Crispy™ Does a game really "suck" if you spend 100 hours on it?

[T. Reich]

No, it's simple logic: Given that, logically, you should choose the best possible option of your possible choices, the option you choose will thus be the least bad of your available choices. It is nonetheless worse than everything you've done in the past, otherwise you'd have been doing this instead of those other things. However, those options are no longer available, for various reasons. Thus you are forced to choose the next least bad option, which, logically, must be worse, or else you would have chosen it before.

> logically, you should choose the best possible option of your possible choices...
> If a better option exists, you always choose it...
So many false assumptions in this one!
You seem to assume that a gamer has an immediate full knowledge of AND access to all the (relevant to their interests) games in existence. Which is a big fat lie.
You assume that possible choices are all the best ones there is, which is often untrue.
You assume that all the games in existence can be subjected to the strict objective hierarchy on the "the best -> the worst" scale, which is another big fat fallacy. Case in point - ANY "top XX games of XX genre in existence" list.
You assume that a player would go through the list of immediately available choices based on a single (false) factor of their "goodness", ignoring other considerations that player might have about their gaming choices. In particular, I refer you to the Weird Gaming Habits thread to see that people might play the games in a particular order regardless of other considerations. People could choose a game based on what strikes their fancy at a time, or based on how much time they could devote to it, or a multitute of other factors you neglected to consider. Or, how about CRPGaddict, wo ignores all your "play the best available" bullshit logic and simply plays all the CRPGS in existence in order thay got released.
You assume that a player's perceived quality of the game will meet the player's expectations. While, in fact, the game could both turn out to be better or worse than expected, meaning that if you expected to play a game worse than the ones you'd plaed in the past, and it turned out to be better, your whole argument falls apart. Not to mention, that a player could pick up and play a game at random (or based on other set of criteria) while having no expectations at all!
Finally, your biggest false assumption by far is that people are logical. I laughed my face off on this one.

Given that your base premise is fundamentally wrong, the rest of your argument is irrelevant.

 

[kwanzabot]

anyone who spends more then a handful of hours on a game they dont like is a retard

if i dont like a game i give it like 3-4 hrs to get going and if its shit i stop playing it

why? cos i got better shit to do then play a game i dont like

 

[sullynathan]

maybe it took you 100 hours to realize the game sucked?

 

[T. Reich]

maybe it took you 100 hours to realize the game sucked?

As I wrote earlier in the thread - it means you're either slow in the head or wrong in the head.

 

[Norfleet]

So many false assumptions in this one!
You seem to assume that a gamer has an immediate full knowledge of AND access to all the (relevant to their interests) games in existence. Which is a big fat lie.

Sites like this exist for a reason.

You assume that possible choices are all the best ones there is, which is often untrue.

If a choice isn't possible, then it isn't a choice. You pick from the least bad of your options.

You assume that all the games in existence can be subjected to the strict objective hierarchy on the "the best -> the worst" scale, which is another big fat fallacy. Case in point - ANY "top XX games of XX genre in existence" list.

The fact that different people have different tastes and order the games from bad to worse differently doesn't change my point. You still pick the least bad to you of the options available.

In particular, I refer you to the Weird Gaming Habits thread to see that people might play the games in a particular order regardless of other considerations. People could choose a game based on what strikes their fancy at a time, or based on how much time they could devote to it, or a multitute of other factors you neglected to consider.

Those all fall into "less badness", yes.

Or, how about CRPGaddict, wo ignores all your "play the best available" bullshit logic and simply plays all the CRPGS in existence in order thay got released.

I suppose if you did a strange thing like that, sure. But at this point you are no longer making choices of what to play, your play order has been dictated to you.

Finally, your biggest false assumption by far is that people are logical. I laughed my face off on this one.

Okay, fine: People who are not IRRATIONAL, DANGEROUSLY INSANE LUNATICS are logical. People who do not act logically, are, obviously, dangerously insane lunatics whose ramblings make no sense and should not be listened to. At any moment they'll start frothing at the mouth and try to chew someone's leg off. Hopefully not yours. I recommend you back away slowly while reaching for your gun. They'll probably lunge at you and go for the throat any minute now.

 

[typical user]

Every time I play Bethesda game I rack up many hours but everytime I find their games suck. It is simply because their games are developed in such way that most of the time you are lockpicking/looting or running towards your destination. First hour will be like 100th hour albeit with slight enemy name changes and your character equipment. People say that their games can't be bad because they've spent a lot of their time on it but I think it is really nasty trick to lengthen game which otherwise would be easily recognized as boring and retarded. You really have to nitpick for any logical errors to remember them, otherwise after 2 hours in next 2 dungeons you will forget why most of the things make no sense and carry on.

Witcher 3 is different in that regard as that game has really quick combat and each quest has different story. Sure the game gets boring too and is on the rails but I completed it twice and I feel I will do another playthrough in future. If the game is solid then I will replay it. I tried replaying Skyrim but have abandoned it because it was boring as hell.

 

[kangaroodev]

lol, if you spend 100 hours on a game there must had been something to keep you playing for that long, the game did it's job and it didn't suck. One could say that he played 100 hours just to see when the fun starts, and it never did, but that's just bullshit. No one sane would play something for 100 hours then claim the game is bad.

 

[toro]

Nobody plays a game he doesn't like for 100h+.

However sometimes if the game is not completely awful and it can be tolerated then is acceptable to stick around to see the ending.

It depends on the game. It depend on the person playing the game. Maybe the person doesn't have anything else to play at that moment.

Honestly I don't think there is a clear answer for this.

 

[Ivory Samoan]

Sometimes it takes that long for the Nuka-Aid to wear off, then you realise you've been screwing the radiated pooch for a good chunk of your existence.

 

[Jrpgfan]

I have 193 hours on vanilla M&B Warband and now that I look back I really, really can't understand why I played it for so long.

 

[KlauZ]

The thing with Bethesda games is the balancing of hooks with a good content and stretches of filler gameplay.

You get impressed by underground city, and that impression carries you through 5 hours of dull-but-not-too-horrible filler. And then you get another hook of interesting content. And in the end you get 100 hours of playtime with about 10 of them being actually good. And after that you can either realise what was happening, or you can completely forget about dull hours and remember the good parts.

 

[kwanzabot]

still dont know why ppl play games they hate lol

 

[Akratus]

I feel like too many times it's as though the only two possible answers to a game's quality is that it's either good or shit. There's some ground inbetween you know.

 

[Delbaeth]

I used to play MMOs when I lost hope concerning Single Player games a decade ago. I naively thought that they were the future and had very low standards at the time.

I wasted so much time. So it is still possible to be so dumb/pessimistic and looking back at it, I'll never do this again.

 

[Sigourn]

A game can be bad but have done certain aspects really good, and those aspects suck you in.

IMO, Skyrim is not only an awful RPG, but it is also a bad game with a lot of flaws. Yet it does the "suck you up" aspect really well because the world is huge.

 

[gestalt11]

For the answer to the question to be definitively "No" it would have to true that people doing foolish things was a non-existent or at the very least rare occurence. Unforatuntely such a thing is not even close to reality.

Or in other words, yes it certainly can because a lot people do dumb things all the time and hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Roqua]

I haven't read any posts but the answer is obviously of course not. This may apply to MMOs since they can be fundamentally changed. For instance, I liked wow up until the removed the gutted and then removed the talent trees.

This would also apply to games with mods. I dislike FONV, but I have over 40 hours played because I like it with the After War Nevada mod. Same with Xulima and a mod that changes the magic system. So I dislike the vanilla games but like them with mods.

Thinking about it this may apply to expansions that change or add to the fundamental mechanics or systems.

But if you play a game that is the same when you stop as when you started and played for 100 hours, and you consider it a bad game, you are a fucking moron and probably unemployed. Get a job you piece of shit.

I can put a couple hours into a game I dislike at the most, but I can usually tell within 15 minutes. Usually no more than 20 hours into a game I like before it becomes formulaic and boring or a chore to continue. About 40 to 70 in games I really like (and I either beat it or it gets formulaic and boring or a chore to continue).

 

[naossano]

The thing with Bethesda games is the balancing of hooks with a good content and stretches of filler gameplay.

You get impressed by underground city, and that impression carries you through 5 hours of dull-but-not-too-horrible filler. And then you get another hook of interesting content. And in the end you get 100 hours of playtime with about 10 of them being actually good. And after that you can either realise what was happening, or you can completely forget about dull hours and remember the good parts.

I would say that they manage to make you believe that there is something to dwelve into, before you see that there is nothing beyond first impression. The good mixed with fillers works for FoNV. The good is totally awesome, but the fillers are huge.

 

[Joined on the 4th of July]

That horrible game sucked 100 hours from my life.

 

[Mustawd]

With Celerity's tardness over DD this thread should probably be changed to 1,337 hours...

 

[AwesomeButton]

The only interesting thing I saw in this thread is the question which games could we consider flawless. Jools :
1. Grim Fandango
2. Thief: The Dark Project
3. Patrician III
4. Sid Meier's Colonization

Some others, which while not flawless, come pretty near:
1. The Longest Journey
2. Thief: The Metal Age
3. Half-Life
4. Corsairs (by Microids)
5. Sid Meier's Pirates! (2005 remake)
6. Hitman 2: Silent Assassin
7. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory
8. 7 Kingdoms (1998)
9. Homeworld

Funny, but not a single RPG. Not on purpose, I just can't think of such an RPG.

 

[Tito Anic]

The only interesting thing I saw in this thread is the question which games could we consider flawless.

Deus Ex is flawless in every department.

 

[Sigourn]

The only interesting thing I saw in this thread is the question which games could we consider flawless.

Vagrant Story is as close to flawless as it comes from the games I've played.

 

[SquidLord]

No.

 

[DraQ]

The only interesting thing I saw in this thread is the question which games could we consider flawless.

Deus Ex is flawless in every department.

Bad use of UE1 graphics, corny VA, some questionable AI, weapon balance problems including silenceable SR and half broken plasma weapons, inability to carry multiple disposable weapons of the same type making them mostly useless, baffling weapon incongruities (7.62 NATO = mosquito bite), poor weapon feedback, some weapon accuracy bugs, intro that spoils the entire plot and renders otherwise good plot twists pointless, poor aug balance...


Is Deus Ex greatness incarnate? Yes.
Is it flawless? Fuckno.