←back to thread

The guy who gave a negative review to Battlezone 98 Redux after playing 8k hours

(www.pcgamer.com)
273 points isaacfrond | 1 comments | 01 Nov 24 09:27 UTC | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
CM30 ◴[07 Nov 24 00:20 UTC] No.42071706[source]▶
To be fair, it kinda makes sense. The person best equipped to criticise a game or work is probably often someone who's experienced it for the longest. That way, they get to know all the things that don't add up, get repetitive on repeat playthroughs, various UI and UX annoyances that get worse the more you experience them, etc.

There's a reason the biggest fans of a game or film or TV series tend to give some of the harshest criticism, and why the most active users of a tool or program tend to have the most to say about it.

replies(8): >>42071794 #>>42072475 #>>42072941 #>>42074661 #>>42074796 #>>42074959 #>>42075255 #>>42076112 #
1. slightwinder ◴[07 Nov 24 12:37 UTC] No.42076112[source]▶
Longest experience doesn't necessarily mean best experience. And perception will change over time. What's important for the first 500 hours might not hold up 5000 hours later. People will lose motivation and shift their attention over time. They might become sour or develop different requirements over time. And games are also optimized for different experiences. So someone who is early in the game and still enjoys it, might not be happy with the game 5 years later.

But, reading the review, the critic is on most parts not about the actual game, but changes which came with the (then latest?) patch and supposed bugs which were introduced. And here it becomes a bit more problematic, because as an outsider we do not know whether most of them are real bugs, or just a change which the writer didn't liked or understood. It might be something which was good for many other players, but broke the writers habits/experience, so they got a bit salty.

So at least one should contextualize the review to say for sure whether its a fair and useful review for them, or not.