100-200-700-1500 hours of play and negative review ?

[Nephen]

How can steam accept people who play hundreds of hours to a game, and suddenly, something happens they do not like and... they write a "negative" opinion. Play hundreds of hours, and they complain ?

[Gilga ™ |Yonaguni|]

Nephen님이 먼저 게시:

How can steam accept people who play hundreds of hours to a game, and suddenly, something happens they do not like and... they write a "negative" opinion. Play hundreds of hours, and they complain ?

Because people change and games can also change. Its legit to change your opinion, even more after you played a game for a long time.

[りみ]

Well - why they cannot? It's their opinion. Maybe a game got worse over the time with the developers not caring,or just turning the game into a money machine. -adding microtransactions,pay to win advantages and such-
If you see any troll/inappropriate/propaganda review, you can just simply report it through the report system.

[DocShady]

Games change over time. I played over 400 hours in Elite dangerous, loved it. But then they released a patch and basically ruined the game and catered to the vocal minority. I gave it a bad review based on that patch.

[Tolkien Book Fan]

Another sock puppet for an indie dev to hate on people that dare to write negative reviews. Under two hours play, they rant that people should refund instead of reviewing. Over two hours and it's "why didn't you refund it instead? You gave us your money, so you have to help advertise the game!"

I don't buy games that don't have negative reviews.

[Crazy Tiger]

It's nothing different from people who watch a TV series for 8 seasons and then see their favorite character written out in season 9. They'll complain about the series and stop watching too.

Games change, people change, opinions change, perhaps an annoying bug never got fixed. If a person decides to write a negative review after hundreds of hours, I'm actually quite interested to read what motivated that person to do so.

[Kozuel]

Like Crazy Tiger said, I'd be more interested to see what someone has to say in a negative review when they DO have hundreds or even thousands of hours.

It shows they were possibly very passionate about the product but something could have gone wrong, such as sudden monetization tactics or a patch that just ruined all the things.

[Jaunitta 🌸]

I dont take that much heed to reviews everyone has different experiences. The best way to evaluate a game is to watch a walk through on youtube.

[Kargor]

It's possible that there may be nothing wrong with a game, technically, but it just doesn't hold up to other games of the type.

Also, pay attention to what the review is asking: "Do you recommend this game?". There is "Yes" and "No" -- not even a middle ground of sorts, no "Yeah... maybe" or "No... unless".

[Your_White_Knight]

Nephen님이 먼저 게시:

100-200-700-1500 hours of play and negative review ?

How can steam accept people who play hundreds of hours to a game, and suddenly, something happens they do not like and... they write a "negative" opinion. Play hundreds of hours, and they complain ?

Basically this:

DocShady님이 먼저 게시:

Games change over time. I played over 400 hours in Elite dangerous, loved it. But then they released a patch and basically ruined the game and catered to the vocal minority. I gave it a bad review based on that patch.

Not to mention that I find it less acceptable when someone writes a negative or positive review with only one hour of gameplay.... it's more acceptable that after many hours in one finally decides then fewer.

[worstcaster]

Seems like if you invested a lot of time into a game and something changed to make you drastically dislike it, then a negative review is a perfectly valid response.

[Kimum]

In my humble opinion those kind of reviews you are so pissed about are probably the most accurate, after all, if someone plays over 900 hours and tells that was not worth it why i shouldn't listen to them? This guy probably have explored every possibility in the game and in the end came to the conclusion that it was a waste of time. The way i see its probably more accurate than those who have 4-5 hours in a game and then write a review based on hype.

[totempael]

I agree with most comments on this post. Games can change or not change enough.

I'd also want to point out that I used to have a computer with specs ranging on the good side of the yearly steam statistics of what the player base own and use. Still I could experience serious lag/bugs/crashes and whatnot, way within recommended specs under said game. If I tried complaining I just had "the wrong type of GPU", "AMD CPU's are known to not handle much threads" or something similar. And then I would point out that even so I met the recommended specs under said game. So what about users who meet the bare minimum? And even so, shouldn't users who meet recommended specs not be dealing with random crashes and whatever?

I know I'm lucky and privileged with being able to buy maybe "triple" recommended specs. So yes. I have several games I play and have lots of hrs but don't come lie to me just to sell more games and have people waiting on patches when in fact you need a way better pc to actually enjoy the game.

[Zombo]

As long as they played the game, they have a right to critique it. What really matters is why they gave it a positive or negative review. I dont buy a game without reading a few reviews and watching recent gameplay videos

[YoWutSup]

would rather listen to someone that put 1000 hours into it instead of 10.

[Aria]

Outside of what other people have stated about how games can change (something I agree with), something I consider is what a review actually is: Steam wants to know if I recommend a game, not if I personally like it.

I wrote a review like the ones OP talks about. I had almost 400 hours on a game before giving a negative recommendation. The game in question is a game I absolutely enjoy and continue to play even though I wrote that negative recommendation a month or so ago. While I might love the game, that doesn't mean I'm going to recommend it to other people who haven't played for whatever various reasons.

It baffles me that people think just because you have a high amount of hours, you HAVE to positively recommend/mindlessly love a game. The people with high hours should be the ones best able to provide critique as they have the potential to write longer and more informative recommendations, which is the whole point of the system IMO. I can rack up hundreds of hours on something, but that doesn't mean I have to recommend it.