People who leave negative Steam reviews despite playing for 50 hours.

[Holding These Alligators Down]

The game sucked yet they played it for 50 hours.
I can usually tell if i don't like a game in less than 2 hours, sometimes less than 10 minutes.
Just looking at reviews for a game called Moonlighter, i think it's pretty neat and there's a review from someone saying "Not worth $20"....dude you played it for 50 hours, i think that's a pretty good return on your purchase.

[mimizukari]

If a game is constantly updated, then an update later on down the road can easily be worth changing pos to neg. For me, that example is Rust. Early rust was great, but current rust is total ♥♥♥♥ imo.

[Sixtyfivekills]

I gave DMC 3 a negative review after 100+ hours. Why? Because I wouldn't recommend it to anyone besides hardcore fans due to the fact that you have to seriously tweak the game in order to make it run good. It's one of the worst ports of all time, and even though there are fixes, I shouldn't do something like that.


Or, you'll see lots of users with 1k+ hours on some multi-player game with negative reviews because game either got worse, or it's dead.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

I sometimes leave games running and just leave for hours.

[Christian]

I don't pay attention unless the reviews are less than mixed, then I read them.

[rept]

I played Fallout 4 for like 500 hours and gave it a negative review because I can't legitimately recommend the game to people.

[Holding These Alligators Down]

Originally posted by Vince:

I don't pay attention unless the reviews are less than mixed, then I read them.

Same here, i just find it funny when people hate the game yet they played it for a long time.
I can't really talk i suppose, i've put probably 100 hours in to Destiny 2 yet all that game does is disappoint me.

[Cleverhardy (She/Her)]

There may be people who want to review games fairly, so they examine the game with a critics eye, finding both the pros and cons of the game in question. That may explain the 50 hours; reviewing properly is a hard thing to do.

[Danksama]

I don't care about the time spent unless it's too low to get an accurate idea of the game (at least at an early point) e.g. 3-5 hrs

[Christian]

Originally posted by Danksama:

I don't care about the time spent unless it's too low to get an accurate idea of the game (at least at an early point) e.g. 3-5 hrs

this is a major factor yes indeed!

[Canny McTin-Face]

I see people with 2000 hours on TF2 and giving it a bad review, like what the ♥♥♥♥

[Azza ☠]

My negative review for Dota 2 after approx 6000 hours...

"Dang game is addictive, requires good team play!

EDIT: Game has now gone downhill to custard, with trolls/feeders and smurf accounts in ranked matches. Legit players aren't rewarded and toxic ones just keep on cycling without any stop."

Comes down to stupid/lame updates, corrupted greedy developers ignoring constructive feedback, and toxic communities exploiting it. A game can change over time, I guess they don't care to manage it anymore or just let it get out of hand and can't control it anymore. Plus who would pay monthly for Dota Plus, for something you can get for free anyways and just caused more issues/bugs to those paying customers...

[Merry Mλrcy]

Games can go downhill.


Example being Team Fortress 2.

[mimizukari]

Originally posted by Sixtyfivekills:

I gave DMC 3 a negative review after 100+ hours. Why? Because I wouldn't recommend it to anyone besides hardcore fans due to the fact that you have to seriously tweak the game in order to make it run good. It's one of the worst ports of all time, and even though there are fixes, I shouldn't do something like that.


Or, you'll see lots of users with 1k+ hours on some multi-player game with negative reviews because game either got worse, or it's dead.

if it works with tweaks then it's still recommendable.

Originally posted by Azza ☠:

My negative review for Dota 2 after approx 6000 hours...

"Dang game is addictive, requires good team play!

EDIT: Game has now gone downhill to custard, with trolls/feeders and smurf accounts in ranked matches. Legit players aren't rewarded and toxic ones just keep on cycling without any stop."

Comes down to stupid/lame updates, corrupted greedy developers ignoring constructive feedback, and toxic communities exploiting it. A game can change over time, I guess they don't care to manage it anymore or just let it get out of hand and can't control it anymore. Plus who would pay monthly for Dota Plus, for something you can get for free anyways and just caused more issues/bugs to those paying customers...

the game has always had toxic players, the game itself is still as flawless as ever, and getting better by the day, and bi-weekly.

see my review which has always been positive on my profile (or https://steamcommunity.com/id/Kurugaya/recommended/570 ) and Dota plus is one of the main reasons I recommend it today!

[wookiecharmander]

Let's see if you liked the game our going to keep enjoying it and be on your way but if you hate it your going to rush to the reviews to bash on the product. The review system is totally flawed l

[Holding These Alligators Down]

Originally posted by Mattmoo:

So you would put greater trust in a review of someone who played it for 2 hours, in all cases? I mean that's the rule, you can give positive reviews with lots of hours but negative ones should have less than 5? Seems like palpable nonsense.

What i mean is if a game sucks i'm not going to play it for more than a few hours.
There are exceptions i finished Assassins Creed 3 despite it being horrible but i usually like to decide if i like a game or not within 2 hours so i can get a refund.