PCGaming

They way I see it, the person didn't say they didn't like it. They said it had problems and that they didn't recommend it.

It's fine. Have you ever played a game and liked it, but then they updated it and then it sucks? That's how it is with me with 7 days to die. It was great until a certain update then they completely changed the game progression because the have devs didn't like how people played their single player game so they nerfed every single system, forced progression to a specific path, and made the game more difficult. Fuck em.

at least the review is about the game, and not some steam community award clown comment like "because nobody will see this: [whatever]" or some other form of useless meme.

I think of this reviewer as being someone who deeply loves this franchise but just ground the previous game into powder. This new release is their only opportunity to revisit the franchise they love. Despite being very disappointed, it still beats not playing in that world.

For someone like me, I think this is a helpful and honest review. There are many reasons for larger play time that are unrelated to game quality. I don't personally consider it to be an indicator. I think I already also have issues with using it as a measure like $/h. It sort of seems problematic to always be asking "how long will this entertain me?". I feel like we should be valuing other aspects more highly.

After hundreds of hours I can tell you all that civilization beyond earth is not worth it

The game might still be enjoyable, but not worth the price.

If lethal company was like 70$, it's still fun but no where near worth that much

So if they still have it and beyond getting a refund, why not play it?

If it’s a game like overwatch, where the first one is not available anymore, I understand this.

If it’s like CoD where the old game is unplayable (cheaters, etc) anymore, I understand this as well.

If it’s because of sunk cost fallacy that this person continued to play this game, I understand this too (although not having this, I know people have this trait)

It also could be that this person wants to finish the game, and wrote the review earlier, in this case I would want to have an update if it became better.

I would, for me speaking, not recommend Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth due to things happening around Costa del Sol, yet I played for 27 more hours until I finished it.

Eh, it's legit imo. As others have said, that isn't a lot of time in for some games. I've put more than that info games before quitting.

And I might even leave a review that's bad, but keep playing a while to see if maybe I was wrong, if I had nothing else on my plate. I've had games start crappy, but kept playing because of other people, and ended up enjoying things.

So I wouldn't reject this review as useless because of the time spent. If anything, the time spent could sway me to waiting to try the game until someone I know could let me give it a try (assuming it wasn't ftp to begin with, I have clue what the game is).

It's not incredibly helpful or insightful. 40 hrs a week since the review is also odd but I do not know their life.

They already played past the refund period. Depending how complicated the game is they might have needed that time to really formulate a comprehensive opinion. And now that they have already played the game, they might as well play it. Goodness knows I have guilty pleasure games that are honestly not that fun but they scratch some sort of itch even if they may be overall disappointing with some clear avenue for improvement I wish they had made.

What's the game?

There are plenty of reasons why someone's account might rack up hours in a game they don't particularly enjoy.

Being driven by a completionist streak, letting someone else play on their machine, needing a distraction from an unhappy life, supporting a friend who wants to play together, being bored of all their other games, leaving the game at a menu screen while they're doing other things... the possibilities are endless.

I won't discount a review for having a high hours count, but I might for being especially rude.

For some people 140 hours is peanuts. You can say this player did their due diligence to see different aspects of the game.

But I prefer reviews with like 2000 hours in saying 'it's ok'

It can be a disappointment and still fun.

I remember when Rainbow 6 Siege was still in its infancy before Operation Health there were some pretty bad reviews but people still pay it after 6+ years.