>most of the people disliking it just fell for the hype or just played for about 1 hour and then got on the hate train
>most of the people disliking beat the game and are bitter faggots. They played for over 100 hours so they MUST have liked it, its a good game and fulfilled its purpose.
So which is it? What is the arbitrary amount of playtime where I'm allowed to say a game is bad and leave a review? Tell me.
Within an hour or two, you're gonna know if you hate the game or not. Anyone with 100 hours played obviously loves it.
>Within an hour or two, you're gonna know if you hate the game or not.
most of the people disliking it just played for about 1 hour and then got on the hate train. You didn't play enough.
It's neither. Lashing out against people who dislike what you like is pure cognitive dissonance, the rationalisations have nothing to do with rationality.
>It gets good after X hours
Anyone else hate this crap? If the designers really were capable of making something good, they would have put some good stuff right at the start so people knew what they were getting into.
user you've been a virgin for 40 years you must enjoy it
It honestly depends on the game and how bad it is.
You're not going to need to put much time in to figure out that Superman 64 is a trainwreck.
Steam users have no sense whatsoever, Dota 2 is horribly rated on Metacritic, but it's the most played game.
>If you completed it you must have enjoyed it enough to keep playing
>If you quit before completing it you can't know if the game was good overall or not
>moving goalposts for the sake of needing to validate your purchase in a shitty game that clearly has missing features and even outright lies about the content in game.
>you must put however many hours I dictate to verify your opinion on this game
Just neck yourself already.
I have played the game of life for over 20 years. I don't like it. Can I leave a bad review?
>review after 2-3 hours
>"Y-you have to play it more! It gets better later on!"
>review after 20-30+ hours
>"Why did you play so much if you hated it!?"
Apologists are fucking awful. Not to mention there's a well-known issue with Steam where games will continue to rack up hours even if you completely shut down. Play time means jack shit, and I wish Gabe would get rid of it.
>Suicide note
>"I just don't enjoy life."
>Police
>"This is obviously a homicide. No-one would stay alive that long if they weren't enjoying it."
Kek. Thanks for the laugh, user.
For some games it's absolutely true. Dragon's Dogma comes to mind -- it takes a few hours to actually get good and you have so many systems thrown at you with little explanation that the world seems daunting.
I agree with you, however, that it indicates bad design. It sets an awful first impression and can prevent players from experiencing the meat of your game.
I kinda agree with the sentiment of that. If you can put yourself through playing a bad game for over a hundred hours, you can't think it's that bad overall.
Like I consider The Last of Us to be a boring game, and thus I didn't enjoy it so I only put around 4 hours into it.
If it could keep me entertained for over a hundred hours like The Witcher 3 did, then I wouldn't consider it a bad game.
>I only put around 4 hours into it.
I'm sorry you didn't play TLOU enough, obviously you gave up on it too early and joined the hate train without even playing the multiplayer long enough to see whether or not it was good. You can't say it's bad unless you beat the game. And if you do you obviously enjoyed it
>You haven't played it much, how can you have formed an opinion on it
>You've played so much of it, how could you possibly hate it
>It honestly depends on the game and how bad it is.
I doubt that. Especially since the kinds of people who use these types of arguments aren't willing to accept their game is bad.
this is a good point though, i dont think 4 hours is even enough time to get past all the intro movies and pseudo-cutscenes where you can walk forward and listen to dialog but not do anything else
If the first 4 hours of your game have no gameplay and it's a chain of tutorials and cutscenes, you have a right to be upset and not like it.
To be fair it used to be like a 9 until GIFF DIRETIDE hit about 2 years ago
No you don't. You have to play for an additional amount of hours and get past a part in the game before you can say its bad.
But don't play for too long! Otherwise you can't think it's that bad overall, since you obviously enjoyed it enough to play for 4 hours.
exactly 2 hours and 36 minutes
I know a few games where I've spent a good chunk of time (say 20+ hours), in the vain attempt that maybe, just around the corner, there will be something that I can say is good and not just exceedingly average or bad.
That kinda promise that maybe, just maybe, things will get better.
Sometimes they do, sometimes you get to the end and realize you just spent a long time hoping for something that will never come.
Thankfully I know enough about my likes and dislikes so that the latter category is usually pirated.
>guy plays for less than 100 hours
SEE HE DIDNT EVEN PLAY ENOUGH TO SAY ITS BAD
>guy play overs a 100 hours
SEE HE PLAY A LOT. HE HAVE TO LIKE THE FUCKING GAME, HE IS JUST A ATENTION WHORE
it's not a review, it's would you recommend the game to a stranger question
Don't argue semantics. The difference here is irrelevant.
>Playing for more than 2h29m
You obviously liked it then.