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
7 
举报此帖
Should be Median or Mode or whatever? That would solve this.
I have over 2000 hours in Killing Floor, and for most of that I loved the game, but then TWI started making questionable updates, then bad updates, and then real ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ bad updates that ended up ruining the game for me...hence my thumbs down.
I have a good amount of time in Dying Light the Beast despite many issues ( and poor design choices). But because Techland has not addressed those issues, I gave it a bad rating.
If in the future Techland gets their heads from their asses and fixes the game, then I may change my rating, but given that many of these issues were in DL2, and never fixed, I'm not holding my breath.
So what is the holy number of hours you must have for a negative review to be acceptable?
thus negative review after many hours is still credible
Star Wars Galaxies comes to mind. Game was great before its combat upgrade and NGE changes
It FULLY earned its negative review. And then some.
The TL;DR? Lots of hours can mean many things that don’t necessarily=good.
For the non-TL;DR, let me give you a ton of examples.
For instance (for single player-or mostly single player (offline) games):
-Achievement hunting for that perfect 100%-even if you stopped having fun a long time ago (either because a game is simply too long and much of the content is nonrewarding/has too many collectibles in hard to reach/find places/achievements are dependent on RNG/highest difficulty is too punishing, etc)
-DLCs that added nothing good to the basegame but artificially inflate the playtime/achievements needed for 100% (and you almost always have to play extra money for them)
-Balance changes/content changes/removal of content that ruins the game for some people (rarer in single-player games than in multiplayer ones, but it happens-look at the recent disaster with Wuchang: Fallen Feathers)
-Sunken cost fallacy (mostly regarding time already spent on a game for single-player games-but can also be said for the amount of money you spent on a game-particularly if you bought a AAA game for the full $50-$70-ish price day one).
-Devs, or more often, publishing companies/corporations can pull a super slimy move out of nowhere that leaves you feeling disgusted about having ever given them any of your money or time in the first place (Looking at you, EA-not the only current example-Nintendo and Krafton also aren’t exactly looking great rn) but the most shameless and completely inexcusable one atm is EA IMO). Playtime doesn’t matter in these cases.
-Early access games (or 1.0 games that SHOULD have launched as Early Access titles) can be abandoned/left in a poor state with no warning. If the content that people are left with feels inherently unfinished, people will often leave a bad review even if they’ve had fun with the game up to a point because they feel cheated out of the full game that the dev promised.
For multiplayer or singleplayer (mostly online) games:
-All of the above, but many are designed to be “forever games” with neverending new content (and they often have constant FOMO tactics that keep people playing even when they aren’t having fun atm). Sometimes devs majorly drop the ball with new content/balance changes/“QOL” changes-and that triggers a negative review.
-Some people get genuinely addicted to live service games (even if they are having the opposite of fun playing them) and when they finally “see the light” and quit-a negative review often follows.
-Unrewarding/repetitive “dailies” (can occur in a handful of largely offline single-player games too, but far more common in multiplayer games or free online singleplayer games) these also artificially inflate playtime with little in the way of enjoyable or rewarding content.
-If you play with friends-you might keep playing a game you don’t really enjoy because your friend group wants to keep playing it.
-For so many of these “live service” games you spend about as much time downloading in-game patches/waiting for matches (if the game is PVP) as you do actually playing the game-which-again, artificially inflates playtime.
-Games can literally become unplayable-this can happen to offline games after updates too, but is rarely a permanent problem. Meanwhile, updates to anti-cheat software or other changes regularly make online/multiplayer games unable to be accessed on certain systems-which can become a permanent inaccessibility. Service can also be abruptly dropped entirely rendering a game quite literally inaccessible/dead. If this is communicated poorly (or not at all)-regardless of the hours people have spent in a game, they’re likely to leave a negative review for it.
This is also true, but I don’t see why anyone would “idle” a game for over 100 hours if they disliked it (unless by pure accident). “Idling” long enough for the trading cards to be dropped (and sold), sure. “Idling” just so “number go up” on a game you don’t like makes no sense to me though.
*I put “idling” in quotes since the method you speak of isn’t true idling.
After 100 Hours they decided it was a negative experience for them and decided not to review it positively.
I stopped playing World of Warcraft despite numerous hours played. I abandoned some of the expansions (Cataclysm, Mists, Warlords) and the last one i played was Legion. I rate the overall experience negatively.