>play a game for a couple of hours >"Hey guys, I don't

You know you're not the first person to point this out, so don't go thinking your clever or anything. Just saying.

>>383999491
Huh. Never thought about this before and I haven't seen any posts like this. I think you might be on to something about this /v/ fella.

>>383999491
What's the optimum cutoff point for giving a game a chance when you're not enjoying it but others claim it "gets good later"?

File: 1489199754683.jpg (85KB, 700x417px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 700x417px

>>383999491
>play game for 10 hours straight
>boy this is pretty fuckin good
>never touch it again

>>383999739
Somewhere in between 2 and 80 hours.

>>383999741
Are you me?

you made the same thread with the same image worded slightly differently like 4 hours ago. how lonely are you?

>>383999491
Almost like /v/ isn't a single person.

>>383999904
Not as lonely as your mom is when she's waiting for this dick.

File: Car insurance bill came in the mail.jpg (50KB, 640x427px)

50KB, 640x427px

>Love fanservice
>Played Star Ocean 5
>Loved the fanservice
>Game was really progressing
>Get cucked out of space travel due to the repeating plot

>>383999739
For me it's 2-3 hours.
I have enough games in my backlog, if I still don't enjoy it by that time, I'll just play something else. Not like I have a shortage of games

>>383999741
Every time.

File: IMG_0095.jpg (106KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 720x960px

>someone plays game for 0 hours and declares it shit
>"well how do you know if you didn't even-"
>"LOOKS LIKE SHIT OF COURSE ITS SHIT DUHHH YOU WOULDNT EAT A PLATE OF SHIT WOULD YOU"

>>384000000
fail get

>>383999990
Wow, would you stop watching a movie if it didn't get good 2-3 hours in too? Sounds a bit shallow.

>>384000000
inb4 shitstorm

>>384000035
Kill yourself getfag.

>>383999491
Drones will be drones. The best thing you can do is explain why you don't like the game in a coherent manner. Now, once you do that there'll be 1-2 autists who reply to you line by line with variations of "nuh uh" or "it was good for me", and you should probably ignore them to maintain your own sanity.

>>384000021
What about paste-like shit? I sometimes get texture like natural peanut butter

>>384000158
That means you have ass cancer. Go see a doctor.

>>384000047
Kek

>>384000158
The point is it's actually cake
probablt type 5

>>383999558

Shit, and here I thought this was one of the millennium prize problems. Back to the drawing board, I guess.

>>383999741
Yes.
Bonus points if you write a review, recommend it for a friend, they beat it and then try talking to you about the ending and you get spoilered.

>>384000182
???

>>383999739

It depends on what they mean by 'it gets better.' Sometimes I'll straight-up ask at what point in the story the game gets good.

>>384000339
Why even ask? It's obvious when the game gets good when it's the least shit.

>>384000278
Why are you writing game reviews, especially after only partially beating a game in one play session? Are you IGN?

>>384000451
You don't need to complete something to review it in its entirety.

>>383999990
I disagree, some games need a lot of time before being enjoyable, look at 7th saga, you'll need at least 10hours in the game before starting enjoying the game and you'll don't regret it

File: .png (75KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 250x241px

>/v/ recommends game
>play it and it's shit

>browse /v/ a few days later
>now there are threads shitting on the game instead and everyone is saying it's overrated

>>384000532
I'm going to go play 7th saga for 10 hours and I'll do everything in my power to hate it just to spite you.

>>384000596
>Dumb frogposter takes ironic posts saying a shit game is good seriously

File: 1499978676319.jpg (16KB, 288x311px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 288x311px

>/v/ says game is hated by /v/ hivemind
>in thread where there are hundreds of replies defending that game
Some people really need to get over their victim complex

>>384000772
who the fuck draws this shit

Why do you expect that other people would know if you like something or not?

>>384000772
Anybody who defends any video game on this board is a shill.

>>383999739
Usually if a game hasn't pulled you in within a few hours (give it, say, five hours if it's a long game and you're being really generous) it's pretty safe to assume that it isn't about to transform itself into a game that you actually enjoy.

File: 1499932904887.jpg (53KB, 560x700px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 560x700px

>>383999491
akko butte

>>384000502
Wow, you are IGN. Can I get a job? Your website desperately needs some editors to reject shit articles and to proofread articles.

>>384000596
>Listening to /v/
>At all, no matter which way the not-one-persons swing their opinion

We've been telling you to come up with your own opinions in the bluntest and dumbest of ways, and yet, here you are complaining about ours.

>>384000035
>>384001162
>>384000064
Deleted my post because you faggots are fucking cancer.

>>384001150
>get what seems to be a bag of shit and be told to eat all of it
>reluctantly get halfway through it but you can't stomach any more and say that it is fucking awful
>HOW DO YOU KNOW ALL OF IT IS AWFUL? YOU HAVEN'T FINISHED IT YET.

>>384001357
some retrogames are awfully hard to the point that at the end you'll puke blood, but once you get used to their diffculty you'll learn to enjoy them

>>384001357
you do if you want to review it in its "ENTIRETY"

>>384001459
So you're saying you would rather eat an entire bag of shit than half of a bag of shit?

File: heHLw5I.jpg (180KB, 1280x2880px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1280x2880px

>>383999739
10 minutes. If the game still hasn't started yet, turn it off.

>>384001230
Checked.

>>384001357
>bag of shit analogy
Almost as bad as food analogies.

>>384001538

You don't know that it's an entire bag of shit though. It could literally turn into the best game/meal you've ever experienced right after you stop.

>>383999904
Says the guy monitoring v threads for 4 hours

>>384001538
No. But I have enough integrity to not review a game I didn't complete. If I never finished a game, then I would not release a review for it.

>>384001459
Putting aside the "entirety" thing he posted for the (You), it's mostly a matter if the review is your own subjective opinion piece or more of a consumer product review.
>I couldn't fucking stomach this game and quit after forcing myself to play for ten hours
Is a fine opinion to have, but if you're trying to do the more cut and dry "professional" review then people are going to expect you to at least tough it out to the end credits.

>>384001703
>it's impossible to be on /v/ while doing other things
>it's impossible to be on /v/, leave for 4 hours, then come back

>>384001786
Okay, explain how you're going to get the first review up for a game when you're expected to play through the whole thing?

Fibal Fantasy 13 gets "good" after about 20 hours, but who the fuck has time for that. And even then it's still shit.

>>383999491
So you played a game for 3 hours, someone told you it gets better later, you then played it for 28 more hours and at no point during those 28 hours you said to yourself "This game sucks, I'm moving on"?

I hope this is bait because if not you've only got yourself to blame.

File: 65986784567.jpg (31KB, 500x655px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x655px

>>384001786
Agreed.

>>384001996
Delete this image.

File: 1483012027335.jpg (88KB, 453x695px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 453x695px

>>384002032
No.

>>384002142
Oh okay then.

>>384001887
By getting actually good at videogames so you can finish it in a timely manner. If you can't, get a new job.

>>384002371
Unreasonable expectations always lead to disappointment. Don't expect too much out of the people who review games, they're human too and have things to do in their life outside of video games.

>>383999739
Depends on how bad it is before the cut off point, how much better it gets after it and how long the game is overall.
If it's a long RPG I'm willing to put up with ten or so hours of below average or bad gameplay.

>>384001887
>review deadlines
That doesn't really have to do much with the fact that if you're trying to be objective (for whatever the fuck that's worth in any kind of entertainment medium) and assign a number out of ten with some neat little bullet points to sum it up and generally have more of a "is this worth your money?" kind of review, then people are going to expect you to have played through it all, or at least the "main" content.

>>384002520
>they're human too
Let's not get carried away here.
>and have things to do in their life outside of video games.
Like SJW shit where they complain why the main character of the game they're reviewing isn't a genderfluid, half-queer rastafarian

>>383999491
Because there nothing in between 2 hours and 31 hours.

>>383999739
You have 3 game hours to prove to me it's a good game.

>>383999739
It depends. Different games can be good for different reasons. Some legit good games have some bullshit segments early on.
Instead of the conversation being "in not having fun yet" "oh it gets good later", mention specifically why you're not having fun. Maybe it's something about the gameplay, maybe its something about the story, maybe it's just not drawing you in, but mention it and ask if that changes, talk about it, maybe its just not really your type of game, who knows.

Basically what I'm saying is fucking talk to people and have real conversations instead of being an aspie and then complaining about it on /v/, you autistic fuck.

>>383999739
10% of its average playthrough time

>>384002520
Normally people have jobs and then play videogames on the side, but if playing videogames is part of your job and you can't even finish them, you should get a different job because this one is not for you.

>>383999491
Never listen to someone who says "it gets better". There was never been a game where the "it gets better" point justifies all the things you didn't like about it. If you don't like a game for the first few hours including the gameplay, you won't like the rest and you will never be convinced that you're having fun.
It's better to stop and play something else.

This is coming from someone who finishes every game he picks up, though. Not everyone can have fun with every game like I can.

>>383999739
It's too varied to put a defined number on.

I could say 4 hours, but it took me getting through the Spira Highway before I started liking FFX and that's like 6-7 hours into that game

>>384001150
why don't you tell us why knowing the ending should completely change your judgement?
the writing is either good or bad, just because the story may have unexpected turns(that you like or dislike) you shouldn't change your final judgement just based on that.

>>384002974

But that's wrong

Deus Ex is a stunning game with a notoriously mediocre opening level. If you think a game is fucking awful than I might agree, but there's plenty of games that someone could think are just average that do get better as it goes on.

>>384002974
Most RPGs require you to play about 20% of the game before you can really decide on whether or not it's worth sticking with.

>>384003034
>why don't you tell us why knowing the ending should completely change your judgement?
It's not like people give a fuck about endings, right? They're hardly even necessary. Who cares about that part of the story where you wrap shit up, resolve any twists, and give a general sense of closure? There's no way that a bad ending to, say, a beloved trilogy could create backlash that still has people mad about it to this day.

>>384003428
Your choices mattered :^)

File: Dayum_shame.jpg (80KB, 393x393px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 393x393px

>>384001230
>deleting sextuples get
this is the state of /v/ right now

>>383999741
Every fucking time.
I got my time enjoying the game.
Time to move on.

If a game fails to capture your interest in the first 5 hours, it is a fail by the devs to entertain you. Anything more is ludicrous and asking someone to play more than 5 hours before it "gets good" is stupid af

>>383999739
Depends on the genre

>>384003403
I agree that a lot of mechanics don't begin shining until you advance far enough that they start to synergize but chances that most people who go into RPGs and get bothered it's not incredible after a few hours won't have the patience to wait for that, or won't feel fulfilled after it finally does "get good".

>>384003884
Not necessarily.

>>383999491
I hate this, mostly because it's used against you by literal retards

>play game
>don't like it
>"You didnt even get to the good parts"

>play through, beat the game
>don't like it
>"Why'd you beat it if you didn't like it? You must've enjoyed it to keep playing through, it's 40 hours long!"

Basically, it's just a way for people to handwave away your criticisms. I generally err on the "if you only played a few hours, it's more first impressions vs. a review"

But to give a good review and critique, you need -at least- a full a playthrough, and preferably multiple playthroughs, or at least exploring optional content or some replayed levels or something.

But anyone who does the OP's stuff needs to remove themselves from the gene pool, David Carradine style.

>>384003884
>If a game fails to capture your interest in the first 5 hours, it is a fail by the devs to entertain you.
You're aware everyone has different taste right? Does that mean Grand Theft Auto, Saint's Row, and literally all FPS devs have failed to entertain me because I think they all suck and are boring?
No it just means I have a different set of standards than most people, not necessarily good or bad.

>>384003939
It could just be you not enjoying whatever type of game you're playing, but "it gets better later" is not a good quality of a game. At best it's a gussied up way of saying "the beginning of this game fucking drags".

>>383999739
5 hours. That's it. If the game isn't at least showing potential at 5 hours, it has failed.

File: 1482637043269.jpg (23KB, 270x270px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 270x270px

It's fine when anime does it.

>>384002974
A lot of games literally do get better though.
Many games have an in-story tutorial segment alongside several easy tutorial style quests or missions as you familiarize yourself with the mechanics and the game world.
A lot of games go through major changes in plot or setting or even mechanics, sometimes subverting your expectations really early on. It is totally possible to get the wrong idea of what a game is about and drop it before it really picks up

Some games ARE better 10 hours in, in the same way that some games are better 10 minutes in once you finish the tutorial and actually get started.

>>384004241
>A lot of games literally do get better though.
Of course but I'm arguing in favour of the people with no patience. The more you try to convince these people, the more likely they evolve into shitposters because they feel they wasted too much time. It's better to just shoo them away.

>>384004241

Of course they are, but if your intro, or tutorial, or whatever is really fucking boring its bad.

There is room for a slower pace and downtime, but you have to earn it. A game like Wolfenstein The New Order gets it right.

>Start strong, intense action sequence
>Then some downtime, a little bit of characterization and world building
>Then another intense action sequence
>Then a little more downtime and character building.

Same thing with a game like FF7, it starts strong, then takes a step back and gives you the characterization and exposition.

If you're throwing 2 hours of boring gameplay and exposition out the gate then you're setting yourself for failure, and Steam refunds.

>>384004241
>Some games ARE better 10 hours in
If you like the game enough to sit through ten hours of it until it gets better, then that's fine, but if I'm sitting here three hours in getting a low return on investment already and someone says "just play for seven more hours and then you'll like it faggot" I'll probably tell them to fuck off.

>>384004575
>>384005037
You have to judge on a game by game basis. What if like two story missions after you quit an hour and a half into the game you're plucked out of the quaint little starting village and shit gets wild and interesting as the story unfolds? You would never know because so far the game has just been acquainting you with a few characters and getting ready to get the ball rolling, and that's not game enough for you.
If anything you should base it off average playthrough completion time, if this is a 60 hour game and you can't even be attentive two hours in, maybe you shouldn't be paying games that take 60 hours to complete.

Longer games can take longer to get into and that's not necessarily a problem nor is it necessarily the fault of the game.

>Play game
>It's boring and disappointing
>Give it a second chance because of /v/
>Game becomes one of my favourites ever
What's her name? For me it was devil survivor

>>384003939

In principle it does. If I have to play your game for 5 hours before It gets good, then you failed as a developer

>>383999491

What an original thread

>>384004004

We're not even talking taste anon, we are talking about how if a game takes a long time before it gets fun then it has failed as a game. I'm not talking 30 mins im talking 5 hours. I should be able to know what im getting into within the first few hours

>>383999558
You know you're not the first person to point out pointing him out, so don't go thinking your clever or anything. Just saying.

You know, I'm not the first person to point myself out, and that makes me clever. Just saying.

>>383999491
>I need others to agree with me that a game sucks or I will be forced to play it in it's entirely

Sounds like a pretty much entirely your fault for being a weakwilles automaton desu.

>>383999739
Just kill yourself and save time.

>>384005976
pokemon
I hated it when I played Red and Blue but the shitposting about HGSS made me try it again and I liked it a lot

File: 1446264880048.gif (4MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 320x240px

>>383999739
>optimum cutoff point
It really depends on your personal tastes, preferences, and patience.

Personally, I give a game two play sessions before deciding to whether or not to drop it. I have honestly yet to encounter a "gets good 40 hours in" game.

>>384000000