1229 Hours played

>1229 Hours played
>Negative Review
>"Price is ridiculous"

If you play a game you think it bad for more than 10 hours, then it's either not bad, or you just like to torture yourself

>things that never happened

What the fuck is up with that thumbnail?

>20 hours played
>Negative Review
>"It's shit, don't play it"

Who plays 20 hours of something bad?

Open the image in a new tab and change the extension from gif to webm

Someone doing a full review?

>Play a game for 2 hours
>Quit cause shit
"It gets really good but you'll never know with the patience of a child."

>Play a game for 40 hours
>Want to experience all the game has to offer before coming to a conclusion
"If you played that much and hate it you must be autistic!"

>Play games
>Don't talk about how shit they are
"Perfect, nothing but shills left!" says the reptilian overlords.

this better be bait
>play x amount of time and give something a negative review
>UUHH BUT YOU PLAYED IT SO MUCH???
or
>play x amount of time and give something a negative review
>UUUH BUT YOU BARELY PLAYED IT??
And the number of hours you deem acceptable is completely fucking arbitrary

>pointing out the contradictions of bitter people who hate their lives and thrive on negativity
"why don't these guys appreciate nice things and speak highly of them?"

Playing a game you don't enjoy for 20+ hours is retarded, simple as that. Nobody needs to play more than a few hours to decide if they like a game

There's so many things wrong with that.

1. What if it was agame you really enjoyed, but it was updated in a way that you didn't like? TF2 and Payday, for example, often have controversial updates.

2. If it's an RPG, sometimes you need to go a little while into the game to really know if it's bad. 20 hours out of a game that promises 100+ hours should be enough to know if it sucks.

so 19 hours is okay by you mastah?
fucking retard

You can't play something for 20 hours unless you find it at least average...it's like 4-5 play sessions

>thumbnail
This must be the work of an enemy stand!

All No Man Sky critics desu
-
Posted from my iPad Mini (c) Find me on FB at Chris Perry (Maine!)

>3000 hours on record
>negative review
>"devs did something recently I don't like the game is shit don't buy it"

>devs delivered on all their promises! People who don't like this should go back to call of duty

There are games that start out okay but then turn to shit near the end.

this is correct

dope

it's not any fun at the start, how does it get worse?

>Criticize ANYTHING in the game
>"gb2 cod you casual"

terraria fangay detected

The marketers should've been given better more things to say, they keep coming back to Call of Duty for some reason.

That's funny because terraria basically does the same thing.
I haven't had any fun in hardmode.

The way the story is handled later in the game leaves such an awful taste in your mouth that I never got over it. Beating the game literally made me hate it.

probably because you either
1. are bad
2. have no friends

what happens? i beat tut mission and fixed my ship before dropping it. story was kinda stupid from the getgo. what makes it shittier?

Just look at Evolve's reviews on Steam. This fits the bill perfectly.

>Last 2 boss fights extremely half-assed
>Don't even bother to add a human boss instance
>Last boss is going through the tentacle world and having to dig straight down until you get to the boss
>The boss is beyond easy but has the longest fucking health bar and place so awkwardly that only your weakest weapons will be able to touch it consistently unless you decided to use spears or staves for no god damn reason
>Generic you sacrificed yourself to save the universe ;_; ending but with a god or whatever decides to kill himself to revive you instead of protecting the universe
>Roll credits
>Get reward for beating boss
>A random shit generic weapon and a "thanks for playing" card.
>5 seconds later the wall hits you
>They cut at least 30% of content from this game and at least 70% of lore to force this piece of shit story

>thumbnail

MOOOOOOOOOOT

mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot

This happened before with the exact same image aswell

>If you play past the first hour or so, you must love it!
>Completely ignores the prevalence of games that start off strong but go off the rails quickly after the intro

>write negative review
>game is good, but publishers are douchebags
>explain douchebagy things that publishers did
>encourage people not to buy game because publishers are douchebags that don't deserve money
>review gets downvoted

G00000000K

who?

right?? haha
Kill me.

HIROSHIMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTO

>Play something you don't like for 20 hours

Do you really have nothing better to do in your life?

FF13 gets good around 20 hours

>idle in a free to play game
>write negative review
>memes

>1.2 hrs on record
>massive 100 paragraph review with shitty opinions like they know the game

The baldurs gate 2 remake

Idling or not, I've played a lot. And it actually is fucking garbage.
>>memes
>memes

-More of a games flaws become noticeable over time
-Some games like witcher 3, finish a story that the player is already invested in
-some times i alt tab and go do something else for hours forgetting the window is open

You know it's completely possible that you start to realize how bad a game is after you've put in enough time into it or you learn of how shitty the Devs really are
for example Borderlands 2 or Warframe

I only need one sentence to tell you why your favorite game is shit.

...

Games these days are designed to be fun only at a surface level. This means if you jump in and play a few hours the game seems fine because in your mind you are under the impression that the depth of the game will grow. However it doesnt, but since the game showed initial promise its not uncommon for someone to continue to play through the game in hope of the game delivering on that promise. Eventually the game ends and the promise was never delivered upon, so there you have a ton of hours in a game you hated, making you hate it even more because it wasted so much of your time and then you have to deal with chucklefucks like yourself dismissing your criticisms of the game because you played through it. And this is a fallacy because if someone is giving crticism on a game, who better to do so than someone who has experienced the entirety of the game? go fuck yourself, I may have 80 hours in witcher 3, but I did not enjoy a single moment of it past the first area.

>write a negative movie review
>"If it's so bad then why did you watch all of it? :^)"

>write a negative book review
>"If it's so bad then why did you read all of it? :^)"

>write a negative video game review
>"If it's so bad then why did you play all of it? :^)"

It's about getting your money's worth (assuming it's not f2p in which case it may only become apparent how shallow the game is a number of hours into the game) and being able to properly critique it when necessary
You fucking mongoloids

why would you play it that much if you didn't enjoy it

Addiction.

Why is it that only Terraria fans have such awful things to say about Starbound? I played Starbound a few weeks ago with a group of friends, they all liked Terraria. But they also liked Starbound. Except one guy, who just constantly kept talking shit about Starbound the entire time we were playing it, we were all just trying to have fun and he was the only one looking to bring everybody down. You Terraria fanboys are the fucking worst cancer, we don't give a shit about Terraria, stop giving a shit about Starbound.

Not that user but 20+ hours was a ballpark figure, playing something you don't like for 19 hours is still fucking retarded, just not as retarded as 20 or more.

It's not a hard fucking concept and you are not clever for trying to disprove the point.

>review talking about how wonderful the game is and how exciting it is to play the game
>less than an hour played

Your comparison is kind of retarded because no movie is longer than 10-20 hours while there are plenty of games that are.

Also, how exactly are you getting more of "your money's worth" by continuing to play a game you don't really enjoy?

This is the only situation where it is acceptable to dismiss an opinion based on playtime.

>I never read the reviews for any SEGA game

>not playing 20 hours in 1 session
s mh f am

Updates can ruin games.

t. Paradox

Me, I spent 60 hours on persona Q despite hating most of it. Only redeeming thing about the fucking game is the OST.

This is fucking retarded. Sometimes it takes upwards of 20 hours before a game finally clicks with other people (e.g. Monster Hunter).

If you play in offline mode, your hours aren't tallied.

That's sort of the opposite of what happens in the post you are quoting though, what you are saying applies to people who discard a game before 20 hours, not those who play it for more than 20 and then say it sucks.

His point is that if a game shows initial promise people will stick through it expecting it to deliver, as they have had experience with games that have taken a while to click with them.

Sounds like Crusader Kings 2.

Shattered Horizon went from an amazing 3DOF shooter based on fast combat, a multi-functional weapon that allowed you to get out of any situation if you were good enough, and a level playing field to call of duty in space. You bet I gave it a negative review(like anyone plays it anymore lol)

Nah it's more or less the same concept. I've met people who bought more than one MonHun game, hoping that something clicks but to no avail. On the other hand, like I've mentioned in my previous posts, there are others who spend that same amount of time before they finally realize why the game is good.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that there are certain genres of games that take a fair amount of "initialisation" before you can fully judge them. And even then, the game's gonna be a hit or miss, but that should not be an indication of the game's quality.

...

Fair enough.
Guess I really haven't run into anything like that recently. Not on Steam anyway.

Do you people not know what retrospective is?

The magic of flipping a truck over a collapsed bridge.

While the trend of "if a game isn't good in the first 30 mins" leads to some verey unbalanced games (i.e all the flash is in the first 2hrs that most plebs play for) a game still has to engange a player early on to make said player stick with it and play fruther.

Really what this means in practical terms is tight gameplay needs to be demonstrated from the geto-go and later levels/difficulties/whatever need to increase the challenge (asnd rewards) to further promote playing of said game. Pump and dump gameplay is bullshit and is only good for ADD burgers who cannot into commitment.

Pic related - a game that is solid from the first race but gets better as the player does.

...

Are you a wizard?

Picture not related, right? Because it has been shit all along.

This. Another reason to stay away from Early Access games.

>being an attention whore with a name and tripcode but not producing any worthwhile original content at all

I hope your name+trip get filtered.

Ever fuck up your dinner but eat it anyway because it's that or you go to bed hungry?

What if he accidentally left it running in the background for a lot of time
Or steam could have recorded the time incorrectly
Or someone else (friend/family member) could have used his machine and played it
granted over 1000 hours is pretty long for any of those reasons
Or he could be upset at how the game failed to deliver.

>tfw there will be people spending thousands of hours on NMS hoping to find fun a the centre of the universe

>It's a 1000s of hours oldfag player tries to scare of new players episode.

Looking at you, Awesomenauts. You could've been good.

But when its the case the reviewer always say that he completed the game or something