>look up reviews for a game on steam >100 hours played:

Your primary misconception is that the games quality was at no point altered by the devs

What if you didn't enjoy those 100 hours? You could've gotten 50 hours in, then got bored but pushed through the rest of the game out of a compulsion to finish it.

>he doesnt leave games on for days on end by accident

>>387371232
How many hours do we spend living our shitty lives?

>>387371232
>give a poor review after playing for a few hours
>"you didn't play long enough to experience all the content!"
>give a poor review after playing for a ton of hours
>"if you dislike it, why did you play it for so long?"
fuck you

>>387371965
>playing video games you don't like
for what reason, other than fake internet points of any kind?

>>387372259
There are obsessive completionist types.

>>387372259
Sunk cost fallacy.

>>387371232
>Are you allowed to call a game shit if you've played it for 100 hours?
yes; one reason being things change.

File: durr.jpg (15KB, 342x345px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 342x345px

>Review made months ago
>5000 hours played
>40 hours played in the last two weeks
>I'M NOT CHANGING THIS INTO POSITIVE UNTIL THE DEVS SWITCH THIS ONE GAME MECHANIC BACK TO HOW IT WAS

>>387372230
Not an argument

My favorite Steam reviews are the ones where the guy has thousands of hours but never wrote a review about it till one update completely triggers him. Especially if dozens to hundreds more have done the same. Lets me know that I should avoid the game because it's filled with entitled manbabies.

>>387371232
>plays for half hour on easy and in a baked E3 build
>journo then call it 9/10
>this is ok
Ok?

Are people not allowed to say a movie was shit because they watched the whole 2 hours instead of walking out the second something cringy happened that triggered their autism?

>>387371232
>you can only criticise games you haven't played!
I'll never understand this pseudo-"logic".

>>387372230
Two different types of games

If one promises valuable endgame then yes the review should take some time and a negative review is valid if it doesn't deliver.

If a game is mostly the same from 8 hours to however many hours then only a short time is needed and any extra time spent can only be seen as a desire to play the game.

You're correct in that the criticisms regarding time played are sometimes misplaced.

>>387373069
Neither is >>387371232

>>387373225
Review bandwagoning always seems so silly to me.

>Don't even complete the game
>9/10, a true masterpiece

>>387373357
Refer to
>>387373373

For a lot of games, 100 hours is way past what's needed to experience all the content. It would be equivalent to you watching the movie 10 times and then calling it shit.

What if i had 1500 hours, and still wont recomend it?

>>387373373
>If a game is mostly the same from 8 hours to however many hours
How are you supposed to know this without playing past 8 hours?

>>387371232
If the developers make changes that make the game substantially worse over time, it would be pretty dishonest for me to rate it based on how it used to play.

>>387373454
Then you're in denial

>>387373501
You can play a little extra to find out sure, but once you get to multiples of that time then things become more telling.

I don't give a fuck that I have 1000 hours in warframe I would never put another person through that hell

>>387373632
This is what's known as the 'ironic hate'

>haha don't play this game man, it SUCKS, I've played it for so long and still put in 40 hours a week but just don't do it man

>>387373720
>Last played: june 2016
no

People write reviews for others like themselves, giving advice on whether the game is worth purchasing. If they find the endgame unsatisfactory, a negative review is reasonable under that perspective.

Also when a developer makes changes that shit all over fans enjoyment, a wave of negative reviews telling newcomers to stay away is completely justified. Those consumers who have been fucked over no longer have the ability to "vote with their wallet."

File: 1469674037072.png (309KB, 441x459px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 441x459px

>>387371232
>steam review praises the amazing story and gameplay
>0.4 hours played
>last time played was 3 months ago

>>387371232
>game takes 100 hours to finish
>gameplay time is artificially inflated by slow walk speed and long travel distances, unskippable cutscenes, slow undajustable text speed with no skip, overly lengthy dialog sequences, and long load times
>finally finish poorly constructed game's main storyline
>post how shit it is
>WOW YOU PLAYED FOR 100 HOURS YOU OBVIOUSLY LIKED IT
fuck
OFF

>>387371232
For online games it's perfectly normal for major updates to radically change the game for the worse. At that point it doesn't matter how many hours you've spent up until that point, it should be rated as the shitty game it currently is.

>>387373912
>>last time played was 3 months ago
nothing wrong with this, you don't have to play a game you like everyday

>>387373985
name 14 games that do this

>>387374061
the elder scrolls 1-14

>>387373569
I've had too many experiences that go against this to agree with you. 100 hours is probably excessive but I've played games for 20 hours which I wouldn't recommend.

>>387374050
I mean how they barely even touched the game but are praising it already

>>387371232
I played Destiny a shitton and disliked it. The main reason I did so was because a lot of my friends played it and I like playing with them.
Another thing is if the game actively gets worse over time like For Honor wherein the devs show how incompetent they are at balancing and introduce characters that make any mode where ganking is a thing absolute cancer to play.

File: IMG_8701.jpg (36KB, 600x462px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x462px

>ive put 1000 hours into this game
>"lolfag"
>buy game
>sucks ass
>"wtfu"

/v/ sucks. I'm going back to /asp/

>>387371232
>look at steam reviews
>30 mins played
>GREAT GAME 10/10 TOTALLY RECOMMEND
>Last played 6 months ago
???

>>387371232
I have over 1000 hours on Skyrim and the game is still a piece of fucking shit.

if anything you should trust their opinion more

File: hmmst.jpg (43KB, 634x164px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 634x164px

>>387371232
>mfw I've done this

the more hours you play a game the more qualified you are to make judgements on its quality imho desu

There should absolutely be a mandatory time gate on all steam reviews.
Under 1hr is shit.
Over 10 is shit but permitted if it's one that's posted right after a patch/update.

>>387374335
you are referring to devil daggers, correct?

>>387371232
what, are you saying all your time at a computer has to be gaming

people can't leave the game open and do other, more important, productive things?
loser

>>387371232
Boy I love retarded generalizations! Look, there's a lot of reasons someone might play a game for a long time. It's not always out of pure enjoyment. Human behavior is strange, I know. In any case, maybe you should actually read what they have to say instead of just spouting "HURR YOU PLAYED THE GAME FOR A LONG TIME YOU MUST'VE LOVED IT" like a neanderthal.

>>387374613
>over 10 hours being anything
if youre game doesnt have over 10 hours of playtime its shit automatically

>>387374613
>Over 10 is shit
Are you fucking retarded?

>>387374613
No. People should be able to post reviews if they're dropping a game due to technical issues like frequent crashes. Also, if a game is seriously awful then you don't need to spend 10 hours to figure that out.

>>387371232
When you've sunk so many hours into hell that the only thing you can do is warn others.

>>387372848
There's a lot of people like that, can't say it's completely unreasonable

An online game that's updated often is bound to have a shitty change at some point, and even though the game's still fun despite it (or the person in question just doesn't have anything better to spend their time on) doesn't mean they can't complain about it

If a game has a low score, people won't buy it. If enough players pressure it like this the developer is bound to cave in eventually

>>387374786
>if youre game doesnt have over 10 hours of playtime its shit automatically
that doesn't actually contradict my point

>>387374806
why should a 10+ hour review be taken seriously? All it's doing is enabling shit reviews like "JUST PLAY ANOTHER 50 HOURS IT GETS GOOD I PROMISSSEEEEE"

>>387374849
Then you agree.

>>387374978
>>387374613
So you're saying people aren't allowed to leave positive reviews with low playtime?

Your phrasing is absolute garbage to be honest, try a little harder next time.

>>387374927
No, they aren't. They're not gonna second guess their development ideas just because some faggot hates change and if they actually do, then they're spineless fags. It makes me glee that those fags continue playing the game and their negative review is ignored.

>>387371641
/thread

>>387374978
Did you forget that there are such things as a positive review?
>Play a 15 hour long game to completion because I like it
>My review shouldn't be taken seriously

And even if we're still talking about negative reviews, a game could become boring or repetitive later on. Flaws that weren't there initially can become apparent. The pacing could be bad. There are plenty of reasons why you would stop enjoying a game after 10 hours.

>>387375273
>some faggot
I very clearly specified there to be a large number of them

>>387374162
J-just shut up y-y-you...Double Nigger! Stop asking l-logical questions on /v/! Ugh! >_<;

It makes sense if the game is constantly changing.

For example I really enjoyed hearthstone and shadowverse when they first came out but after a few expansions both games went to shit. I would have recommended HS from Vaniilla through to Old Gods, but I couldnt recommend playing it after that.

However, when the game is just a fixed single player experience like Skyrim, then I find it extremely "try hard" to write a review about how much you hate it with several hundred hours played. You might think that the experience isn't good after 400 hours, but it must have been pretty fucking enjoyable for you initially if you put that much time into it.

As a general rule of thumb, I'll take a review seriously if the reviewer finished the main campaign. They don't have to have gotten 100% completion.

>tfw no option for Recommended/Not Recommended split
Some games are good games but not for the series, and I can't bring myself to choose one

>>387375554
it's a very clear question, do you recommend others to play the game or not
if the only answer you got is ''i don't know'' then don't bother writing a review

I think the inclusion of the number of hours played is actually a very valuable component of steam reviews. I mean, it can easily be embellished by leaving the game open, but generally it gives you a good idea of how much people enjoy a game after playing for a certain amount of time.

For example, if all the reviews for a game that are written after a short period of playtime are positive, but all the ones written after long playtime are negative you can conclude that the game will only entertain you for a few hours.

Likewise, if the reviews were the opposite way around you could conclude that the game probably starts shit but picks up later on, giving you motivation to stick with it.

>>387375436
Some faggots, then

The starbound devs tried this playtime defense when the alpha was shit while also refusing to acknowledge a "bug" in their launcher that would continue counting playtime after the game was closed.

>>387373912
Low chance but it could have been someone who bought it after pirating it.