Just Because You Play A Game For 100 Hours Doesn't Mean It's Good

Does putting 100 hours into a game invalidate your negative review?

[Sciurus_vulgaris]

If the game isn’t good by your standards, then why would you play it for 100 hrs ?

[ChasterMies]

That’s what the entire audience of Destiny asks themselves every day.

[Cacabunga]

Means you aren’t clever.. playing a game tout done like for 100 hours is stupid in my eyes

[Demetrius]

Lmao

[dumahim]

"Just keep going. NG+ is where the fun is at!"

[SyntheticForm]

I guess it would be "good" for the person who played it.

I may not think a game is "good," but if someone else sinks hundreds of ours into it, they probably found the game to be "good" for them.

Opinions.

[thorstein]

It's called Sunk Cost Fallacy (aka Gambler's Fallacy): "the phenomenon whereby a person is reluctant to abandon a strategy or course of action because they have invested heavily in it, even when it is clear that abandonment would be more beneficial."

[EvertonFC]

My mates like that with "castle crashers" on his mobile phone. He's invested about £5000 like a tit 🤣😂 yet says playstation games are too expensive 😂🤣

[anast]

and this

[Rocketisleague]

Ff13 was this for me

[Eidolon]

One reason is you paid full price for it and continue playing to justify that,

[anast]

This too

[anast]

People play games that aren't up to their standards because they like the world and no one has done better. So, they continue to play because if they want to play in that world, they have to play a sh$% game. Bethesda is a clear example of this, no one in their right mind can honestly compare their games to actual good games and say they are good. People have to ignore good to make something else good in this case.

[Seraphim]

Good or not, if you put 100 hours into a game you either enjoyed a good portion of, or you're a trophy/achievement junkie. Games that aren't quite good can still be enjoyable and at the end of the day, your enjoyment with a game is what matters most.

[Barlos]

Believe it or not, I did exactly that with Horizon Forbidden West. I took exactly 100 hours to finish it, but by the end it became a slog and I stopped enjoying it. The game itself is good, but I really started to dislike Aloy and she ruined it for me. By the end I was just rushing through to get it finished.

[ChasterMies]

That was GTA 4 and Skyrim for me. After awhile I’m just sick of the game but can’t stand leaving an incomplete playthrough. So I skip the side missions and power through the main story. Trophy data will tell you that most gamers don’t complete the main story. That means we’re the crazy ones.

[JackBNimble]

I would say the argument is completely subjective, there really isn't more to say than that.

[Profchaos]

Addiction seems the logical answer. Many games mostly mobile but I've seen this creep into mainstream gaming lots of level ups flashing lights and yay good for you here's a meaningless Trinket because you got X kills and leveled up this design approach is targeting dopamine hits everytime the player does anything like play a round. Sonic forces comes to mind as probably one of the worst cases of this in a single player game next to far cry new dawn in sonic forces if you beat a level which is around 3 minutes long you might earn 5 to 10 prices of clothing and everything pops up and makes a big deal of it.
Thps remake also did something similar with it's grind to get everything approach

Look at cod and the need to grind guns the majority of the player base spends countless hours replaying shipment just to level up their guns to the point where they can dominate the normal maps.

[FinalFantasyFanatic]

I can enjoy games, but I can also admit that some of those games aren't that good mechanically, story-wise, ect... I just personally enjoyed them.

That, and the more time you spend with a game, the more apparent it's flaws become.

[ZeekQuattro]

I can't imagine playing a game 100 hours if I didn't like it. I'm not going to force myself to beat a game on principle alone. I'd cut my loses and move on from said game before that. There's plenty of other videogames to play after all.

[Sciurus_vulgaris]

I think consumers, especially those who don’t think for themselves are being overly influenced by content creators. Many content creators are dishonest in my opinion, as the make money directly off engagement. E.g. they will play games for hundreds of hours, only to make negative videos or criticize titles that they don’t even play.

[Crows90]

Ummm....review sites make money from engagement.

[Profchaos]

No they don't not at all...hey ever heard of world of tanks the best battle simulator ever I'll give you this codeword try for yourself for free....

Obviously sarcasm and joking but absolutely I'm sick of these games getting plugged nonstop.

People I generally watch on YouTube are like mvg, Digital foundry, Matt mcmuscles and AVGN so I don't get all that much still when I see mvg plugged world of tanks I roll my eyes like really dude

[Lightning77]

I was just thinking because I'm the same way. There are such thing as guilty pleasure games. Cod, Destiny yearly Sports games and popular LS games. Games that aren't good by a certain merit but a but have addicting gameplay loops and systems. Pick up and play, familiar gameplay.

SF isn't pick up and play, it's a slow plotting Bethesda game. The ones who said I put in 5 to 10 hours and put it down aren't lying to themselves they generally don't like it. Gen Z kids try playing it and put in 4 hours if even that and put it down (my nephew and niece) it's not fast pace instant jump in colorful in your face type of game it's the opposite. Anyway the ones who put in 100 or 200 hours are lying to themselves bad. There's 100% an investment there clearly since thats where most of your time is going. I'm not saying those who do that, should give it a 10 out of 10 or anything you'll have your gripes like you do every game but if you're not a reviewer and you do 100+ hours you clearly like the game a little more than most at that point.

[EvertonFC]

Good points made, I buy CoD every other year just so I have a half decent shooter to play, I don't love it as I get my ass kicked most of the time but it there for me to play once or twice a month for a few hours on a Sunday.
I probably rack up 100 hrs over 2 years and don't always enjoy getting my ass kicked but I get my shooter fix.
CoD is more about it's a good game from a pick up and play perspective yet deep inside it rinse and repeat CoD like any other CoD you've bought.

[Eidolon]

Starfield was at least on Game Pass, but for other games, you get hyped and end up pre-ordering/buying, and you keep playing hoping for it to pay off. The hype and anticipation increases negative bias. You're either finding anything to dislike the game and make it out to be a bad game, or you're sinking hours in to find the good moments to disprove the bad reviews. Is this game worth $70? I would say most games aren't for me, because I beat them(play normally) and move on to the next, while others will sink 5x+ the campaign length to get a bang for the buck, or they absolutely love it. I think most games are like that but Starfield is divisive in that manner since we're now questioning someone's sanity for putting that time in.

[JackBNimble]

The very reason I don't normally by day 1, I wait to see what user reviews are like. I want to know what the regular gamer says not these BS game reviewers say.

[FinalFantasyFanatic]

@JackBNimber,

I normally wait a few months for "real" reviews to show, a lot of reviewers tend to be in the honeymoon phase when a new game comes out, unless it's a really terrible game.

[Crows90]

That's you but if you're job is to play games...and review them...sometimes you're forced to do so..

[Fearmonkey]

I can see the point here. I played through all the DLC and main game for Dragon Age: Inquisition, and it was a long grind, but i was determined to see it though because i enjoyed the stories of that world. Then I played The Witcher 3 and all it's DLC and that game was amazing and really showed how bad Inquisition was in comparison. Inquisition couldnt hold a candle to Origins, and though it was far more limited, enjoyed Dragon Age II and its DLC more than Inquisition. Even though I had tons of hours into Inquisition, i cant say its a good game... Ive played more than a few RPG's and shooters for the story that werent actually good games. A game can have a decent story but nit actually be a good game..

[ChasterMies]

Agree 100% with this sentiment. Playing a game more doesn’t make it better. For example, Fallout 4 was 6/10 when I started and 6/10 when I finished. My time invested in the game had no impact on its quality.

[Crows90]

Exactly. Reviews attempt or should attempt to be objective. Putting in your personal experience based on hours played would affect the review entirely on a subjective premise.

[ChasterMies]

There’s a lot of cognitive dissonance in Metacritic user reviews.

[z2g]

how about we just assume that if you dump 100+ hours into a game, regardless of reviews, you're getting something out of it.

We don't need reviews to give us permission to like or dislike a game. Enjoyment is subjective. If you Enjoy a game that has a majority of negative reviews, guess what? You can continue enjoying that game, because reviews are nothing more than written opinions by people who aren't you.

[EvertonFC]

Exactly I've played "days gone" from start to finish 3 times and over 300hrs. Thankfully I never listened to reviews as all of them played days gone fast travelling everywhere and going with the majority review hate woke crowd.
Same with "prison break" on PS3 reviewed 3/10 yet it played identical to Ruddick which is a cult classic 10/10 game on PC. I loved prison break but it automatically got hate because it was TV series game ( I don't even think the reviewers played it)
Sadly the UK developer went under from lack of sales ☹️

[Rocketisleague]

Not true. I played ff13 for 25 hours, hating every minute. Then got rid of it. I've tried skyrim again and again many times. Never got a feeling of.true enjoyment.. more mild.amusement

[isarai]

I mean I guess "good" means different things to different people. I could kinda get just having a game that's good enough, for example Far Cry 5 was not good to me, but it was good enough to kill time when I wasn't playing other things, and to just turn my brain off after a long day and just clear the map one point at a time.

[EvertonFC]

Good point tbh, certainly various variables on gamers way of playing games.
I get depressed from time to time and I've played certain games which maybe not enjoyable but the collecting of stuff in the game can switch my brain off from feeling low and helps me feel better although I know I've just wasted 4 hours doing absolute nonsense of collecting shit 🤣😂

[CrimsonWing69]

And yet it also can.

[Minute Man 721]

Just Cause 2

[Inverno]

I played over 200 hours of BoTW. Did I play it cause I thought the game was amazing? No I think the game sucks overall. Open world game take quite a bit of time getting about because of the amount of empty space you gotta traverse through to get to where you wanna go, and of course side content that may pop up here and there being a distraction. I played through BoTW trying to get the stamina wheel at max, enough hearts to pick up the Master Sword, watch all the flash backs, and beat calamity Ganon.
That wasn't why I took 200 hours though, I found most of my enjoyment exploring the huge world and taking in the scenery. I did the same thing in Elden Ring, I focused on opening up the map. I must've spent about 60 hours just exploring before getting back to dying over and over. I realized that the best portions of the game were the parts more traditionally designed, and that its open world was a copy/pasted bore. By then I had burnt myself out and thought I reached the mountains I couldn't be bothered to finish the game.
I actually spent time in these games before coming to those conclusions, there are things to enjoy but overall I had wished I knew about so that I didn't bother with them at all. Of course you read reviews, and see previews, and all the positive things people are saying and you become convinced to get something that you might end up not enjoying. Then are expected to keep shut because fanboys can't handle criticism. If I had seen more negative reviews on BoTW then I wouldn't have gotten it but people seem to think that the only type of reviews to listen to are positive ones.

[franwex]

Okay. I don’t understand you.

So you put in 200 hours into breath of the wild, but would dissuade people from buying it?

So you didn’t get your money’s worth?

I personally put like 8 hours into it and walked away. Not for me, but if you like open ended action games-I would recommend.

[Inverno]

Not dissuade, more like give both sides. I can tell you of all the things I like about BoTW that could convince you to buy it, but also tell you all that I don't like that could convince you not to buy it. Very few YouTubers do that, while most sites will call it a masterpiece and call it a day. If speaking solely about money, then yea obviously i got my money's worth, but money is only a small part of something's worth. If speaking solely on my experience with it, then both game disappointed me.

[Ironmike]

This is totally backwards if u play 100 hrs irs good idiot article

[purple101]

ive sunk 100hrs ito tetris im sure and that's just 4 blocks falling down a screen haha

[thorstein]

"As someone who has struggled with compulsive gaming..."

Then write your article about that. Playing a game that's not good for 100s of hours is fine by people who are enjoying the experience.

Besides, people who play games for that long or longer are clearly getting something out of it.

I know people don't like Destiny, I did and so I played it for a very long time. Same with the Division and Anthem. I liked Anthem. I played a crapton of it because I liked it.

So I think you have two problems here 1) you're a compulsive gamer 2) You're defining "good" as the majority opinion of critics and customers who take the time to rate games (which has all sorts of flaws, even outside of the games industry.)

[EvertonFC]

"thegamer.com". Suprise suprise

My friend sadly passed away aged 52 in November and his biggest regret was playing GTA online for 5000 hours but at least he said he enjoyed his time with the game but regretted the amount of hours.
Slightly off topic I know ☹️

[raWfodog]

It shouldn't take that long for a game to get good so I would hope that anyone putting that much time into a game actually enjoys it. I have put hundreds of hours into many of my games and it was simply because I enjoyed playing them.

[GamingSinceForever]

According to who?

If someone plays a game that long, It’s safe to assume that they liked it enough.

[Destiny1080]

with starfield its a love hate relationship, they love the fact that the game is free to play but hate the boring repetitive gameplay and horrendous loading times

[Knightofelemia]

Must be a sucker for punishment if you're playing a shitty game for 100 hrs. But the game could be subjective now just because you suck at it and don't like it. Doesn't mean the next person is going to suck at it and they will probably enjoy it. That's basically how reviewers are now they suck at the game and they will tear it apart even though its a great game.

[nommers]

You can enjoy a game, but that doesn’t mean it’s inherently a good game, regardless of time spent. Gacha mobile games can be addicting and I’ve put way too much time into one, but I wouldn’t call it a good game. Just a way to pass the time when not at home.

[Crows90]

100 hrs is like doing nearly everything in the game. I'd say if it is for a review then no. You kinda should be expected to do as much as possible in the game before giving a proper in depth review. However, if you're just gaming....for a game like Starfield which boasts 100s of hours of content I'd say 30hrs is about the mark....simply because everything in the game is designed to be tedious and take you a longer time than necessary.

[Chocoburger]

This is what I've been saying about all these open world filler games for years now, the "Ubisoft effect". Just because Ubisoft games have a massive world, with a massive checklist of boring, redundant, generic, filler objectives to mark off your map, doesn't mean you're actually getting value for your money.

I bought Metal Gear Solid on launch day back in 1998, and I've beaten the game over 10 times, not because of a checklist, or Trophies / Achievements that force you to waste extra hours of your life to do boring things, but simply because the game is so fun to me that I naturally want to re-play the game over and over.

That's true replay value. Not forcing the player to endlessly hoard currency, resources, and other commodities like a virtual garbage man in these awful modern games.

[jwillj2k4]

Per the devs, the fun doesn’t start at 100 hours it starts at 130. You’ve got to get to 130 hours.

[jznrpg]

I get jets the author is trying to say. Some people play games because it’s the game they have not because it’s good.

I’m playing Avatar game with my friend because he’s new to PS5 and he bought the game for his daughter. I’ve put over 30 hours in and honestly I was bored of it after a few missions.It’s basically Far Cry with blue paint.

[Demetrius]

Idgaf ac valahalla is fun af to me and I played all ac games, almost got 90 hours in it and im.not bored lol, I plan on putting hours into marvel spiderman 2 as well, robocop etc

[raWfodog]

I've enjoyed playing Origins, Odyssey, and Valhalla as well. Completed the main game and DLC in all three. I love exploring huge open game worlds like those. I've also enjoyed the original games as well (AC, AC2, and Black Flag especially). I don't have a preference between the old and new games.

[chobit_A5HL3Y]

i played dynasty warriors 7 and 8 for at least 100 hours each, and while i know they're not considered great games, they're mindless fun for me, and that's good enough for me to sink my time into when i just wanna have some mindless fun. i don't have to worry about anything other than cutting down hordes of mindless ai, and sometimes that's all i wanna do lol

[sci4me]

I have to agree to him to some extent. I love Fallout and Elderscrolls but they have gone from good to worse for each game but i still play them because there is nothing else that can scratch that itch and when i have started a.game i have to see how it ends regardless if its not that good of game. I would give the Fallout 4 a 6/10 at most but i still sunk a good amount of hours into that game.

[tagzskie]

Different stokes for different folks as they said. Some people dont want to waste their hard earned money so they forced themselves to finish the game. I also have experience doing this, i really like MGS so i force myself to play death stranding bout 40 hours because i like kojima as a developer, i even bought the 10$ upgrade for ps5. I learned my lesson though because time is gold, i earned more money than play that kind of hours. I bought many game if i dont like it i dont play it, i try first 1-2 hours and if didnt click with me i stop playing it.

[Kamikaze135]

I laugh when I read reviews on Steam that tell you all about how bad game is when they've logged hundreds and sometimes even thousands of hours. If a game is bad I stop after maybe 3 hours max. I'm not about to punish myself for 434 hours by beating the story, finishing all side content and spending my nights playing PvP. Like.....wtf? lol

[gold_drake]

thats a weird take
i dont think ive ever played a game for that many hours without enjoying it.

[VariantAEC]

I have... probably.
The game?
MSFS 2020.

[MIDGETonSTILTS17]

People need to have higher standards for how they choose to invest their finite time.

It’s entirely possible to end a 100 hour journey, and look back with disappointment and unfulfilled expectations.

But if it took you a full 100 hours to NOT enjoy it, then what kept you so hopeful the entire time?

FIND another game…

[Extermin8or3_]

I mean generally if I soend more than 100 hours in a game I enjoyed my time playing it else I wouldn't have played it. By the time that 100 hours is up I may be done with the gsme and have had enough. Also giving a game a negative review and not enjoying/liking it isn't the same thing. Just as I can acknowledge a game is a good game and yet not personally feel its for me. I can also have fun with an objectively 'bad' game.

This is why a review should be like 70% objectives analysis of the gsmes quality and gameplay etc abd 30% opinion/personal preference.

[andy85]

They only time I've ever stuck with a game for that long I really stopped enjoying was FFXVI. But I've platinumed the whole series so I wasn't leaving one missing. But that's only because they did my massive pet peeve and made you play a long story based JRPG twice for it and the 2nd time around it was a drag

[Profchaos]

Honestly not everyone that spends 100 hours plus on a game may be enjoying it I seriously thing that modern game design like mobile game design is starting to lean into targeting addiction via perks systems level ups alarm bells every time you get a kill flashy numbers just like real life gambling anything they can do to trigger that dopamine response keeps you engaged and only engaged with their game and maybe spending more money on it.

Noe I am very selective where I spend 100 hours playing last game that I did that on was rdr2 I'm more inclined to stick to sub 20 hour games but I have seen others play cod all day every day and they are not Enjoying the game at all it's just addiction at that point

[343_Guilty_Spark]

More crying about Starfield

[Smellsforfree]

Because everyone kept saying, "you need to get at least 40 hours in until it gets good."