this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
523 points (94.2% liked)
Games
32640 readers
1188 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Starfield. People played for 700 hours then wrote a bad review then play for another 300 hours . Bro if you put 1000 hours into a game there was obviously something you liked about it.
“I hate ____ it’s my favorite game”
Overwatch :(
To be fair, starfield could be simply addicting, and addicting doesn't mean a player can't find the game underwhelming. I spent a lot of time on cookie clicker and in retrospective it was boring, but I kept playing because the numbers were going up. What saved me was clearing my browser's cookies (lol) and loosing my progress.
its addicting because the gunplay is so fun combined with the jetpack
countless hours i spent going to planets, killing shit, and leaving
i hate everything that pisses me off for 1000 hours
It’s a great example. Starfield (like other BGS games) does a lot of things well that few other games do at all. So it’s frustrating when they put out a game that is pretty mediocre outside those few strengths, and also your only real option for scratching those particular itches.
I’m not sure many of those people exist. Most of the bad reviews I would imagine came from people that put 1-10 hours into it.
Your comment got me curious, so I did some digging. Unfortunately Steam caps out filtering reviews at "above 100", so I couldn't find a way to get data on the difference between 100-200 hour players vs 500-1000 hour players for example. But I broke it down by 0-24 hours, 25-49 hours, 50-99 hours, and 100+ hours to see the results.
Unsurprisingly, folks who played it for less than 25 hours liked it the least, with an average of 50% positive reviews. This is also the largest sample size by far, accounting for 51,686 of the roughly 140,000 reviews.
More surprisingly however, the next three data sets (25-49, 50-99, and 100+), order themselves naturally from "most positive sentiment to least". Essentially, the longer you play it after 25 hours, the more likely you are to rate it negatively.
Breaking it down:
0-24 hours: 50% positive reviews out of 51,686 players.
25-49 hours: 69% positive reviews out of 34.644 players
50-99 hours: 64% positive reviews out of 30,775 players
100+ hours: 61% positive reviews out of 22,800 players.
Oh, and because I just reread your comment, I checked out the 1-10 hour players as well, and your guess there was accurate. 40% positive reviews out of the 27,316 players in that range.
And given that there were more negative reviews in the 0-24 hour range than reviews from people who even played it for more than 100 hours, I would say you were mostly right about the guess that players who played it for a very extensive time and reviewed it negatively were a minority. Even if that minority was made up of about 8,900 reviews, or roughly 6.3%.
While this is far from a "definitive scientific test", the data on Steam seems to indicate that among people who liked the game enough to put significant time into it, the more they played, the less likely they were to rate it positively.
I upvote things I like, and don't want to be one of those people who comment "THIS!", but you did proper research and it didn't get the acknowledgement it deserved.
Thank you the for data, I found it insightful.