Gaming

At 4,500 hours, I would say the majority would be “it used to be great until the devs did X”

I'll admit to being someone who dislikes most Larian games (DoS, BG3). I've written reviews from the perspective of a casual gamer who finds overly complicated or mechanically overwhelming games to simply be too much. You say those things here and you get destroying by the hivemind, but it's fair for someone to say "I didn't like this game for the following reasons." Not all players are looking for the same thing.

I like to leave compliments about the games as well, because there are some great storytellers or unique things about games that should be celebrated even if you didn't like the final product.

I've read so many negative reviews that only say "bodytype A and B" that I'm running out of steam points to gift them clown awards.

Edit: Thanks for letting me know I shouldn't give those awards, since it's more of a reward for them. I'll stop.

You always have the hardcore players who make some obscure point the heart of every discussion. "This game is trash! They nerfed magic flummox attacks from +6 to +5! Who is the idiot who makes these decisions!? This is going to kill the game."

Usually happens when a game was good initially, but then publishers get greedy and push RMT/pay-to-win/freemium features to please investors.

Maybe not a great example, but I played Eve Online for many years, and while the game is actually very playable with RMT (it feels fucking great to destroy somebody's virtual property they paid 20$ to acquire), it kinda got out of hand and diminished the thousands of hours I put into the game.

I've got that in League of Legends, so yes.

Do not recommend. 8/10 in 2016, 0/10 in 2025. Tread not upon the path.

I think i already commented on this somewhere else, but a lot of bethesda games are like that for me. The vanilla game is kind of shit, but with a lot of mods it can kind of be hammered into something I enjoy. it's still kind of bad, but sometimes you just want to eat junk food. I wouldn't recommend someone go to McDonalds, but sometimes it's just right there and it's easy.

I read one recently that complained the devs didn't listen to them about this one extremely specific sounding request, and therefore cannot recommend it.

The review was at like 1400 hours, and they played 1900 hours.

Which means for another 500 hours, they continued.

I'm like this with Genshin. I've played it for almost 2k hours, love the exploration gameplay, environment graphics and music, but the monetisation system is extremely predatory, and the character designs and writing are bullshit, so overall I still wouldn't recommend it to others, or only with heavy caveats. But it really scratches my exploration itch, so I'll keep playing it myself 🤷

Yes

Counterpoint. That game deserves a shitload more bad reviews. But people that understand what bad games are, don't play it, and thus don't review it.

And before you start, no, I don't have to eat shit to know it tastes bad.

There's only 12 reviews, you get 2 hours within 2 weeks of buying to return the game. There's no downsides for you to try it

The people who are first to review are those that strobgly dislike it and closed it early (or with some point to make). Everybody that strongly likes it is busy enjoying it and won't review until they take a break or are done.

Give it time and see the reviews in a couple days.

IMO this is a good thing. With a "mixed" option, it's hard to know where the borders are for each person. Say you rate a game on a scale of 0-100 - is "mixed" 30-70, or 25-75, or 20-80, or anything else?

AFAIK with surveys etc. there's also a bias towards the "middle" option. By not giving one, you force people to think harder about their opinion, which in turn makes the rating more useful.

I wish it used a 5 star system instead of binary yes/no. I don't like that "yeah, it's a decent game" and "holy shit this game will change how you see games going forward" get weighed the same. A game that everyone kinda likes will have a similar rating to a game everyone loves.

Would also be nice if they had a "shows promise but it isn't quite there yet". Or a way of using ratings to encourage devs to address issues, and maybe a mechanism where certain issues can be tied to a review and then the dev can mark the issue as "addressed" to make those reviews expire with a notice to the user that the game might be much better for them now. It sucks to see a game with a bunch of negative reviews addressing an issue that was since fixed.

This is the exact game that came to my mind. Overwhelming positive reviews for a game that seems like it was created using Grandma's description of "those funny Japanese cartoons my grandson watches" as the main creative direction. I know JRPGs are gonna have weeb elements but I didn't expect the entire game to be capturing big tiddy anime girls to beat your enemies "with friendship". Every boss you beat suddenly comes back alive and beats you in the cutscenes. Your still learning new game elements 40 hours in. One of your main teammates is a Jar Jar Binks character obsessed with building his own sex slave robot. My number one most hated game that i actually best mostly because I kept playing it thinking "at some point this has to stop being a pile of weeb dog shit and develop into a real game right?"