The guy who gave a negative review to Battlezone 98 Redux after playing 8k hours
pcgamer.com273 points by isaacfrond 8 months ago
273 points by isaacfrond 8 months ago
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.
At 8000 hours, most players have lost any connection to the design intent of "game" they're "playing" -- they've lost any intentional sense of pacing, any intentional sense of discovery, and have almost by definition disregarded any intentional sense of conclusion or completeness.
They're engaging in their own idiosyncratic experience with software that doesn't work exactly the way they now dream, but is apparently closer to what they want than anyrhing else.
In the general case, their insights are going to be a curiosity and might sometimes happen to coincide with a more broadly experienced flaw in the design. And of course they may be right on target for whatever few other "8000 hour" players.
Playing a game or using software a lot can give you some deep insights into it. But there is a crossover point where you spend so much time with it that your relationship with it isn't very related to anyone else's anymore, and your insights likewise become less relatable.
If you’ve done something 8,000 hours without being forced or paid and your net review is negative, that relationship is something in the family of compulsion or addiction. Man drinks 1,000 bottles of Jim Beam, gives it a thumbs down.
There’s still some information there, about how the game roped this guy in and where it left him. But like someone who’s just looking to try a bourbon, his review probably isn’t that helpful to you.
All of you are right except... for multiplayer and competitive games. If cheaters ruin the game, or if patches killed the competition, many serious players will be impacted
You're right, it could change over time. Thumbs up previously, thumbs down now.
This is an excellent point! I've wasted an ungodly amount of time playing Cookie Clicker and Pikmin Bloom, but both are—for different reasons—very bad games.
I was going to say I have 10k plus hours on steam adventure capitalist but I'm not actively playing all the time. Most of it is an autoclicker over the night or the weekend.
You may be right but I would also trust that person’s assessment of Jim Beam as a whiskey to some extent as well.
It's an online multiplayer PvP game. There is no pacing, conclusion or completeness like a single-player "estimated 40 hour playthrough" game, discovery is a metagame, and a review veering into historiography can add relevant and useful information for prospective players because of it, not in spite of it.
Online PvP games absolutely have pacing. Back then it was just about the skill ceiling and learning curve. In today's gaming era it's also matchmaking ranks and rewards and battlepass content. I do miss the days when you could buy a big budget multiplayer game and always jump in with all the tools pro players had. But it sounds like he had several complaints with the game dumbing down the skill ceiling (e.g. sniper bunny hopping) and bugs that let a novice player wipe the enemy team. A well paced multiplayer game has techniques that seem feasible to master but require a good amount of practice. A bad one only lets the top 1% of players achieve those skills after thousands of hours, or doesn't have such techniques at all.
Online RPG often have ceilings so high non hardcore players could play for years without actually experiencing all content especially with the infinite side-track available via socialization and helping others complete content.
There have been 20,000 hour players.
You say “back then” but there was a solid 15 years or so where skill based matchmaking didn’t exist, so whether or not you hit a skill ceiling varied from match to match and even from player to player you faced within a match.
I remember playing unreal tournament, counterstrike, etc. It’s not like servers were honest about skill level even 20% of the time lol
Uh, it can be multi-player. But the single player campaigns were the business, IMO.
I think you're broadly correct, although it's perhaps less applicable to games designed to hook you indefinitely.
I often think about film reviewers, and how the sheer volume of film they've watched means that their experiences are likely further removed from an average person's potential experience, than basically anyone else.
Much like how if you're an average person who doesn't really go to magic shows, the opinion of another random person on a magic show is probably going to be more appropriate for you than that of Penn and Teller, who've seen it all before.
The 8000 hour players might not even know what they themselves want anymore. Usually when they get to that point and they're submitting feedback requesting rather large changes, it's unlikely that they'll find much joy even if their requests are implemented exactly. They are burnt out with the game and that's not something that is fixed by making their grinds easier, adding a load more maps/weapons, or overhauling a system within the game.
When they've fallen out of love with the game, the best solution is to take a long break or just fully move on.
It took longer than I would like to admit to realize it was time to leave WoW for good. A few increasingly long breaks, followed by brief periods of trying to “fall back in love” with it.
It wasn’t so much that I got burned out on the game. It just didn’t fit into my life the way it once had, but not for lack of time. A person’s relationship with a video game can be weirdly complex.
Eh, partially right. There are of course exceptions, which is "creative" games, that allow to build and craft something- participate constructive in a creation - by either contributing to that creation - or just exploring something infinite like a procedurally generated world. Games can be infinite - similar to LEGO. A good product, takes a chunk of audience out of the market forever. For the artificial limitations of a company created "experience" you are of course correct.
I think that has no bearing on the boredom factor.
I love creative games, but each one will make me bored and burned out after a while. Then i take a break and do something else for a while and maybe the itch comes back later and i'll give it another go.
Even the procedurally generated stuff today is so limited in the variety of it. Yeah, there might be a billion planets in something like No Mans Sky or Elite Dangerous, but they're not very interesting to visit and mostly rather similar.
I'm sure this will improve, but it's very hard to make something believable and interesting on a small detailed scale.
The problem seems to be that generating procedural generated complexity (history of a planet), civilizations etc. is not even attempted at the moment.
Except for Factorio of course. 8,000 hours there means you've just about got the hang of it and are ready to finally get your factory set up right.
(Quip aside, you're absolutely right.)
You start as a player of games and the f#ctorio turns you into a functional programmer by the end
I think that really depends on the type of game. If you've been playing World of Warcraft, odds are good you've been playing it for a decade and have invested thousands of hours in it. There are probably a million other players like you. And while they didn't 20 years ago when the game launched, the designers very clearly have that type of player, the permanent subscriber, in mind these days.
Battlezone is an online PvP game so the intended experience may be similar, I imagine it's intended to be an infinite time sink.
I agree with your position, but at the same time LeBron, Messi or Hamilton have way more than 8000 hours of play in their respective "game", and yet I wouldn't underestimate their experience, quite the opposite: If I were an amateur player/racing driver I'm pretty sure I'd gain something by following their advices.
I'm pretty sure there's some differentiating factors between the two conditions, but I can't really pinpoint where.
I don’t know about LeBron, but Hamilton seems miserable and Messi misses quite a few games. I wonder how much they enjoy the sport. They do not need to play for satisfaction, they earn $10s of millions per year, it’s a job.
This is exactly why the biggest thing in gamedev, and all software dev to an extent, is getting your software in front of users as soon as possible. As a developer it isn't just that you know how it works, but you'll also have played the game or used the front end of the experience for thousands of hours.
New eyes will see fresh flaws. The user might not be right about how to fix the flaw, but they are absolutely right about where the flaws are.
The fact that it is "of course right on target for other 8000 hour players" contradicts the notion that its just "their own idiosyncratic experience". There must in fact something deeper which leads to convergence on the same idiosyncratic views, not just a long tail bell curve leading to completely random idiosyncratic individuals. Something sucks them in, even if that thing wasn't an original consideration in the design.
1 in 1,000,000 (or something) folk can't get past typing CLI commands in haiku form.
That doesn't mean there's any sense in adapting terminals for haiku usage.
Absolutely a tongue-in-cheek example, but "there's something for everyone" doesn't mean that something is something everyone should implement.
nice.
How would the devs fit into this idiosyncratic experience of the player (within the context of your thought train), regarding all that they did & communicated in those 8000 hours?
Come on, you could probably come up with a decent review of hacker news. You could probably give insights into its user interface, the good and bad points of posting and reading. You could talk about how things go wrong, how things go right. and lots more.
Don't you think you could do it without being too out-of-touch?
> The person best equipped to criticise a game or work is probably often someone who's experienced it for the longest.
It's funny, you'd probably not default to looking at the fattest glutton, world record cake eater in the world for their opinion on their favorite cake. You recognize that the fact that they ate a lot of that cake is a problem they have, not something that particularly elevates their opinion on what makes it good or bad. A healthy person's negative experience with a cake might boil down to something like the base being too dry or the coating being too sweet, while the gluttonous cake monster's negative experience with it might be that they felt nauseous after three entire cakes due to their nutmeg content.
So if you don't intend to eat three whole cakes in one sitting, their reflection on their negative experience is absolutely useless to you. Similarly, something like 9000 hours reflects an entirely different, unlikely and probably unique point of view, not a 100-1000x more refined version of the 8-80 hours most players will experience.
In this specific case however, the reviewer makes it clear that they feel like they've hade the rug pulled out under them by an update to the game, and can clearly state several concrete reasons why they think it's inferior to an earlier versions that don't just boil down to hating everything new. Whatever your experience is or whether you'll play the game for 9000 hours yourself, the points are mostly made such that their content makes sense to anyone. But I think their review seems reasonable despite their hours spent, not in the slightest because of them. Those are observations any player could have made after 10 or 100 hours.
I don't know - I'm a gamedev with several critically acclaimed games behind my belt and....I can't enjoy any of them. I think once you spent thousands of hours on a game and you know how the sausage is made so to speak, it's almost impossible to enjoy something. That doesn't make you a good critic, quite the opposite I think, because it's impossible for you to see how a new player who just bought the game and is playing it for the first time might feel about it.
It depends on what you are looking for out of the review. If you want a PhD dissertation on the game then yes, the guy who has dedicated probably decades of his life playing it is the person to go to. If you are a casual gamer looking for a simple answer for whether you should play the game or not, you don't really want to ask someone whose evaluation criteria isn't even in the same universe as yours.
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.
I think it's ok to not enjoy something after 8000 hours. It wasn't meant to be played for 8000 hours and it's good enough for him to get a full year of play out of it.
Depends on how you look at games as a form of entertainment.
If you see them as long term investments that you intend to give hundreds or thousands of hours of your time, then yes I agree with your stance.
But if you see games more like an expendable medium that gives you a couple of hours of entertainment before they grow stale, like watching a movie, then it's a different thing.
Of course, games are one and the other and many things between. This is one of the fascinating things about the medium — it has much greater variety than "movies", for example.
Nah, 8000 hours means something is wrong. If you played a game that long, you just can't give a negative review. It also means you are hooked and you need to touch grass, or you need someone to delete your account and get on with your life.
1 year of your life playing a game is just plain wrong, sorry to say that, but that's the reality.
He doesn't blame you for thinking that something is wrong with him. Quote from the article:
> I don't blame people for thinking that something is wrong with me after playing over 8,000 hours of a game only to leave a negative review
I loved this game growing up as it was one of the few games which ran well on our family computer, despite not having an internet connection to participate in any of the PvP elements. It was probably the most played game of my childhood. I've also logged almost 300 hours in the redux version on steam.
Interestingly, since I didn't have the internet to participate in the MMO elements of the game, my views of it are entirely rooted in the storyline and campaigns. The community is something I haven't experienced. And none of these netcode or pvp bugs or phantom players showed up there.
I love the game. In the single player modes, you can play as the NSDF (US) forces, USSR, (and later as the Chinese forces too) in a sci-fi retelling of the space race where you discover alien relics throughout our solar system and try to piece together where they came from, and more importantly, where they went. And it did this while combining a first-person vehicle combat mode with a top-down RTS system that, in my opinion, worked really well together. And I still take inspiration from it in hobby game projects I work on.
Now that I've grown up as a software developer I've thrown so many hours into writing Lua scripts to build my own missions and AI, and creating custom maps!
My god I love BZ98. For me, the remaster was frustrating. The most annoying thing was that certain things, like the combat AI, had been improved in ways that broke the balance of the single player campaign. I doubt players with the subject’s level of mastery would be bothered, but it significantly reduced my enjoyment.
It remains a rare gem, though. There are so few RTSs that place you in the world there isn’t even a name for the genre. The only others I can think of are Brutal Legend and Sacrifice. But BZ98 was the one that I discovered first.
Command and Conquer:Renegade was a (somewhat)contemporary of bz98 and scratched that BZ itch.
I remember waiting the The Pitts renegade server to start at 5 PM. Great memories from that game, it's a shame Westwood was acquired right when it was released.
Rather obscure but there there's also Hostile Waters: Antaeus Rising which comes in second only to Battlezone 98 as my favorite in the first person RTS genre. Tom Baker voices the narration, which is a nice little bonus.
Yes! I played that too! Love it, never managed to beat the huge frontal assault mission, though. IIRC Paul Darrow was a voice actor on it. Who I saw many years later playing Sam Vimes in Wimbledon Theatre.
Some of the remakes are just career springboards for wannabe developers. Look how talented we are, we can do this, you must employ us! Others are just plain ignorant, thinking they can cut corners.
The thing that comes to mind is the awful System Shock remake that some middle finger showing snotty kid created. Ruining the atmosphere, by changing the music, the setting, the intro and outro and even the looks. I can understand when Ferrari sues bloody idiots because they mod their cars in an unacceptable way.
> Ferrari sues bloody idiots because they mod their cars in an unacceptable way.
You mean when Deadmau5 put a wrap job on his?
> The most annoying thing was that certain things, like the combat AI, had been improved in ways that broke the balance of the single player campaign.
That's interesting because I remember being able to do alright in the original BZ98 campaign, but I can't make it past the second mission in Redux. I figured I just am getting old and my skills aren't sharp any more, but maybe not.
>It remains a rare gem, though.
I still have dreams of battles I once, long ago, played in Tanarus.
> There are so few RTSs that place you in the world there isn’t even a name for the genre.
I've never played the game under discussion but could someone expand on this?
Why is the genre so rare/unnamed? What is meant by "place you in the world"?
The genre is RTS+FPS and it's super hard to get the design right.
RTS players usually like being above the fray, FPS players like not having to think too much ahead.
Battlezon 98 did manage to deliver an amazing experience, but the AI was poor so competitive multiplayer is where it was at. Then obviously in the 1998 world of gaming there is only skill, and skilled players could wipe you off the map well before you have had the chance to learn anything and improve your skills...
I guess this experience can now only be found in some ARMA mods and other mil-sim type games, with well-organized private games, and this is not everyone's favorite universe, nothing sci-fi or fantasy themed that I know of.
Minecraft, Foundry etc would probably be the closest.
Arma. God I hate that game. You need tryhard larpers or that game is fundamentaly broken.
In the Battlezone analogy all but one player who is commander have the role of NPCs
Instead of being a god in the sky, you sit in a hover craft on the ground.
I have had a similar idea for a game since I was a child ~20 years ago.
My vision was a mix between a FPS where where you have a squad with you that you can order around with say quick wheel actions. Then you could "zoom out" to the battlefield to give more RTS style commands.
One key thing was any of the members of your local squad could be multiplayer real people instead of NPCs and also others could fill out the squads you are commanding.
Then daydreams about a hierarchical command structure where the player in the game with the highest "rank" is the highest in command. His "tactical RTS" view is just controlling say a few platoons but nothing more specific than general orders. Then say each platoon would have a commander (highest rank again, etc) who would have to implement orders from above using both his FPS view or using his tactical RTS view which now let's him control squads. Then down the line a squad commander who can control members of his team and so on.
I think it would be a bit rigid and I know of games which check off a few boxes but I would love something like this.
I played an astounding amount of Urban Assault. The only other games that ever scratched even a similar itch were Allegiance and EvE.
Wild too that Urban Assault and Allegiance were both pre-xbox Microsoft games.
Urban Assault is a wildly niche game. I tried it once and it was so impenetrable I couldn’t even figure out the first settings goal.
The first Battlezone was an awesome game, graphics were amazing for its time. Second one was also not bad TBH.
I loved the feeling of hovering above the ground and shooting down enemies. Then if your ship was about to be destroyed, you would eject out of your ship and you could try to snipe your enemy's ship to steal theirs. When you were outside your ship, you were very weak and ships could kill you by just running over you or with a single shot so you had to have really good aim to snipe and hijack one of your enemy's ship fast. Then you could literally drive around in their bases in their ship to spy on them and they wouldn't recognize you as the enemy (until you started shooting at them). That way you could check out their positions and defensive infrastructure to decide whether or not to mount an attack and how. Brilliant concept.
I also loved that there was a goal of exploring the map to find and secure geothermal geysers as you could only start a base around those. It was one of the first truly immersive game experiences.
This was many years before counter-strike, but the game mechanics were far more complex. It definitely didn't get the hype it deserved.
I worked on BZ2 at Pandemic in 99-00 and setup the forums, and I don't remember this fellow in particular (tbf I can't remember anyone's names), but I recall we had a lot of trolls so I wouldn't doubt he was there. It's been quite a treat to see how passionate the Battlezone community has been over all these years. Anyway, AMA.
BZ2 was one of my favorite games for quite some time after it released, just a blast to play. I had been really into BZ98 before it, and didn't think a sequel would be able to match the magic, but I ended up playing more of BZ2 in the end. Anyway, it's nice to be able to say thanks to one of the devs for all the good times!
Any particular interesting stories about BZ2's development that you recall? Always interesting to hear how games like this come together, so much of the time it seems like more luck than anything!
Glad you liked it!
I worked on 3d modeling/texturing and mp maps, though my time was divided between BZ2 and our other game Dark Reign 2 and other duties, so I was never full-time on BZ2. Of the games I worked on during my 3 years at Pandemic, BZ2 was my favorite.
I was very young when I joined Pandemic, having interned my senior year of high school and then joining full-time that June. It was a wonderful company to work for and had just broken free from Activision 6mo prior so there was a lot of early startup company culture being built. Witnessing how to build a company the right way was very informative to my later career.
Iirc I think we got a bit ahead of our skis with BZ2's engine rewrite, and in retrospect should have treated BZ2's tech as more of an expansion of BZ1's instead of a whole new game. The engine caused a lot of headaches and bugs, and it taught me early in my career that rewrites and new tech aren't always the right decision.
I think the decision to be more ambitious was due to the rapid transition in graphics going on in the late 90s, it was the age of early graphics accelerators like 3dfx Voodoo & Riva TNT. Hard to hit a moving target.
BZ2's codebase had quite the lineage, pieces of it transmogrified over the years from MechWarrior 2 -> Interstate 76 -> BZ1 -> BZ2 -> Dark Reign 2 & Star Wars Clone Wars. Getting ambitious while also dealing with the legacy bits I think contributed to the many early bugs. I wasn't an engineer but did futz around with the particle system which was one of the new fancy parts that got more attention.
BZ2 came in hot for Christmas 99, it wasn't exactly ready and needed a lot of patching over the next several months. If we'd had been less ambitious with the tech I believe it'd have been a decently polished release and had more success, since art, design, and gameplay were not behind. I remember feeling sad we were releasing before it was ready, and the lesson that better planning and tech choices were the way to avoid that feeling.
Unfortunately Activision wasn't a great partner for us as a publisher, there was some bad blood as they didn't like that we'd broken off as a studio rather than stay under their wing, so they didn't do much to promote the game. We were pretty pissed with that. Same thing happened with Dark Reign 2.
As far as design goes, towards the end of 99 I dove into making BZ2 maps, building Ground Zero and I think a few others. Later the engine became known as the Ground Zero or Zero engine, not sure if it was named after the level or just chosen independently. I remember being particularly motivated to work on BZ2 because I really loved the game and it was getting close to release. I had some freedom to decide my time as DR2 was going through a rough spot, so I just decided to throw myself into BZ2.
There were some multiplayer maps I didn't get to finish, including one that was basically a big 3d asset I built in Softimage that was a rock formation with multiple levels that would have really pushed the boundaries of what was possible in BZ2 maps. I'd have loved to see that come together in time, tho I'm not sure what the AI pathfinding would have done with it - I think I designed it specifically for PvP tho. Once BZ2 was released, attention immediately turned to shipping DR2, which had gone through some team turnover and needed a near complete redesign in 6 months. I wound up making all the multiplayer maps for that, and having a great time with that team.
I hope to write up more war stories at another time. It's been 25(!) years now since release. Crazy.
Why do you think these people still play this game after all these years?
It's a pretty unique hybrid genre game, you don't really get a lot of first person + RTS experiences, I think that's the big enduring appeal. It also gives you a lot of vehicle types to pick from, which became Pandemic's signature game style as seen later in Mercenaries and Star Wars Battlefront.
Part of the appeal of being a hybrid genre game is that there just aren't really many of them, because after the 90s games kinda settled into some pretty well-defined genres. You have 3rd person action games, FPS, RTS, RPGs, etc, all pretty cleanly delineated, and they all start getting judged based on those genres conventions.
Oh, a newer Battlezone. Not the original from 1980, the first 3D coin-op game.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlezone_(1980_video_game)
My first thought on reading the title was "8k hours is a lot of quarters".
What's wild is, it kind of resembles Golgotha, the aborted FPS/strategy tank shooter from Crack Dot Com, the studio formed by former Id Software Linux evangelist Dave Taylor.
Golgotha was to be Crack's second game, but they folded before it could be finished, and released what code and assets they did have as open source (this was when CatB was still fresh).
As soon as I read crack dot com I recalled the gun firing sound from Abuse :)
Fun game, too bad about the company.
There is another Battlezone game which is a reimagined/updated version of the coin-op game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlezone_(2016_video_game). It was a decent bit of fun and notably had VR headset support.
Having the same name was an understandable marketing decision, but I think it probably harmed it in many ways. The game is interesting and different even today (although I’ve mention my reservations about it further up)
Steam reviews are becoming a pathological game for developers and players alike.
At 8000 hours played, this guy should have the privilege of posting a review which is both more visible and less weighted in terms of good/bad. After a certain amount of engagement, you're implicitly thumbs upping a game. However, players with that level of commitment and sunk time feel disempowered when a game changes to betrays their expectations. They should just have a different kind of review that at the same time as it takes away their ability to thumbs down the title, it gives their thoughts visibility to the developers and community.
You're forgetting about updates. I can play a game for 8k hours, then the developers change something important that makes me stop playing entirely. Shouldn't I be allowed to post a negative review then?
Sorry, but negative reviews are the only reviews I read on Steam. You can already see the hours spent at the time of review and as of today so it's trivial to take that into consideration or not.
Really enjoyed this article last week. I wonder how obvious or how long it would take most players to see the difference between the (preferred) original, and the redone Remastered.
The part about why the author spent another 600 hours playing after the negative review is heartwarming as heck: to help other people modding.
Battlezone 98 was an incredible game for me, even if I didn't get far into it. The blend of fps and rts felt sweeping and epic, gave a sense of scale I hadn't experienced. The game ran incredibly smoothly on the Pentium mmx with crappy voodoo banshee.
My hours logged is nowhere near Sacrifice, a game with incredibly different setting (planes hopping wizard currying favor with local dieties), but both games had that blend of first-person and rts that was incredibly challenging & of incredibly neat scale, teaversing huge open spaces. I only play them once or twice a decade now, but they're games that recur in my thoughts a lot.
Sacrifice also had an incredible branching story and builds that directly relied on previous decisions.
Can’t help but think that amount of time is better spent elsewhere, and that goes for all video games. A bit sad really.
Outside of extreme cases like this, where someone’s leisure time is presumably wholly directed towards one pursuit, do you typically question the quantity of time spent on entertainment? How about the millions of hours of cable TV every month? Doing sudoku? Playing pool? All unproductive things according to your mindset.
On some deep level I do feel all of these things are a waste of time, so I end up scrolling Reddit and HN instead. Is there a firmware patch for this? ;)
Right! :) But also consider the fact that you should be thankful that you live in a society where you don't have to be productive 100% of your time.
There aren't any societies like that thankfully. Yet. There's some subcultures, like on HN where at least some years ago there seemed to be a subculture that if you didn't spend your spare time on your side gig or startup, you weren't a real hacker.
That said, the reality for a lot of people living in the US at the moment (and for a while now) is that they have to work multiple jobs and / or gigs like uber to make ends meet.
True! But the simple fact is that I do waste the majority of my time, by my own standards.
Everything we have made or will ever make will disappear when the universe goes through the next cycle, however many billion years that will take. Doing something that makes you happy here, now is something that will disappear with you, but at the end of the day, what is the real difference?
“Better” is a very subjective statement, after a very long absence from playing games, I’ve started again - and the positive impact on my mental health and therefore time spent on other more “serious” activities is both increased and more focused.
This post made me think about my OG WoW days. My main had over 1 year of play time, and my alts, maybe another 20-30 days, so that puts me at about 9600 hours. I played for 5-6 years intensely in a progressive raising guild, then faded away over about a year after some crazy guild drama, it was such a loss.
It burned me out and I basically quit gaming for the last 10 years, now that I think about it. Some sim or resource games here and there, nothing multiplayer and nothing "reactive". Maybe a few hours a month.
Anyway, I reflected on it as this big waste of time, so I felt I had to grind at life instead. Games are a waste of time, do something productive. I'm only now appreciating the anxiety that caused.
This intern I work with is a gamer and asks me if I play anything. I realize I'm older than his mom so he's really getting a kick of my stories cause "I'm like too old to play games haha, wow that's crazy"
He said something like "you can afford it, how do you not have a gaming computer bro?" I thought, he's got a point.
So I find a tricked out craigslist gaming computer a few weeks ago and download some games on steam. I was floored at A. What games have become and how fuckin good they look B. How much fun I was having and C. How I was able to soothe anxiety
Just do what you like with your spare time, if it makes you happy and doesn't fuck your life up, do it.
“Well, maybe it is true,” Clevinger conceded unwillingly in a subdued tone. Maybe a long life does have to be filled with many unpleasant conditions if it’s to seem long. But in that event, who wants one?”
“I do,” Dunbar told him.
“Why?” Clevinger asked.
“What else is there?”
Memories I have made in Morrowind, Fallout, Skyrim, WoW, Elden Ring are some of the best memories of my life. They are as real as my real life. I make no distinction between real and imaginary. I’ve done things and experienced things people in the real world could never imagine. I don’t regret a single second spent playing those games. And I value the time I have in my life greatly.
Humans (and many mammals) tend to expend vast amounts of time on idle pleasures. I love simracing and flightsims. They tickle my brain and are challenging and a far better use of my downtime than watching mindless TV (which I also do :-)
What are your hobbies? Serious question, what do you spend your time on outside of work and obligations, and how many hours have you collectively spent on it?
Everyone needs a hobby, for many that's video games. For some of those, a single / specific game becomes their singular hobby. See also: special interests.
I for one have been in a specific video game community for twenty years now even though I haven't engaged with the games much myself. But I know people who have, who tore the game apart, found unused content and are making mods to restore it [0], who retranslated the game(s)[1] , turned them into novels [2], D&D campaigns [3], play a poorly received spinoff over and over again for years to finish some levels in seconds [4], etc etc etc.
I think it's a bit sad to pooh-pooh other people's passions tbh.
[0] https://www.shinraarchaeology.com/retransmod.html
[1] https://thelifestream.net/category/lifestream-projects/translations/
[2] https://www.patreon.com/posts/52273334
[3] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ydIyBrJ0diEYzWz28_4y7Z38rzWCvYXQ/view
[4] https://www.youtube.com/@Shademp/videos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=38000 hours isn't unheard of. It's definitely above average dedication. But it's surprisingly common.
Moreso in MMO style games though, which are notorious / intentional time sinks. I remember that xfire at some point mentioned I had 3000+ hours in Eve Online, but to be honest a lot of that time was spent ship spinning / waiting for something to happen, I'd have the game running passively most evenings for a while, do that every day and you've got ~1500 hours per year already.
That's nothing. I know people that have spent 40 years dedicated to their religion. Then one day abandoned it with a negative review.
If the only place nearby to kick a ball around with friends is on an incline, turns to mud half the year, filled with dog droppings, pocked by holes in the ground, peppered with fire ants, lined with poison ivy behind the lopsided structures that stand in for goals, and you utterly hate it-- you might spend a lot of time there anyway.
OMG, imagine he spent the 8k hours learning to program or play the piano or walking across the country. I’m not into games that much even though I’ve played a bit. From the outside this looks like a sad way to spend our time on this planet.
Others would say spending 8k hours learning to program or programming is sad.
Just do what makes you happy, don't judge other peoples hobbies.
On a side note: I'm actually not sure why games specifically still have such a negative connotation in a day and age where most people spend more time doomscrolling social media or watching reality TV slop every day.
To help contextualize it - this is roughly 2h 45m every day, for 8 years.
That's an INSANE amount of time which - as you say - could be spent learning to play the piano solo from Scenes from an Italian Restaurant.
It's about same amount of time people in the US watch traditional broadcast TV each day. Streaming TV is way longer (4 hours)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/186833/average-televisio...
You assume people gain no skills from playing video games which is false.
8.7k hours in an entire year.
So if you assume 8 hours sleeping, 8 hours working, and 8 hours of free-time per day, this means spending virtually every waking, non-working hour playing Battlezone 98 Redux for 3 years. Wow.
When we back-of-the-envelope it, a 'working year' is 2080 hours. So more like 4 years of a full time job.
Were those really 8k hours? I remember installing some "new MMORPG" over steam (I'm a linux user) and impossibility to even pass tutorial because of the anti-cheat kick-ins at some later point after login. The whole game session takes like 3 minutes. I have had several attempts like may be 5. At different times after some changes to environment. The game have reported more than 300hrs to the steam.
If you played this game say 3 hours a day, it would take 8 years of playing every single day to reach his 9000 hours. The game came out 8 years ago.
I think intention behind reviews is also important. Is it review or is it recommendation. I might have spend lot of time on something, but still not recommend it. Which is reasonable. Many people spend lot of time on things they would not recommend others to spend time on.
There’s also a remake of battlezone 2: combat commander which is excellent. Truly excellent games!
No way to get more sniper ammo on the Nintendo 64 version very frustrating
Goddamn there's a lot of comments on this crap...
I didn't realize that I was such a big deal.
I wish there wasn't so much so I might actually read it. It's paralyzing.
Recycler here!
Those are rookie numbers. You gotta pump those numbers up.
Those 8,461 hours were over five years, meaning he averaged more than four and a half hours a day.
I couldn't even imagine doing that for something I loved.
One caveat is that a lot of people have the game running while doing other things, so while Steam may log it as just over 9000 hours right now, that doesn't mean 9000 hours of active play.
Well, at least he's broken the addiction now: just 30 minutes of play over the last two weeks!
this story touched me, honestly. humans are so funny. sometimes we just get used to the way things are, and we carry it forward, and that’s that. no reasoning. it’s bad, i know. but that’s life
something poetic and true abt it all
Objects are made by men and used for many purposes. But we never love objects
Aye, Cap'n, I'm suffering as miserably as I can.
Is Scott Smith even a real name though?
Isn't it always easy to give a negative review to an old game though? Or maybe an old movie that would nowadays be considered politically incorrect.
Hot take: You shouldn't be able to leave a negative review after playing the game for the equivalent of working at a full-time job for four years. Maybe after playing for X hours "Negative" should change to "Positive, but suggestions for improvement".
[dead]
The only Battlezone I'd consider playing would be the wireframe vector graphic version from 1980, where you drive a tank with two joysticks controlling the left and right caterpillars, watch the radar, and first-person-shoot at shit that comes at you.