ZenfoldorVGI said:
That said, two lines of thinking enter here, and I think they have basis in reality. The questions you must ask:
A. Did most people who hated the game, finish it?
B. Should you be required to finish a game before you can give a valid opinion?
|
A. No, I did not finish it.
B. No, I shouldn't have to finish it to give a valid opinion.
As I said earlier, I gave this game two very valiant tries, putting more than 15 hours into each try. I already stated my reasons above why I hate the game though it isn't rich in detail. I wish I could go into more detail, but it was more than a year ago since I last played the game (probably more than two) and I don't make it a point to remember every detail about games I hated that I played a long time ago.
Now on to why I can hate the game.
If I had played the game for two hours and tried to tell everyone it was shit, then yes, you could laugh in my face but I put a lot of time into that game. A game should not take more than 15 hours to get interesting. The game could very well get awesome after that 15 hour mark but it doesn't matter because any game that takes 15 hours to get good is a complete failure in my honest opinion. That game really had almost no redeeming qualities after 15 hours for me: the combat wasn't bad but it isn't something that can last me 120 hours, the story was boring, the characters were terrible, the gambits were a good idea but they did as dumb as possible, and the license system was crap.
So no, you don't have to finish a game to have a valid opinion. There's no reason to sit through 15 hours of bad gaming to get to the good stuff and I honestly don't know what could have improved that wasn't already ruined in the first 15 hours.