安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
I use 3rd party sites as those tend to be more accurate for game play.
For example:
https://howlongtobeat.com/
-Boost their weekplay playtime stats (sometimes ro even rack more hours than a week has)
-Get card drops from the games they bought.
-Get in-game rewards
Also the stat doesn't account for
-Replayability (If I play it twice I'll get twice the playtime)
-Completionism (Playing only main quest Vs getting all endings/achievements)
-Openworldness (Goofing around for ages without even making it to the end)
Which makes the playtime count a very unreliable stat to retrieve averages.
I mean I have almost 300 hours in Borderlands 2, more than 2.000 in TF2.
I always like to remember the average person has less than two legs.
Why have I never heard this before? I love it!
I'm going to start using that fact at work with people who constantly misunderstand the meaning of average numbers yet use them to justify decisions
Skyrim. I've left my char sitting on a cliff "hiding" for several days - a monster was seeing it, running around then forgetting/giving up, going back, seeing again and so on - that has boosted the "sneak" (or whatever the name) stat to the max.
Besides, that persons A and B put in 250 hours in a game, doesn't mean at all that you will too.
The only thing playtime really is important for, is for the refund policy.
I mean no it doesn't necessarily mean that but if I see a game that has 50 hours average playtime I will probably enjoy it even if I put just 25 hours in
Those are isolated cases and with a big enough dataset those outliers will not contribute much to the total average.
And what does your playstyle have to do with it? It's about the hours of content you get out of it. There are very few people that play games exclusively one way or the other
Games that have playernumbers above 5000 would probably yield at least useful results.
Maybe break it up into 5-10 hours 10-20 hours 20-50 hours idk. A player retention graph even?
When looking at games that fit your taste, I can imagine it could mean something. But in that case I know I'll enjoy the game for what it is and don't need the information what others did.
I can see a fit for average play times when deciding what game to play. But Steam playtime in no way is a measure for that for the already mentioned reasons. HLTB is "better" for that, as it displays 1 playthrough.
But perhaps I'm old fashioned.
People spending 50 hours does not mean you will enjoy even 5 minutes of the game. Game length does not equal enjoyment and never will.
A 2 hour game can be more enjoyable then a 20 hour one, even on the same price point. Just depends on what you may find enjoyable.
His point is that such things are inaccurate with many factors that can change it's accuracy. The site I posted would be far more trust worthy as to how long a game may take and even breaks it up into categories for you.
Player retention is only needed for multiplayer games and MMOs. You can see how many are playing in-game to get a good idea of the player base. Hours played isn't a way to determine that.