People who leave negative reviews after playing more than 100 hours on a game!

[Emmet]

I hate the way some people spend 300+ hours on a game and then have the balls to write a negative review!

I was looking at Conan exile, in the recent negative reviews, 100% of the players have more than 150 hours of gaming on it! There was even a guy who spent more than 3 000 hours on it and left a negative review!

Who dare they!? Seriously, the game kept you busy for so long, and you still leave a negative review!? I would never spend more than 2 hours playing a game I don't like, but some people sit in front of a game for 3 000 hours before deciding they don't like it!?!

the 50% positive reviews on Conan is the reason why I'm not buying it...

[[Lethalvriend]]

I think with many games these reviews tend to go negative because developers/publishers start treating a game differently after a while (i.e. microtransaction fiasco in PayDay 2 a few years ago). It could mean the game is fun but they still advise others to stay away because of their moral belief. As for Conan I have no clue.

[Wolverine]

As mentioned several times before... the rating is (or should be) about the game, and not about the time spend in it.
Not to mention, that games change over time, and that should also go into the review rating.
Or that some games have to be played for a good amount of hours, before you reach the really bad parts of it.

Let's say i spend several hundreds of hours in a game, but the devs/publisher of the game suddenly decide to mess the game up with an item shop, or they implement more and more "pay to win" features... why should i rate such games still positive?

Anyway, i "judge" a review by it's content, details and if the person behind it really put some personal thoughts into it. That means a whole lot more to me, then just some playtime counter.

Last but not least, what about many fake or "promoted" positive reviews with less then an hour gametime over 2 weeks? Do you "hate" those reviews too?

[Cassidy]

Last I heard, that game is Early Access, right? With these types of games I am not surprised that reviews are so mixed. Sometimes some things are promised but not delivered, or some things changed throughout the development that players did not like.

[Elstar]

It is also possible that a person wants to like a game but gets incresingly annoyed with the game until it reaches a breakingpoint, when the game is droped. I had that happen after about 100 hours in a game.

[Honey Badger]

Conan exile is just another ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ crafting-survival-open world game made with the free resources and unchanged code of a downloaded free game engine(looks like Unity, not sure) that stays in alpha forever and does not implement the promised changes. People buy these games in alpha hoping ♥♥♥♥ will change, but ♥♥♥♥ stays the same.

Sure the devs put a lot of hard work into it, but what are they expecting? Pity positive reviews? "4/5 At least they tried"

[Donna Pinciotti]

I have around 100 hours in one of the 'was' h1z1 games. I would rate it neg now cause it turned into garbage.

[RGX12]

Yeah, like Logan said, it's about the game not the hours spent. As long as they can lay it out, with cogent reasons why they're giving the thumbs down, then any reader can judge for him/herself just on those merits--without looking at the hours. Besides, who better to know a game's faults, than someone who's invested a sh!tload of time in it?

[sfnhltb]

1. Games change due to patches and balancing changes
2. Multiplayer games where the player base dries up after a while making the game more or less useless
3. Multiplayer games the official servers close making it a lackluster single player only game not worth anyones time
4. Multiplayer games that start to attract large amounts of cheats and hacks
5. Games that you liked but you think the vast majority of people wouldn't like
Etc.

[Emmet]

Not Recommended
0.0 hrs last two weeks / 66.1 hrs on record
Posted: 18 Oct @ 1:03pm

This game was boring short storyline the writing and game itself suck would not have bought if I didn't get it on sale for $9.99 and I still feel like I got ripped!

That's for alan wake. Might be ironic but still, negative review.




Not Recommended
0.0 hrs last two weeks / 113.6 hrs on record
Posted: 26 Feb, 2015 @ 3:06am

I bought this game for a coop experience, because I was promised one.

This doesn't seem like its ever going to happen.

Resident evil revelations




Not Recommended
0.0 hrs last two weeks / 97.4 hrs on record
Posted: 23 Dec, 2015 @ 9:14am

great combat game not tomb raider

where are the tombs? where is croft? where is croft manor? where is the sassiness? where is the ♥♥♥♥♥ness? where is the dual pistols? where is the acrobatics?

sorry this is call of duty: lara croft.

11/10

sums up the game:
feels sorry for lara, doesn't want to kill anyone, goes on a rampage for days killing 40, 000 lookalike men.

Tomb raider




I mentionned Conan, because I couldn't think of another game, but last time there was a solo game you'd finish in let's say 15 hours, and there was a negative review that had 80 hours and said "it gets boring after a while"

[Donna Pinciotti]

Well they've paid for the game so they are gonna play it. Same with a movie, I spent 15 to see a movie I'm gonna stick it out no matter how bad

[Noa.]

H1Z1 JUST SURVIVRE > 2 years after dead

[Tito Shivan]

Games can change a lot during their life cycle making even people with hundreds (or thousands) of hours on it to change their mind and stop recommending it.

TF2 added microtransactions and ultimately became Free to Play years after it's launch. Many people who didn't like the change already had clocked countless hours on it.

Payday 2 introduced Microtransactions with game affecting bonuses years after it's release. A lot of users who had been playing the game for many hours disliked the change.

Games are not inmutable entities and a lot can change within 100 hours of gameplay as to make someone change their mind and stop recommending it.

[Poppi !!]

A decent reviewer should be spending a fair amount of time playing a game before concluding whether it's a quality product or not. They need to be familiar with all the facets of the game that we would be scrutinizing.

[Messy]

lmbo yeah and then any less than that and you'll say they didnt play enough to review it.

nothing will ever be good enough.

[BossGalaga]

Originally posted by Emmet:

I hate the way some people spend 300+ hours on a game and then have the balls to write a negative review!

I was looking at Conan exile, in the recent negative reviews, 100% of the players have more than 150 hours of gaming on it! There was even a guy who spent more than 3 000 hours on it and left a negative review!

Who dare they!? Seriously, the game kept you busy for so long, and you still leave a negative review!? I would never spend more than 2 hours playing a game I don't like, but some people sit in front of a game for 3 000 hours before deciding they don't like it!?!

the 50% positive reviews on Conan is the reason why I'm not buying it...

So you complain about people leaving negative reviews on Conan Exile, then you give ZERO examples of these negative reviews from Conan Exile, you make ZERO argument against the content of the reviews themselves except for pointing out how long someone has played the game.

If anything, reviews by players with 300+ hours on a game would have MORE weight and veracity than players with less playtime.