What's worse?

What's worse?
>Someone plays a game for thousands upon thousands of hours then gives it a bad review/calls it "shit value for money"
>Someone plays a game for a couple of hours then gives it a bad review/calls it "shit value for money"

Attached: waste-of-time.jpg (274x124, 11.33K)

they're both valid and you are gay

For me, it's
>someone who has barely played the game recommends it

Attached: 3c7b69052010e980caca1c07139b4a06.png (618x128, 10.73K)

This can't be real

This genuinely angers me more than anything else gaming related

coronavirus is justified

Both are valid.
For the former, you can spend a lot of time at a game and then look back and realize that most of the time you've spend in the game you weren't actually enjoying yourself, but rather doing something like grinding and stuff like that trying to get to a point where you'd have what you need to start having fun, essentially a gameplay loop. Elite Dangerous is an example.

For the latter, if a game cannot start to entertain you a couple of hours into the game then the developers have failed at making the experience a worthwhile one. A videogame should be fun right from the start because that's what they're for, having fun.

positive reviews are fucking useless and that's the biggest problem of all

the only way to know if a game is good anymore is to read the top ranked negatives and see if you're still interested in playing it

these are ok
absolutely not ok

Sometimes games get patched to oblivion after months

If the game is static then certainly 200+ hours is signaling that they grew tired of it, and that it is fine to play for other consumers. But for Early Access games that butcher the release, it is fair game. Also games that have heavily corrossive updates.

Vilket spel var det?

This is what I do.
Top ranked negatives always break down the game extensively.
Positive reviews on Steam are always meme shit like "died to the first boss 10/10 epic :)"

>Game is a 2/10 at best, the characters weren't the archetypes I like and the game didn't even have crafting in it! This genre would be better as an open world survival game
Critiques are not inherently sensible user. Obviously don't immerse yourself in a bubble of positivity, but just assuming all criticism is valid is equally daft.

Not to say that giving negative reviews to games that are 200+ hours spent in it is bad necessarily, since they may feel that what they got from the game is not reproducible in other consumers and thus don't recommend it.
I feel people who play the game need to play it at least for an hour or two to give a fair review of recommendation.

this

Attached: plebbit.jpg (336x29, 2.99K)

The person who plays for a few hours and can tell that the game is shit is doing nothing wrong. If you have to play a game for 50+ hours to find any enjoyment, it's not a good game. You should be able to just start the game and immediately tell that you're enjoying it.

>10 hour game that cant be rushed so most playthroughs will be 10 hours
>person with 4 hours recommends it
>their hours never go up after a few months

This infinitely.

>For the latter, if a game cannot start to entertain you a couple of hours into the game then the developers have failed at making the experience a worthwhile one. A videogame should be fun right from the start because that's what they're for, having fun.
I'm afraid I'll have to strongly disagree with this. Sure there are plenty of games that have that initial hook that grabs you, but to write off a more complex game for not grabbing you immediately would lock you out of many, many fantastic experiences. For example, when I first bought Ace Combat 2 as a dumb teen, it was my first experience with any sort of "realistic" 3D flight. I didn't know what the fuck I was doing, I could barely beat the first couple of missions, and I really didn't find it fun. It took me a good couple of days to start thinking in the 3D space, and then making the leap to the advanced controls, which is when I really started having a blast. Ace Combat is now one of my favourite series, if I'd have written it off for those initial impressions I'd have missed out on something I came to truly love.
Also FUCK Mobius 1, Scarface 1 is the real shit.

Attached: scarface one.jpg (500x281, 18K)

Steam playtime means absolutely nothing. My computer is on 24/7 and often you just leave a game open at some point when you're not there for whatever reason. Many games even have glitches where you can close the game but the process keeps running and counts your time. Conversely, I'll often buy games on Steam that I've pirated in the past and liked, so my displayed playtime will be much lower than it actually is.

Reminds me of MHW players
>dude this game is SHIT
>I put in 800 hours and now I have nothing to do and it’s not fun anymore

något efterblivet point&click spel med "humor", little missfortune

Don't take the criticism as valid for your own opinion, but see it as "what would an absolute cynic see this game as" to put as a lower bound of your enjoyment. If you see such criticism as obviously invalid, it signals that you would enjoy the product well enough

>play for a small amount of time
"Lmao nice playtime dude maybe try getting past the tutorial section the next time"
>play for a medium amount of time
"No bro you don't get it it's supposed to get good XY hours in!"
>play for a large amount of time
"If you hate this game so much why did you spend so much time on it?"

Attached: rage 6.png (646x570, 196.92K)

>that kid who idles a short game for 3000+ hours then leaves a review saying "it's ok"

This, but unironically.

Depends on the game. With something like A 4X or grand strategy with a deep layer of options it would be hard to trust the negative opinion with someone who has under a hundred hours. I'd argue that anyone with less than 200 hours in Civ VI, for example, cannot even begin to understand exactly how linear and one-note the early game is and how it leads to uncomplex builds and games that feel dry and bland, especially in multiplayer where the only significant factor for early war advantage is unique unit modifiers.

>game is good
>play few hundreds hours
>new patch or community ruins the game for good, or community dies
>"hurr durr you can't not recommend it"

>don't finish a game, say I didn't like it
>"Bro you didn't finish the game you can't judge it"
>Finish the game, say I didn't like it
>"Why did you finish it if you didn't like it"
How do you win?

The 2nd one. The 1st instance is often multiplayer games that were ruined by an update or did something to piss off the community.

>"10/10 would x again"

Attached: 1578233608287.jpg (213x223, 10.6K)

i've played 2k hours of awesomenauts and i'm playing right now.

i agree with all the negative reviews.

They're right though.
And if a game's "tutorial section" isn't well made, there's no reason you should be playing it in the first place.

Maybe you're right, but in your case it was just that you were unable to grasp the game at first.
I was aiming more at games that lock 90% of their fun shit behind hours and hours of grinding.

I’ve put a couple hundred dollars and way too much time into Neverwinter Online and I wouldn’t recommend it.
>’heh...clearly this guy has a grudge, I’m sure it has quality gameplay and writing and won’t be a F2P hell at all..!’

Based. I'm the same with musou games
>wtf it's just chinese anime dudes mowing through endless seas of mooks the story is a mess and the dub is bad
>Yes

Attached: BENEVOLENCE.gif (400x286, 994.88K)

I have so much burning hatred for this shit
If I were gaben I'd put an entire department to review reviews and permanently VAC ban every single person that wrote a review like this

Attached: pain this is why i fight.jpg (750x777, 284.38K)

It entirely depends on reasoning. Even though I played WC3 and WoW for many hours, I would trash Blizzard any chance I get because the company is corrupt and awful. I would include my reasoning for trashing the game.

>500hoursplayed
>"this game sucks"
That is an invalid review that deserves to be removed.

There are a few one-word reviews on Metacritic for Warcraft 3 Reforged, but most of them go into detail about how awful Blizzard is and actually provide a reason why they are giving it 0/10, like how they ruined the original game. "Review bombing" is only an issue because people don't provide valid reasons for their negative or positive reviews.

Attached: 1560124227640.jpg (1280x720, 77.02K)

it depends what game
on regular games, the first one is more accurate, despite the second one giving their first impression
on MMOs, the second one is outright discarded, and the first one needs to be detailed, otherwise or/plus if the reviewer is still playing that game, then the first one will be discarded aswell while labelling the reviewer as a hypocrite

"shit value" is a glowing endorsement. Only good games can be too short.

/Thread

>the game is called X but you can't do X
>negative review

Attached: you.png (368x657, 266.19K)

>someone gives a game a bad review because it has no Chinese localisation

"Review bombing" is NEVER a legitimate harmful phenomenon as long as you can guarantee 1 review = 1 copy of the game. This is a meme for entitled devs who don't want to reflect on criticism.

>Go to the reviews for one of my favourite games
>Faggots giving it negative reviews because "BAD VR SUPPORT WTF THE VR ISN'T GOOD AT ALL SHIT GAME"
>It's a port of a fucking PS2 game
All VRfags must fucking hang

Attached: vic viper 3.jpg (719x841, 609.2K)

>reviewing the game can't hurt devs

>review the company instead of the game
This is fucking retarded and you know it.
Reforged was bombed to the ground because they managed to make the game worse than it was.

I have experience with this, a game can be great and have thousands of hours of gameplay. The devs introduce a new patch or micro transactions that completely change the dynamics of the game and make it shit.

get better taste if thats your favorite game lol

It can be an issue in that if a bad-intent negative review gets lots of publicity, shunning the crouds from purchase

Any form of criticism is objectively bad when it comes to my employers.

>game having a tutorial section
yikes!

>Talking shit about ZoE2

Attached: ANUBIS4.jpg (1110x600, 654.36K)

YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT THAT
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE MAD THAT PEOPLE DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU LIKE

>speedruns can shave playtime down to 30 minutes
>person with 32 minutes of playtime doesn't recommend it
>"good game, but way too short"

Do you think that one of the few moral developers there were back at Blizzard ever just went home after work, sat down on the couch with a glass of whiskey and broke down crying at the knowledge of just how garbage Reforged was going to be?

>Someone plays a game for thousands upon thousands of hours then gives it a bad review/calls it "shit value for money"

It's pretty common in multiplayers because a lot of times players are just burnt out from playing the game. I also gave a red thumb to Paladins after 3k+ hours.

Attached: IMG_20200311_205053.jpg (604x180, 20K)

Attached: sailing.jpg (600x800, 110.42K)

Yeah, exactly, something like that.