Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ollobrains]

steam reviews are very positive, the game is spawning many imimtators, the dev continues development 5 years after launch, and well I spent 30 bucks 5 years ago and its more than paid for itself 10 times over

[Broseph Stalin]

What's the point of spending more than $20 on a game when there's an inexhaustible number of games that I could play for free?

I appreciate being economical about game purchases, my method is to ignore the game's rating and look at the hours played in the reviews. The Rimworld reviews are filled with people who have logged hundreds, thousands of hours playing this game. If you buy three ten dollar games instead of Rimworld and play thirty combined hours you've been ripped off.

[Chiefwaffles]

God, I hate using "hours played" as a metric of how good a game is.

It's about the experience. A game can be bad yet have effective thousands of hours of content, and a game can be really good at only a few hours. If you're judging a game purely based on average hours played then you're not going to get the best games.

[Xinvoker]

God, I hate using "hours played" as a metric of how good a game is.

It's about the experience. A game can be bad yet have effective thousands of hours of content, and a game can be really good at only a few hours. If you're judging a game purely based on average hours played then you're not going to get the best games.

I think you missed the point. We are not talking about "hours of content", we are talking about actual hours played. If a game if bad,   it doesn't matter how many hours of content it has because you will only play it enough to discover it's bad. Like 0.5 hours.

The "hours played" metric already contains the experience, because the only way a game can accrue played hours is if, day after day, you keep having a positive experience playing it.

[CABL]

God, I hate using "hours played" as a metric of how good a game is.

It's about the experience. A game can be bad yet have effective thousands of hours of content, and a game can be really good at only a few hours. If you're judging a game purely based on average hours played then you're not going to get the best games.

But you wouldn't put 1000 hours into a bad game with 1000 hours of content, unless you have some weird form of masochism which causes you to get aroused from playing bad games. You'd simply drop it somewhere between 1-4 hours, make a refund, then play an actually good game with 1000 hours of content.

Other than that, I do agree with you: I played Skyrim for 102 hours, then uninstalled and forgot about it until 2017, when I decided to give Skyrim a second chance with some mods, and it still was boring. And to be fair to Skyrim, it was a pleasant experience until I reached 80+ hours in, when I got tired of killing bullet sponges in shallow, every-weapon-feels-like-a-training-sword combat.

Looks I've been ninja'd.

[Lainers]

I guess it can be a bit of both. There is a lot of good reviews with thousands of hour on record. I started playing yesterday and failed miserably with my first colony. From what I could see, it fits the bill.

[Teneb]

There is also one thing to keep in mind: you can play a game for thousands of hours, and then the developer goes and makes some bad changes to it, or, if it is a multiplayer game, it can just die out.

Example: I got a long, long time in TF2 and had loads of fun with it, but no way I can recommend it now.

[Lainers]

There is also one thing to keep in mind: you can play a game for thousands of hours, and then the developer goes and makes some bad changes to it, or, if it is a multiplayer game, it can just die out.

Example: I got a long, long time in TF2 and had loads of fun with it, but no way I can recommend it now.

This is the problem with Early Access/eternal development games. They can change due to user feedback or just beacause the dev thinks it is cool. You may find yourself playing an earlier, incomplete branch, just because someone ruined the original experience. 

[LoSboccacc]

There is also one thing to keep in mind: you can play a game for thousands of hours, and then the developer goes and makes some bad changes to it, or, if it is a multiplayer game, it can just die out.

Example: I got a long, long time in TF2 and had loads of fun with it, but no way I can recommend it now.

same sad story with from the depths

at least rimworld is easy to back up and play off steam

[Persus13]

Although Rimworld's 1.0 update is round the corner. So I think there will be an endpoint for the game.

[TheBronzePickle]

Probably not, really. Developers don't really stop developing games on 'release', especially since a lot of games call themselves released without actually being finished.

[Culise]

Probably not, really. Developers don't really stop developing games on 'release', especially since a lot of games call themselves released without actually being finished.

Depends on the developer, depends on the game.  Some developers do stop developing games on release, or for that matter, push it to release to stop development.  Come to think, some even stop developing the game before release.  What I've found on the forums here seems to suggest matters are presently indeterminate.  We might end up with a continuation of development as it's gone thus far, it may be reduced to minor bug-fixing and tweaking with no new major features, or it may be set aside entirely in favor of developing something new. 

Well, that aside, there will inevitably be an end-point for the game where it's no longer developed.  It may not be 1.0, but there will be an end-point at *some* point.

[Ygdrad]

Probably not, really. Developers don't really stop developing games on 'release', especially since a lot of games call themselves released without actually being finished.

Depends on the developer, depends on the game.  Some developers do stop developing games on release, or for that matter, push it to release to stop development.  Come to think, some even stop developing the game before release.  What I've found on the forums here seems to suggest matters are presently indeterminate.  We might end up with a continuation of development as it's gone thus far, it may be reduced to minor bug-fixing and tweaking with no new major features, or it may be set aside entirely in favor of developing something new. 

Well, that aside, there will inevitably be an end-point for the game where it's no longer developed.  It may not be 1.0, but there will be an end-point at *some* point.

Seeing as the 1.0 beta has been in constant heavy flux, I think the devs still hasn't settled on a lot of things and it's fair to say it's likely there will still be changes after release as the current way things are constantly changing does not seem to reflect a dev with a clear idea of what he wants 1.0 to be.

[LoSboccacc]

I hate steam I hate their workshop and I hate not being able to pin down versions of games/mods

Spoiler: my poor install (click to show/hide)

[hector13]

Are there any particular mods that I should have installed?