How much time must I waste on a game before I can rate?

[RNGsus]

I've seen codexers rate a game shit after 40-60 hrs, only to be called retards for wasting their lives in a game they hate. I've seen codexers who've spent <10 hrs in a game told they have no right to speak. I've also seen those who've wisely spent no time at all in games we hate because we don't have to. From my experience, only aspies think they need reasons to love or hate a game, or that the world cares what those reasons were to begin with. And these sub-humans actually believe the brain works that way, which is so annoying, when its proven real Men show partiality first, then may build up reasons for their prejudice after the fact. If they do so give a fuck. So how much time must I waste in a game before I can say "this sucks" or "this is fabulous"?

 

[Egosphere]

I don't know. To standardize this, you might try looking up the game's overall length and then try to play a third of the way through. If the game isn't enjoyable by that point, then leave it.

 

[thesecret1]

If the game fails to hook you in the frst hour or two, it's bad. It is the game's job to hook you, not your to suffer through shit to get to the "good parts". With books, this is a clearly estabilished phenomenon – it's why they often contain an action-packed "prologue" whose only purpose is to show "it's gonna be great guise, I promise" before the first chapter brings a slow introduction to the world. If a game comes front-loaded with boring shit and people rate it as such, the dev has only himself to blame.

 

[SausageInYourFace]

You have to play through it seven times.

 

[Bester]

I can tell if it's shit by looking at its steam page. That's for a 100% accuracy.

With a 99% degree of accuracy, I can just tell you that it's shit right now, no matter what game you're thinking of.

 

[Bricker]

First ten minutes are crucial

 

[Morkar Left]

You have to play through it seven times.

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

Depends if the hours spent are continuous. Playing a game straight through for 3 or 4 hours at a time and skipping basic bodily functions is a good indicator. Usually one does not skip taking a shit to keep playing shit games.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

You have to play through it seven times.

 

[Valky]

Give all games the Fluent treatment.

 

[typical user]

Depends. If you want to elaborate and form a definitive opinion and what everyone will feel and how the game factually plays then around 100-200 hours. If you don't care then as much as 1-4 hours to get general feel of the game. But the best is to beat it to know exactly what is the quality from start to end which again depends on the length of the product.

 

[Shackleton]

For me it's 10 hours. A lot of games are front loaded, so they hook you in with the good stuff straight away and then 10 hours later you realise it's blown it's load and you're just going to be repeating that 10 hours another 5 times to finish it. Yes, I am looking at you Mr Ubisoft.

So many games I've started and thought they might be alright, but then between 5 and 10 I lose all interest when the boredom hits.

 

[Steamboat Willie]

You shouldn't have to fucking earn enjoyment. If a game sucks right off the bat, ditch it. I hate these people who try to defend stuff like Final Fantasy XIII by saying stuff like "The game starts to get good around the 20 hour mark!"

 

[rusty_shackleford]

You shouldn't have to fucking earn enjoyment. If a game sucks right off the bat, ditch it. I hate these people who try to defend stuff like Final Fantasy XIII by saying stuff like "The game starts to get good around the 20 hour mark!"

Spoken like a true person who will never know the joy of dwarf fortress

 

[Puteo]

You only need 1 hour to tell if it's shit but you need at least 10 hours to be able to tell if it's good.

 

[Fedora Master]

0 if it contains any of the following categories on Steam:
- Indie
- Anime
- Deep plot
- Immersive
- Early Access

 

[†††]

I don't know, ask longtime WoW players, they're still trying to find if the game is good

 

[DraQ]

Enough to not be a clueless fuck.

thread = sucks;
op = faggot;

You shouldn't have to fucking earn enjoyment.

Worthless instagrate spotted.

 

[Tehdagah]

If the game fails to hook you in the frst hour or two, it's bad. It is the game's job to hook you, not your to suffer through shit to get to the "good parts". With books, this is a clearly estabilished phenomenon – it's why they often contain an action-packed "prologue" whose only purpose is to show "it's gonna be great guise, I promise" before the first chapter brings a slow introduction to the world. If a game comes front-loaded with boring shit and people rate it as such, the dev has only himself to blame.

Not really, some gameplay mechanics take a while to develop.

 

[Neanderthal]

Darkest Dungeon says 1,337 hours should do.

 

[Kutulu]

If you genuinely feel something is garbage after 10mins, its garbage -For You!
You might be called retard if you bought something without doing any research though....

 

[KK1001]

Really bad games reveal themselves right away. Mediocre or just meh games - you need to play those past the point where the novelty of the whole experience wears off. That's when great games shine.

 

[Jack Of Owls]

It takes me about 10 hours to determine if a game is actually shite, but I'm not a slow learner, so...

 

[laclongquan]

10 is about right~

 

[Tweed]

There's a Goldilocks zone you need to be in in order to make a valid discernment and it varies for each game. If you come up too little then you just haven't played it enough, too much and you secretly enjoy it.

And that's not even mentioning variables such as communities or patch numbers.