Support NeoGAF

[GHG]

Yeah this review did not say it best. If it's not worth playing, why the fuck put in 178.3 hours??? Just stop fucking playing... my time is worth a whole hell of a lot more than 70$.

Ah so we're back to "how dare you spend so many hours with it and leave a bad review".

 

[EDMIX]

Ah so we're back to "how dare you spend so many hours with it and leave a bad review".

I hate when people think playing something for 100 hours is now some obligation to give some perfect score.

That merely means that game was serviceable.

That doesn't mean anyone playing for that long now has an ode to give a great review. I don't even get when folks get pissed at publications who covered the game for giving it low scores, previewing, being hype for the game and covering it doesn't mean they MUST give it a fucking perfect score, it in fact questions the integrity of any site to ONLY give perfect scores for games they cover before release.

It makes zero sense.

How the fuck is someone going to rate something they didn't play a good amount of? Its like you are screwed regardless with people like this. Play a it a little and give a bad score, well shit "you didn't play enough bro, HOW DARE YOU" Play it more then enough, like 100 plus hours and still feel its "meh" "OMFG just stop playing bro, if its REALLY not worth itz, then why you play cuh"? lol

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I need to see the fucking criteria for someone to give a review for this game lol

So far, even owning it isn't enough, playing it is not even enough, be like "ok, but did you pray to Todd? Do you have Fallout and or Elder Scrolls Tattoo? Doom tattoo will suffice since the Id purchase as our polices have changed" lol

 

[RGB'D]

Ah so we're back to "how dare you spend so many hours with it and leave a bad review".

If you want to put literally a straight week (168 hrs) of time into a "terrible" game, thats your own prerogative. But to act like that review made good points is an interesting decision

 

[RGB'D]

I hate when people think playing something for 100 hours is now some obligation to give some perfect score.

That merely means that game was serviceable.

That doesn't mean anyone playing for that long now has an ode to give a great review. I don't even get when folks get pissed at publications who covered the game for giving it low scores, previewing, being hype for the game and covering it doesn't mean they MUST give it a fucking perfect score, it in fact questions the integrity of any site to ONLY give perfect scores for games they cover before release.

It makes zero sense.

How the fuck is someone going to rate something they didn't play a good amount of? Its like you are screwed regardless with people like this. Play a it a little and give a bad score, well shit "you didn't play enough bro, HOW DARE YOU" Play it more then enough, like 100 plus hours and still feel its "meh" "OMFG just stop playing bro, if its REALLY not worth itz, then why you play cuh"? lol

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I need to see the fucking criteria for someone to give a review for this game lol

So far, even owning it isn't enough, playing it is not even enough, be like "ok, but did you pray to Todd? Do you have Fallout and or Elder Scrolls Tattoo? Doom tattoo will suffice since the Id purchase as our polices have changed" lol

Cool. Well nice straw man argument here making some fantastic points about things that I never said.

It's not like they played 40 hours... they played 178 hours and then spouted like the game was the worst thing ever and had nothing redeeming. Reviews are an opinion of measuring value... time spent doing something is an objective measure of the value ascribed. You can certainly have complaints about it at that time, but since you put in 178 hrs... there had to be some value

 

[EDMIX]

If you want to put literally a straight week (168 hrs) of time into a "terrible" game

yea man, just stop with this fucking narrative man, if the person is playing the game, clearly they are a fan of games and want something from the game, the issues they are coming across that week should be noted and playing something beyond 100 hours doesn't mean you feel its a 10/10, that is beyond absurd and forces this idea that ONLY gamers giving a perfect score are gaming beyond 100 hours and any issue should be ignored if they played over 100 hours

But to act like that review made good points is an interesting decision

Nah, from what I read they made some solid points. Game breaking bug that stops them from 3 quest, a dated engine that hurts the title in regards to what it could have been for performance and quality of life features, numerous crashes to the point of recommending saving every 5 minutes

and last them having mods so earlier, when someone is having this many issues with the title, of course they are going to feel that the mod support happening like this was to correct issues Bethesda knew existed out of the gate.

Anyone playing this game for 170 plus hours, has an intent to find some enjoyment in the game, they clearly like the setting, genre or something to be playing it to really then be attacking and dismissing what they are saying merely cause they played it for a week straight.

Holy shit man, wasn't the last fucking excuse they didn't play enough of it? We had a whole thread debating reviewers who didn't complete games to question their review, but shit we fucking are now questioning even reviews of those who played it most too?

lol nahh, I think you are just fucking mad that people playing it that had more then enough time are making these statements and its really fucking hard to jump to that easy default "derrr day didn't play it" argument.

now suddenly they played too much.

Stop man.

Get over it.

Someone doesn't like a game they played a lot of in terms of thinking its a 10-10, its not that big of a deal. Many of us on here feel that way about a lot of games...

 

[EDMIX]

time spent doing something is an objective measure

That doesn't tell anyone if they liked the time they spent playing the game.

I mean..nice fucking try, but that isn't how many of us see time regarding games.

Someone can spend 100 hours in a game and its their favorite game of all time.

Someone can spend 100 hours in another game and its merely "meh" or "could have been better" or 6/10 or 7/10.

Where you fucking got that spending that much time in a game by default now means some magical perfection is beyond me lol

So the value to them wasn't 10-10 bud, it wasn't enough to be recommended and their points are solid.

Dated engine
Game breaking bugs that stop quest
Numerous crashes
Mods put in the game early to have modders correct bugs the team knew would be there

All this means is they spent that time trying to like it, trying to overlook those issues and trying to enjoy the game but crashes, bugs and other issues continued to get in the way.

So...sorry bud, their 170 plus hours in this game give them a lot of weight regarding the validity of those issues and imho...that is your issue with them. They can't be dismissed with the obvious argument thats been copy and pasted about as someone that didn't play it or didn't play enough.

Now playing enough of it and disliking it is also bad lol

 

[systemr123]

But they have been under new management! Xbox loves to give us bugged games like halo and they fix them eventually, right?
I prefer being optimistic and if there is no upgrades there is a lot of great games to play. Their loss.

Don’t forget the massive improvements Redfall will get! Did they already release a 60fps patch by now? You know, the fps mentioned on the box in the stores lol

 

[digoutyoursoul]

Deleted it , just can’t get into it at all , I love space/sci fi stuff, this is dull, from the writing/characters , the jank, to its archaic design choices. I wish Microsoft had bought BioWare all those years ago before EA instead of shite like this.

If this is the start of a first party upsurge going forward as they are stating then I have little confidence.

 

[SirKicksalot]

we fucking are now questioning even reviews of those who played it most too?

lol nahh, I think you are just fucking mad that people playing it that had more then enough time are making these statements and its really fucking hard to jump to that easy default "derrr day didn't play it" argument.

now suddenly they played too much.

Well yes, I think people who play 170 hours kn three weeks have a broken value system and wrong priorities in life and I don't trust their opinions on anything.
I played it for 62 hours, I consider myself addicted and it fucked with my sleep schedule. I'm actually kind of glad the new patch broke my two mods and it was easier to step away.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Cool. Well nice straw man argument here making some fantastic points about things that I never said.

It's not like they played 40 hours... they played 178 hours and then spouted like the game was the worst thing ever and had nothing redeeming. Reviews are an opinion of measuring value... time spent doing something is an objective measure of the value ascribed. You can certainly have complaints about it at that time, but since you put in 178 hrs... there had to be some value

If someone rates a game highly only because you spent hours on it, after paying $70 and trying to justify your purchase, that is a perfect example of Stockholm syndrome.

 

[StereoVsn]

But they have been under new management! Xbox loves to give us bugged games like halo and they fix them eventually, right?
I prefer being optimistic and if there is no upgrades there is a lot of great games to play. Their loss.

Bethesda spending time and effort to fix bugs. You just need a new PC - Todd Howard.

 

[Topher]

Well yes, I think people who play 170 hours kn three weeks have a broken value system and wrong priorities in life and I don't trust their opinions on anything.

 

[EDMIX]

Well yes, I think people who play 170 hours kn three weeks have a broken value system and wrong priorities in life and I don't trust their opinions on anything.

I don't care about their personal lives bud, I care that they spent 170 hours in a game, thus would have knowledge about its isseus.

That is more then enough to understand that review.

 

[TheSHEEEP]

That doesn't tell anyone if they liked the time they spent playing the game.

Of course it does.

Nobody sane spends 178 hours on a game they didn't enjoy playing - unless it's some kind of job, and if it is, they'll mention that.
And if they aren't sane, then their opinion can and should be disregarded recommendation-wise anyway.

Now, there are some fringe cases, of course.
Like someone enjoying most of their time, but then the ending ruined it for them or some changes were made by the dev that ruined it for them, etc.

But to play that long and then not recommend it to anyone claiming there's nothing good about it (and never was)... that's just pure idiocy.

 

[EDMIX]

If someone rates a game highly only because you spent hours on it, after paying $70 and trying to justify your purchase, that is a perfect example of Stockholm syndrome.

lol I'm saying!

I'll be hype for a game as many of you know, buy it day 1...play it for a week or 2 and give my view.

Some times its great and I loved what I played, some times its like "how the fuck?" lol

I had many games that I got day 1, thought I was like, finished and my review was 6/10 or 8/10 or 5/10 lol

Days Gone
Red Dead Redemption 2
Cyberpunk 2077

etc

Me buying something day 1, spending 70 or even 100 hours in the game, doesn't mean I'll come on here and be like "GOTY" lol Nah, I'll give my view on what I played and sometimes it was just ok, meh, could have been better, i couldn't ignore all the issues etc. So I can't rate everything I play PERFECT (Street Fighter voice) as it doesn't fucking make sense.

Often I'll keep playing cause I like the story or want to see the end of the story or I feel the combat is good or something can get better etc, but none of those things mean by default 10/10.

So sometimes I spent 100 hours and its GOTY, some times I spent 100 hours and its a 7/10.

TheSHEEEP "Nobody sane spends 178 hours on a game they didn't enjoy playing" They may have not enjoyed it to a degree to recommend...

Everything that I enjoy, doesn't mean is enough to justify the price, the issues and other problems with a title.

 

[Lucifers Beard]

I’m surprised that it’s sitting at 71%. The game is painfully dull and just about average at anything it does. It’s just not an interesting game to play at all. Boring travel, boring space exploration (if you can even call it that), shit NPCs and boring conversations, dull story, decent shooting that is stripped of its fun by bullet sponge enemies.

After their last few games, I’m struggling to see how ESVI will end up good.

 

[EDMIX]

I’m surprised that it’s sitting at 71%. The game is painfully dull and just about average at anything it does. It’s just not an interesting game to play at all. Boring travel, boring space exploration (if you can even call it that), shit NPCs and boring conversations, dull story, decent shooting that is stripped of its fun by bullet sponge enemies.

After their last few games, I’m struggling to see how ESVI will end up good.

Knowing that Elder Scrolls is their baby, I haven't really worried about it....

Till now.

To launch a new IP with an engine like this, makes me question a lot of their choices as I was one of those that accepted them using the same engine, that was until I played it myself. Its painfully clear this should have never been made on this engine and its time for them to move on.

We will see these same excuses when Elder Scrolls VI releases.

be like "mods save us" lol

 

[TheSHEEEP]

"Nobody sane spends 178 hours on a game they didn't enjoy playing" They may have not enjoyed it to a degree to recommend...

That's a problem with Steam's score system. Most people get that it's meant to be thumbs up for "it's really good" or thumbs down for "it's really bad".
It's not meant to be to be thumbs up for "I say this is 80%+" (just as an example) and thumbs down for every other case.
Thumbs down is generally accepted to mean "bad game", not anything from "terrible shit" to "barely not enough for a thumbs up".
You are supposed to write a recommendation FOR or AGAINST a game if you feel strongly about it - which is what most people do anyway, because most wouldn't bother writing one at all if they had no strong feelings about it.

Honestly, there should just be a "meh" option. Which wouldn't really have to influence the calculated score, but you can still read the "meh" reviews to form an opinion.
Often, I would give a game neither a thumbs up nor down, but would still like to share my opinion on it in the review section.

Everything that I enjoy, doesn't mean is enough to justify the price, the issues and other problems with a title.

Then you'd mention that in the review.
We are talking about a case here where someone tore the game to pieces without mentioning anything like "not for the price" or "good, except X ruined it for me".

 

[RGB'D]

If someone rates a game highly only because you spent hours on it, after paying $70 and trying to justify your purchase, that is a perfect example of Stockholm syndrome.

Reading comprehension? Saying time spent is an objective measurement isn't saying that that that is the only reason someone rates a game highly. It is an objective measurement. It isn't the ONLY or even a great value measurement. But it isn't meaningless either.


Also it's not like playing a game for a decent amount of time is the same as literally devoting a full week of time in the past 3 weeks. If anyone has Stockholm syndrome it's that reviewer. They abhor starfield but they just can't stop coming back for more.

 

[EDMIX]

That's a problem with Steam's score system. Most people get that it's meant to be thumbs up for "it's really good" or thumbs down for "it's really bad".

Ok, but you can still read (i hope so anyway lol)

You merely read the context of why they recommend or not. Maybe its really good, maybe its GOTY good, maybe its meh, maybe its really bad, maybe its the worst....what they say that written will provide context.

You are supposed to write a recommendation FOR or AGAINST a game if you feel strongly about it

They feel strongly that it needs work lol

Honestly, there should just be a "meh" option

Maybe, but I think its good for gamers to just read what stated and come to their own point about the game vs some other option. (keep in mind I'm not against it)

A "Meh" option can still have someone write why they feel its "meh" or something lol

Then you'd mention that in the review.
We are talking about a case here where someone tore the game to pieces without mentioning anything like "not for the price"

Well..not really, the person literally states "content is not worth the insane pricetag"

RGB'D "Saying time spent is an objective measurement " smh. No one here is debating factually they spent time on the game.

So....I don't get this whole "objective measurement" thing as that isn't saying if they like it or not or even HOW much they might like it or how much they might hate it.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

Don’t forget the massive improvements Redfall will get! Did they already release a 60fps patch by now? You know, the fps mentioned on the box in the stores lol

I laughted with everybody on the Redfall review thread about it. We got a few threads about it a few weeks ago. Each day without this patch is another day of shame for Arkane and by extension Microsoft. Worse than the 60 fps is the people that had taken the bite back edition. Still waiting for the extra content promised. Some shills wanted Microsoft to refund those people because it would be easier to do than what they had promised. Can't get more stupid than that that IMHO. Still, I prefer to see a game team fix their game, allow it to get to it's full potential than to let it rot, like it happened to Anthem.

Bethesda spending time and effort to fix bugs. You just need a new PC - Todd Howard.

A man can dream. The game have more chances to go under 70 than for that to happen, I know. But I prefer to be optimistic.

 

[twilo99]

I’m surprised that it’s sitting at 71%. The game is painfully dull and just about average at anything it does. It’s just not an interesting game to play at all. Boring travel, boring space exploration (if you can even call it that), shit NPCs and boring conversations, dull story, decent shooting that is stripped of its fun by bullet sponge enemies.

After their last few games, I’m struggling to see how ESVI will end up good.

Deserves to be in the 50% range ..

 

[GHG]

Deserves to be in the 50% range ..

Ass of Can Whooping

You still have work to do.

 

[M1chl]

I am still salty that you mofos forced me to buy early access and I could put 900CZK else where, not that I am poor, but I hate to throw money out of the window. Its bad, like straight up 4/10, maybe even 3, like look, I don't like it and I loved F4, so I am salty.

The fucking Outer Worlds is great game in comparison and I didn't like that game much either. And it had better atmosphere. This game reviews so far, its just on hype alone, since its Bethesda RPG after like a 100 years. Scores will drop like flies in the future. Only good thing about this game is physics of the objects, but its "good" because game makes zero use of that.

And I just started Phantom Liberty and someone has to explain to me, how billion dollar company, with trillion dollar company backing gets absolutely obliterated by someone from post-Bolshevik country. Fucking Cyberpunk 1.0 on Xbox One was more fun that this trash. Western games really has no soul anymore, its so bland and it makes me feel depressed, fuck Starfield.

 

[TheSHEEEP]

Ok, but you can still read (i hope so anyway lol)

You merely read the context of why they recommend or not. Maybe its really good, maybe its GOTY good, maybe its meh, maybe its really bad, maybe its the worst....what they say that written will provide context.

Sure, but the problem is that in the end, the recommendations end up to form a score.
And that score serves as a hard barrier for decisions for many (most likely the vast majority of) people. Not only purchase decision, but decision to even look at the reviews.
"Is the score not green? Skip" - which you can find good or bad or anything, but it is what it is.

So if most people agreed something is not a great or very good game and would thus "not recommend" it, it would end up with a score like 30% or something, even if realistically it would be more of a ~60-70% thing.

Well..not really, the person literally states "content is not worth the insane pricetag"

What?!
I cannot read, after all!

 

[Topher]

Amazes me that the game still has not received the update for DLSS, FOV, etc. Been two weeks since Bethesda announced this shit that should have been there day one. So yeah, Steam reviews are accurate as always.

Why can't Microsoft seem to get out of their own damn way?

 

[The Alien]

Lot of triggered babies on here gleefully celebrating while stalking a sliding MetaCritic score (likely bombed by same people who can't play it).

Celebrate!!! Yay!!!

 

[GHG]

If you want to put literally a straight week (168 hrs) of time into a "terrible" game, thats your own prerogative. But to act like that review made good points is an interesting decision

There are plenty of psychological reasons why a person might continue to play a game that they don't really enjoy (sometimes this can happen without the realisation that they aren't enjoying said activity until after some reflection - this phenomenon is common with modern day hamster wheel GAAS titles).

Never heard of sunk cost fallacy?

The attitude you're displaying is typical of what EDMIX alluded to. Apparently there's now this review checklist that seems to only apply for Starfield negative (more on this later) reviews. "you didn't play long enough", "you played too much, you must be lying and actually like it", "ignore the story", "no don't play it like this", "no don't fast travel like that", "no only touch Sarah's bum like this", "but did you play until NG+5?".

Seriously, you can't force people who don't like it to like it and those who dislike it are entitled to their opinion no matter how few or many hours they played the game for.

And finally, where's all this scrutiny for the reviews with positive ratings on Steam? Is this recent incoherent positive review with 1.1 hours of playtime more qualified than a negative one with over 100 hours of playtime? :

Lot of triggered babies on here gleefully celebrating while stalking a sliding MetaCritic score (likely bombed by same people who can't play it).

Celebrate!!! Yay!!!

Take a deep breath and then try reading the thread title and OP again. Keep reading until it sinks in.

 

[Three]

If you want to put literally a straight week (168 hrs) of time into a "terrible" game, thats your own prerogative. But to act like that review made good points is an interesting decision

TIL ITT

Play a game for a few hours: you have no right to review a game badly because you haven't played it enough

Play a game for a straight week: you have no right to review a game badly because you've played it too much.

 

[Bernardougf]

This game was never going to leave up to the hype ... specially after becoming the savior of Xbox brand because of "reasons" since it was always gonna be there anyway.

Time for the next exclusive COD game to became the savior of xbox brand, whenever xbox choose to say fuck it to contracts and regulators and work around them to make this happen.

 

[Topher]

Lot of triggered babies

 

[Bernardougf]

There are plenty of psychological reasons why a person might continue to play a game that they don't really enjoy (sometimes this can happen without the realisation that they aren't enjoying said activity until after some reflection - this phenomenon is common with modern day hamster wheel GAAS titles).

Never heard of sunk cost fallacy?

The attitude you're displaying is typical of what EDMIX alluded to. Apparently there's now this review checklist that seems to only apply for Starfield negative (more on this later) reviews. "you didn't play long enough", "you played too much, you must be lying and actually like it", "ignore the story", "no don't play it like this", "no don't fast travel like that", "no only touch Sarah's bum like this", "but did you play until NG+5?".

Seriously, you can't force people who don't like it to like it and those who dislike it are entitled to their opinion no matter how few or many hours they played the game for.

And finally, where's all this scrutiny for the reviews with positive ratings on Steam? Is this recent incoherent positive review with 1.1 hours of playtime more qualified than a negative one with over 100 hours of playtime? :

Take a deep breath and then try reading the thread title and OP again. Keep reading until it sinks in.

I despise Elden Ring with all my passion... but finished the game 04 times, got the platinum and hundred+ hours... still it is the worst souls game by a mile and Ill never play again, 7/10 game 2/10 souls game

Why ? Because I love and respect the work of From and Miyazaki to just not play it to completion before deciding and judging.

 

[GHG]

Sure, but the problem is that in the end, the recommendations end up to form a score.
And that score serves as a hard barrier for decisions for many (most likely the vast majority of) people. Not only purchase decision, but decision to even look at the reviews.
"Is the score not green? Skip" - which you can find good or bad or anything, but it is what it is.

So if most people agreed something is not a great or very good game and would thus "not recommend" it, it would end up with a score like 30% or something, even if realistically it would be more of a ~60-70% thing.



What?!
I cannot read, after all!

Steam reviews are simplified so it works like this:

Thumbs up - I recommend you also purchase this

Thumbs down - I can't recommend you purchase this

And from there you will need to read reviews on an individual basis to get nuance. It's the same with any reviews, if you think you won't be bothered by the things that people are repeatedly pointing out as "negatives" then feel free to dismiss them and go ahead and make the purchase.

Rotten tomatoes reviews work in a similar way.

 

[Nonehxc]

Ass of Can Whooping

You still have work to do.

Can't. He's now upper echelon.

No more a Digital Marketplace Review Bomber, he climbed the ranks...

To become a Global Financial Terrorist in the name of AI-llah.

 

[TheSHEEEP]

And finally, where's all this scrutiny for the reviews with positive ratings on Steam? Is this recent incoherent positive review with 1.1 hours of playtime more qualified than a negative one with over 100 hours of playtime? :

Depends.
A negative review after 1h complaining about a game that just straight doesn't work is perfectly fine.
A 1h review complaining about stuff that nobody could determine after 1h of playing is not.

Developers should IMO be able to simply flag reviews for removal or not-counting-for-the-score that are nonsensical - with Valve then confirming if that flagging was appropriate or not.
Might as well do something for that insane 30% cut they get.

This game was never going to leave up to the hype ...

True.
Especially not with lots of games that exist right now doing whatever it does, but better, and partly a lot cheaper, too.

 

[GHG]

Depends.
A negative review after 1h complaining about a game that just straight doesn't work is perfectly fine.
A 1h review complaining about stuff that nobody could determine after 1h of playing is not.

The point of comparison I was making was the 100+ hours negative review vs the 1 hour positive review.

The reason being, I've not once seen anybody complain about the low hour positive reviews in this thread.

Someone who has spent 100+ hours with the game is far more qualified to provide an opinion than someone who has only spent an hour with it. The latter doesn't get criticised because they gave it a thumbs up while the former will get criticism due to giving a thumbs down. Make it make sense.

When games get review bombed or there is atypical activity going on with a title (for example a high proportion of people purchasing for the purpose of leaving a negative review within the refund period) then it's flagged and the appropriate warnings/flags are given to the reviews and overall review score.

The system works as intended.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I'm going to join the conversation by adding that Starfield is to Bethesda what Cyberpunk 2077 is to CD Projekt Red.

Both companies coming off very successful sequels and trying to create a new game from ground up using tools and engines design for their previously developed games.
A lot of development time and money was probably just spent on storyline, artwork, game design, and just creating a vision for a new AAA game series to an actual releasable product.

In my opinion, both companies failed at their goals, but it's understandable why.
The Witcher 3 took two prequels before it became the great game that it is and Skyrim was also a sequel that heavily benefited from its prequels.

My point is, Bethesda can now look at what worked (and what didn't) with Starfield and release a much better and polished sequel in the future, same with CD Projekt Red and Cyberpunk sequels.

I think we can look forward to revisiting this conversation in 10 years when their next game releases.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Ass of Can Whooping

You still have work to do.

 

[Edmund]

I wish Microsoft had bought BioWare all those years ago before EA instead of shite like this.

I wish MS invested in their studios instead of buying any developers and publishers.

 

[TheSHEEEP]

Steam reviews are simplified so it works like this:

Thumbs up - I recommend you also purchase this

Thumbs down - I can't recommend you purchase this

There is really more to it. And more that results from it.

Just think about it. When do you thumb something down? When it is really bad? Or when it is just not that good?
Up is good, down is bad, that's what it really comes down to. But there is also the middle thumb (and any angle in-between).

As Valve/Steam itself interprets it, they aggregate those recommendations to result in a game review rating like "very positive", etc.
They very much DON'T say "50% recommend this game". They literally say "mixed reviews" - a recommendation and a review are not the same thing, though.
One is deeply personal, the other can strive for a higher measure of objectivity and detail.
Steam makes people give recommendations (or not), mandatory, and also write a review (optional, or at least you can keep it very short), and then in the end combine it into a review score.

Which ends up rather weirdly with games that might be fine to have super low rating or games that are also not that great to have super high ratings. Which in turn is really bad for developers (and gamers that might be missing out).
It's a problematic system no matter how you look at it.
Which is why I wish Steam would move away from that oversimplified system and demand more from people who want to leave a review. If that would result in less but better reviews, awesome!
But hell, as I said, just adding one more option (the middle ground) would be a major improvement.

The reason being, I've not once seen anybody complain about the low hour positive reviews in this thread.

Someone who has spent 100+ hours with the game is far more qualified to provide an opinion than someone who has only spent an hour with it. The latter doesn't get criticised because they gave it a thumbs up while the former will get criticism due to giving a thumbs down. Make it make sense.

That's not really the topic here, which is why you don't see it that much.
I don't think anyone would say that 1h positive reviews are better or more qualified than 1h negative ones. I'd even say it is the opposite!

The only argument I could see is that an unqualified positive review does not unjustifyably damage the developer.
It's not that harmful, therefore people don't get that upset about it?
Plus, negativity simply attracts more attention than positivity, that's just human nature.

But yeah, both are generally bad.

 

[Mephisto40]

So are we calling the people that can only afford to buy new games once a year idiots now for playing the game they bought and not liking it?

 

[TheSHEEEP]

So are we calling the people that can only afford to buy new games once a year idiots now for playing the game they bought and not liking it?

Yes.

If you can only afford to buy one game per year, you should do better research before your purchase. And you should never, ever make first day purchases or preorders.
If you have that little money and throw it away like that, you are an idiot.
I will call anyone who acts like that an idiot. Gladly and with emphasis.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Reading comprehension? Saying time spent is an objective measurement isn't saying that that that is the only reason someone rates a game highly. It is an objective measurement. It isn't the ONLY or even a great value measurement. But it isn't meaningless either.


Also it's not like playing a game for a decent amount of time is the same as literally devoting a full week of time in the past 3 weeks. If anyone has Stockholm syndrome it's that reviewer. They abhor starfield but they just can't stop coming back for more.

If people pay $70 for a game, most of them will spend time in it. What else would they do if they exhaust their gaming budget on a game and can't buy other things? It is no necessary that they will like the game even after spending 100 hours in it.

 

[Mephisto40]

Yes.

If you can only afford to buy one game per year, you should do better research before your purchase. And you should never, ever make first day purchases or preorders.
If you have that little money and throw it away like that, you are an idiot.
I will call anyone who acts like that an idiot. Gladly and with emphasis.

Wow

 

[Heisenberg007]

Wow

"I WILL CRITICIZE POOR PEOPLE FOR BEING POOR JUST SO I CAN DEFEND MY FAVORITE COMPANY!"

 

[brian0057]

Hot take:
It's totally Ok to just play a game for a couple of hours and review it.
Miss me with that "It gets good after xx hours trust me" coping BS. If it sucks, it sucks.

 

[roxya]

I am still salty that you mofos forced me to buy early access and I could put 900CZK else where, not that I am poor, but I hate to throw money out of the window.

You hate to throw money out the window yet you decided to pay for 5 days of early access? Weird

 

[TheSHEEEP]

I WILL CRITICIZE POOR PEOPLE FOR BEING POOR JUST SO I CAN DEFEND MY FAVORITE COMPANY!

Poor people can be idiots, just like anyone else. That's a factual statement.
It is fine to call an idiot an idiot, no matter what amount of money they have.

Interesting that you seem to think that people must be poor because they are idiots?
Not even I would say that and I'm elitist af.

And I'm the last person to defend Bethesda. They develop mediocre game after mediocre game and people keep gobbling that stuff up.

 

[Topher]

Yes.

If you can only afford to buy one game per year, you should do better research before your purchase. And you should never, ever make first day purchases or preorders.
If you have that little money and throw it away like that, you are an idiot.
I will call anyone who acts like that an idiot. Gladly and with emphasis.

That's absurd. Someone can do all the research in the world and still not like a game they bought. And with a game like Starfield, where critics are giving the game scores ranging from 40 to 100, what good is that research again? At some point people have to decide for themselves, research be damned. If they make that decision to buy the game and end up not liking it then that doesn't make them an idiot.

 

[Klayzer]

That's absurd. Someone can do all the research in the world and still not like a game they bought. And with a game like Starfield, where critics are giving the game scores ranging from 40 to 100, what good is that research again? At some point people have to decide for themselves, research be damned. If they make that decision to buy the game and end up not liking it then that doesn't make them an idiot.

These Starfield takes are really something to behold. It's facinating.