience the core content.
7 days to die SUCKS.
eh its comfy
its the real Fallout 4 we shouldve gotten and its got some good mods.
>dude, if heroin is so bad why did you use for it so many years?
>these apples are shit. these oranges, however..
I did this for Hitman 2018 because I encountered a technical issue that wiped all my unlocks. The game itself was fine until that point.
You don't even need to invoke that, you just refer to the "only stupid people" caveat.
I wouldn't trust a heroin addict to give me an accurate review of heroin, what's your point?
Why not? He would know better than anyone
>if you didn't recommend a game, that means it's shit
moron alert, sorry.
What does the rest of this review say?
It's the top negative review for fallout 4
>The game sucks, but you might have fun if you mod it!
Thanks, lol what a gay
I played pokemon XY for like 300 hours since I filled the pokedex for the first time and was breeding for shinies and shit
I would never recommend it though. Campaign is mediocre and the only thing it offers now that online is dead is the best version of the pokemon petting feature
So why would I trust the review of someone who spends 300 hours on a game they don't even really like? That's the point. You look for reviews from people with standards.
I'm basically saying there can simply be circumstances that lead to someone playing a game for a long time even if they wouldn't exactly recommend it. Something like autistic grind treadmills that keep them playing.
They're probably going to have more informed opinions on the game than the average player as a result, so it's usually good to take into account what the 1k hours negative review guy has to say about it
Those are the only reviews worth trusting though? Weird thread.
>you didn't play enough to give it a fair shot it gets good X hours in
>well you played it for such a long time that clearly means you liked it
go get raped by your father
No game takes 200 hours to "get good"
>If you spend 200+ hours doing heroin you have to give it a good review
See
When I see a Steam profile where dozens of games' playtimes are in the hundreds, I wonder just how that person spends their time and what their life story is. I knew a few people IRL with profiles like that and they always have 90+ hours logged in the past two weeks.
I spent 37 years in my current life and I don't like it.
>your review can't be trusted unless the game has suddenly changed
But that's why people with 1000 hrs give negative reviews
>play good singleplayer game for 200 hours
>post positive review
>review stays positive
ok
>play goyslop always-online p2w multiplayer trash
>have fun for a long time and post positive review
>suddenly they turn into greedy israelites/pass an update that nobody likes
>review changed to negative after 3000 hours
I have 3500 hours of TF2 and I would definitely give it a negative review if I cared enough. Meet your Match killed that game.
cry about it
Wouldn't a review of someone with enough hours have more merit? I played 3 runs of Elden Ring (no NG+) with different builds which was probably around 200 hours and I deemed the game a 5/10 and wouldn't recommend it to others. Does this make me disingenuous?
If someone ate apples for 10 years despite not liking them and having better alternatives, I wouldn't trust their food recommendations
>Food analogy
A review of anything isn't just the validation of one's own opinion. This is why steam uses the word recommend and not if you like it or not because going back and forth with opinions gets you nowhere. A review has since forever been a guide in any entertainment medium to critique/catalog what's worth picking up since it's a landfill of mediocrity out there. Your experience and how well you can articulate it for the reader is all that matters. In the context of videogames; The more knowledgeable you are about the game and it's mechanics, the better you can convince the reader to buy it or not. This helps especially when you compare it to other videogames that the reader has probably played or use metrics that are important for the genre it falls in.
A negative just means they wouldn't recommend it.
I fricking love Fear & Hunger and Termina, but I generally wouldn't recommend them to anyone. They're a tedious, genuinely unfair experience that requires you to replay content over and over to either learn what works/what doesn't, or to simply get luckier next time. You can lose hours of progress on a literal coin flip, there's no way to really skip scenes (god forbid you have trouble killing the Skin Granny for example), the games outright crash all the time, the original runs at a choppy/stuttering frame rate despite being an RPGmaker product, there are tons of visual bugs (entering text into a scroll gets all fricky), and a lot of mechanics/items/encounters are straight up made to either kill you or make your experience objectively worse.
But I adore the games. I've replayed them over and over, getting almost all of the endings. I would never recommend it to anyone though, if anything because they're a bit broken/unfinished in spots. To which Steam is asking if you'd recommend it, not if you liked it.
Would you not recommend the game to someone like yourself?
To someone like myself, maybe. To the general world/mainstream audience scrolling past games on Steam that aren't absolute idiots like myself that enjoy being stomped into the ground by outright unfair enemies/bosses?
Not really.
Steam isn't a niche horror forum where people are discussing whether Dementium on the DS was better than the sequel, or trying to decide whether the protagonist in Darkwood is just a copy made by the eldritch tree. It's filled with people who probably saw some Youtube frick play the game for a few minutes, then went to look and see if they wanted to try it themselves.
Context is important I feel to recommending something. Maybe that's too much thought put into throwing an opinion out into the world, but I still would not recommend F&H to your average person.
So you'd recommend it with caveats
I'd recommend it in a dedicated Ganker thread where people are just as degenerate as I am, yes. Would I recommend it to people who use Steam? To the average person who casually enjoys games? Even to someone who dabbles in horror games like Resident Evil and Silent Hill? Frick no. And since we're discussing Steam reviews, I stand by my statement that I would never recommend F&H on there.
Fun little story, my two friends actually got interested in the games because they watch Supereyepatchwolf or whatever the frick. They wanted to see what it was all about. So I played Termina through from start to finish with them watching. By the end, they said the story/worldbuilding was cool, but they said it looked like ass to play. My one friend said that he would've hated dealing with the hunger system, that he felt the coin flip system was stupid, that it was unfair you could miss out on events because you passed time from saving, that you couldn't run because some villager caught you in a bear trap, etc. He initially asked if he should buy the game because that Youtube guy recommended it.
By the end, he said the game looked awful.
So, to your question, yeah, with caveats. Fricking massive ones that keep in mind context of where a recommendation is being posted.
Would you rather trust a review from someone who only plays games they really like, or from someone who's happy to just play something mediocre forever?
>spend 5 minutes playing a game
>start twitching because my ADHD isn't being satisfied
sorry zoom zoom, but us real gamers are a little more patient and discerning
I don't have much interest in this topic, but I'm just gonna pop in to say that the number of hours on display and being talked about sound like numbers that can be indicative of addiction. People can be addicted for all the wrong reasons, in which case they can still objectively point out the overall negative flaws of what they played. Perhaps people should know better and spend their quantity of time in other ways, but that is rarely how such addiction works. The high can be good, but the source of the high isn't necessarily good for you and all that.
And then if the game has suddenly changed Steam will just label the new negative reviews as "review bombing" and delete them. See what happened with Skullgirls.
>leave negative review with 100+ hours
>"obviously it wasn't bad if you played fhat much"
>leave negative review with less than 20 hours
>"you didn't give it a chance"
Most games are over in 20 hours or so.
Coping bg3 shill
The guy who made a review knows what he's talking about.
>brings up bg3 from out of the ether
not even gonna ask why
>I'm not gonna
You did.
This review makes shills seethe hard.
You're welcome.
I put a negative review on warframe and then played it for another 1000 hours
It's all pretty natural I'd be worried if somebody could not make a joke review that encourages people to buy the game.
Saying "I like this game" and "I recommend this game" are two different things, you illiterate moron
Pretty weird to voluntarily play a game for hundreds of hours yet to which you wouldn't recommend anyone
A game can appeal to your very specific brand of autism, or can simply click with you, but you know the average moron will not like it.
A recommended review doesn't have to be a recommendation to everyone, just that others like you might enjoy it
nta but I used to play the shit out of poorly designed 4x or grand strategies that I would not generally recommend.
Reminds me of when the Starfailed pajeets kept saying you can't dislike the game until after you played long enough to invalidate the return policy, claiming that "you didn't REALLY play the game!!1!" until you did so.
>trust me guys you just have to play up till 12 hours in, honest
man the threads immediately after the release of Starfield were wild. rarely see such concentrated shilling.
But you'd probably also say that if I played for 10 minutes, didn't like the game and left a negative review like that then my review can't be trusted either because it "gets good" in the first few hours, right?
yeah well what if I spent that 200 hours playing the game, and realized at the end how shit it was? what if that amount of time was required to fully experience everything that game has to offer, and thus 200 hours was necessary to fully form an opinion? what if, even though I continue to play it, my perspective still resonates with a lot of other players, and by giving it a negative review, I hope to illicit positive change while tempering the expectations of the uninitiated at the same time?
why do you gotta be such a gay?
This was kind of my experience with Mass Effect 3. I kept giving the game space to develop the story and show me it was going to improve despite all of the plot conveniences, cop outs, and outright character assassinations. I was willing to ignore the focus on multiplayer, the fetch quests scattered everywhere, all of it. I was willing to see how it would all come together by the end.
And we all know how that went. It was only until after I beat the game did I realize that everything I saw as bad was just bad. There was no moment where it all came together or paid off. It was just bad.
Maybe that makes me naive, but I certainly had a clearer picture after finishing the game.
No game takes 200 hours to make a judgement
Days of Our Lives might take 14,000 episodes to "fully experience", but you can make a judgment on whether or not you would recommend it well before then
if you don't play the game all the way through, then you don't have an opinion worth considering outside of general impressions. you need to fully experience something to have an informed opinion. you can half ass it by only playing up to the first level or whatever, but that's journalist tier analysis. at the very least you need to complete one full playthrough, and some games these days are so big that you could easily rack up a 100 - 200 hour playtime just by doing that.
So you wouldn't know whether you enjoyed Days of Our Lives until you had watched all 14,000 episodes, outside of a "general impression". Or whether you enjoyed an MMO until you had every achievement and every class at max level.
well I just think that at some point there's diminishing returns on time invested. so a more reasonable take would be that you have to experience everything that media has to offer, and since some media are made to be long form, like a syndicated television show that has hundreds of episodes or a lengthy MMO that takes months to reach end game, the amount of time invested will vary according to what exactly that media offers.
you can play through ocarina of time at least once and give me your opinion. you can even play through the entirety of elden ring or baldur's gate 3 and give me your opinion. it's going to take significantly more time (80 to 100 hours) but it's feasible. if not, and you only play up to liurnia or BG3 act 1, then you're only giving me generalities. you can talk about the combat to some extent, you can talk about certain bosses but your opinion will be uninformed if you try to insist that the game is trash from start to finish. with any media, there tend to be patterns in how things are made and presented. with days of our lives, you're going to experience in at least a handful of episodes what the show is about, and in this case that's all it really takes. hell, all you really need is the premise to determine whether or not you'd be interested in it, but if you want your opinion to hold more weight, then yes you need to experience all 14,000 episodes or whatever, and have an intimate understanding of the plot and characters and their motivations and blah blah blah.
I've played 300+ hours of Fear & Hunger and actively tell people to stay away from it.
Autism has many different forms, OP.
i have ~250 hours in elden ring
it's one of the worst games ever made
certainly fromsoft's worst game by a large margerine
anon you are fricking moronic
hour 1-9000000: pure bliss kino ludo game
game update: steaming pile of dogshit doodoo caca piss on the game, any newbie joining will have a miserable time
change review to not recommended
>unless the game has suddenly changed
Why is it so difficult for you people to read an entire post before replying