Are other 12% masochists? I mean spending more than 100 hours on the game you don't like...

I'm sure they would begrudgingly agree that it's one of the best options available as far as CRPGs go because there are so few to choose from in the first place. They are simply unhappy with some implementation of something and using the vote to express their discontent. Which really isn't the purpose of reviews but I gave up fighting that battle decades ago.

There are many games i personally enjoy but know they aren't for most people and thus can't recommend them. It could be such cases.

My first playthrough when it came out i spent 90 hours in and I could not finish. Iz was impossible to enter and had to restart. I had ♥♥♥♥ tons of annoying and sometimes gamebreaking bugs through the entire game! 90 hours down the drain. So yeah maybe that could be a reason.

I don't think that you even scratch the surface of this game if you have less than 100 hours. I have over 250 now and also probably wouldn't recommend it to others if I made a review. It's a great game for cRPG masochists but not so much for everyday gamers and the lack of polish in later act(s) is like a punch in the face after the excellent first half of the game.

This whole "why'd they play 100+ hours if they didn't like it?" mentality is so weird to me. Playtime is not even one of the top metrics to factor into someone's enjoyment of the game or not, games come in all forms (as in great at the beginning, super ♥♥♥♥♥♥ at the end) and some games even change over time (constant development/updates like Warframe) but even then, there could be personal reasons why someone might want to invest hundreds of hours into the games they spent money on.

In fact, I'd trust a 100+ non-recommend rating more than one that has a recommendation but with only couple of hours in.

Uh, you can like something, and not like it 100%.

You can even do three playthrus, I did, and say to yourself, "Self, Ya know, this could have been a lot better with fewer bugs, more polish, better performance optimization, a less crappy crusade feature, more finished aspects, and some better design choices".

Oh and better official mod support, but I don't "ding" a title over something like that.

And yeah -- I've said that. Liking something doesn't prevent you from seeing many ways in which it could improve.

As someone with 350hrs played and a negative review it was based on the huge amount of bugs and poor encounter design I ran into in the last two/three chapters.

Similar to Kingmaker the first 3/4 of the game was excellent, so by the time it turned south I was too invested in the story to stop, but I couldn't recommend it to others given the later game experience at the time.

I hope to replay this game later, after some patching, and be able to adjust my review to positive.

I have 500 hours, still in early Act 3.

I'll change my review once the game is less buggy. I did for Kingmaker and it's the only time I've changed a review in 125 reviews.

Originally posted by Kshahdoo:

Are other 12% masochists? I mean spending more than 100 hours on the game you don't like...

Playing the game through or acknowleging that there is no other other good cRPG (or at least veryfew newer ones), does not mean you have to leave a positiv review ...
There are only 2 choices here: + or - If the game is "only ok" and/or has some "issues" (and teh same goes for community work of teh Devs and Producers) it might just get an - albeight beeing ok-ish. Same goes for too high of a price for the content or whatever you can think of.

The idea of something needing to be rated positive (or negative), just because someone uses it, is faulty in itslef.


A star-based system or a system that lets you review several aspects of a product individualy, would still backlash to teh same problem. But the solution is in there already there: Read the text of the reviews.
And before you ask: No, there does not need to be a "reason" given for a neg review, like there is none needed for a good one.

Originally posted by Schutzengel:

I have 500 hours, still in early Act 3.

700 hours, still did not finish Act 3.

Sometimes it takes a 100 hours to realize you don't like something and in fact it probably should take a substantial amount of time to understand the system, its strengths and flaws and to fully judge a game IMO.

I love d20 games and was psyched for this one - adding Mythics gives new build options I've never had before. I really *wanted* to like it, but Owlcat has made that a sucker's game. I got over 100 hours by uninstalling when I hit a build-breaking bug, restarting with a new build, that one being broken too, finding a combo that worked, hitting a progress-stopping bug, reinstalling after the next big patch, and then hitting another rules cockup and throwing up my hands. My guess now is this game's unannounced-but-glaring Early Access status will be with us another year or so, so I'll try to not play it again till then.

I think there's a disparity between the Yes/No system and this. You can like a game and not recommend it due to major issues, or been really into the story but not the gameplay or something. Not having a range for rating really removes that context from the review.

Originally posted by Kshahdoo:

Are other 12% masochists? I mean spending more than 100 hours on the game you don't like...

Yes they are.
Or some strange folks like "I don't understand mechanics and I suffer, but I would never reduce difficulty111".