| Chazore said: Reviews in total seems a bit odd to tip your sale for the game with it being 50k positive and 6k negative. Some of the negative reviews have only had a total play time of 2-10 hours for some and the rare cases being 500 hours, likely for those that stopped playing the game for a year or two and then came back. |
The vast majority of the positive reviews are from pre-1.0. Why would I listen to reviews from what the game was prior to the 1.0 release? That is an inherent, glaring flaw with the Early Access system, where reviews just keep on keeping on while a game is developed. The negative reviews are seriously in depth about the issues following 1.0 as well, whereas the average positive Steam review is about six words and a joke, which lets you know there is legitimately something to complain about here if Steam users actually care enough to type out their thoughts in full and then hundreds of people procreed to agree with those thoughts. These aren't all people with two to ten hours either. These scathing reviews are people with hundreds of hours who have been following the game for years.
So yeah, I feel reasonably comfortable trusting these people who trusted the developer enough to follow the game for years, enjoy what it turned into, only to have much of that ripped away because apparently it wasn't deemed functional enough for a 1.0 release.
Granted, I accept that much of the agreement may just be initial backlash, but paying attention to the actual content, the game as it was right up to 1.0 sounded like a treasure. 1.0 sounds like a polished turd trying to appeal to the lowest possible denominator.
