How long should you play a game before you truly understand it?

There’s a certain contingent of PC gamers who believe you need to spend hundreds of hours with a title before you’re allowed to form an opinion. Especially in online spaces, it’s common to see someone discredited for “only” playing 10 hours—as if they just sniffed the box and walked away.

I get it… kind of. If we’re talking about something massive and layered like Skyrim, then sure. One playthrough can take weeks out of your life. But is that the standard?

Take a glance at GOG, which often lists average completion times. Here’s a small sample:

• Kingdom Come: Deliverance - 41.5 hours
• Deus Ex - 22.5 hours
• Frostpunk - 10.5 hours
• The Invincible - 6.5 hours
• Project Warlock - 4 hours

That’s a huge range. Why?

Mostly genre. The more RPG-like a game is, the longer it will take to finish. But the more arcade-y a game is, the tighter the runtime.

But there’s this myth—especially among purists—that a “real” PC game shouldn’t feel arcade-y. That PC games are meant to be vast, deep, and long.

I’ve been a PC gamer for decades. That idea’s nonsense.

When I had a physical Commodore 64, I could beat Uridium in under 20 minutes. Sure, the C64 is technically an 8-bit micro—not a “PC” in the strictest sense—but I also played Dangerous Dave on DOS. That took about 30 minutes.

What about much more modern games? A few months ago, I played Virginia (2016). I was done in one sitting. It took me an hour and a half.

Which brings us back to the real question: what does it mean to “understand” a game? Is it the same as completing it?

I don’t think so. Plenty of games aren’t even meant to be completed. Take puzzle games. Tetris, for instance, never ends—just speeds up until you die. That’s still a PC game, by the way. It launched on DOS before it ever hit arcades or home consoles.

And even for games that do have an ending, completion doesn’t necessarily equal comprehension. What’s the point of dragging yourself through 30 hours of crap just to say you finished it? I’ve done that with bad games—and trust me, the only thing I gained was regret. Pongo, for example. I played that mess to the bitter end. I don’t understand it any better than I did five minutes in. I just feel cheated out of my time.

Most games tell you what they’re about in the first five minutes. If it’s unresponsive, broken, or filled with jank right out of the gate, that’s usually your cue to uninstall. And I’m not just talking about asset flips.

Elder Scrolls: Arena stinks. It’s got one of the worst control schemes I’ve ever witnessed. And even by the standards of 1995, it is an ugly game. No, I haven’t finished Arena, nor do I intend to—I have suffered enough. I gave it a solid 30 minutes—everyone told me it was a great—but some games are not worth it.

Granted, sometimes there are games that massively improve after the first five minutes. Star Wars Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith is a good example of this. Initially, trying to figure out what to do is such a chore. But afterwards, it’s pure bliss. And for this reason, I feel most negative reviews on Steam are wrong.

But Mysteries of the Sith is an exception—not the rule. Most of the time, if you like a game within five minutes of play, you’ll probably like it 50 hours afterwards.

If it’s bad at the start, it rarely gets better.

 So no—hundreds of hours aren’t necessary to “get” a game. You don’t owe your time to any title. Five minutes can be enough. And if that five minutes fills you with joy, then the game has already done its job.

After all, isn’t the point to have fun?

Sometimes you can spot a critical design decision that experience with the genre can tell you right off the bat it won’t be for you.

Sometimes you have to play through it to realize it doesn’t meet expectations. A lot of the games I play are deep sandboxes that if I like I’ll sink hundreds of hours into, and often come with a very steep learning period. With those the problems can be subtle and take a depth of experience to understand. I have 108 hours in Civ 5 because that’s how long it took me to realize I didn’t like it at all, despite previously being a fan of the series. There are other games I’ve played for longer and wouldn’t recommend if asked because having developed a nuanced understanding of the systems I see how some design decisions undermine the fantasy the game is trying to sell. Sure I enjoyed it well enough at the time, but for someone who likes to engage with depth this sort of perspective can be appreciated in a review so you know the time is better spent elsewhere.

That’s funny because Civ 5 is my absolute favourite in the series. I can play that game forever.

To me, Civ 6 is the one I felt profound disappointment. By no means is it awful. I just feel it didn’t reach the height of Civ 5.

But of course, everyone experiences fun differently.

How long should you play a game before you truly understand it?

There’s a certain contingent of PC gamers who believe you need to spend hundreds of hours with a title before you’re allowed to form an opinion. Especially in online spaces, it’s common to see someone discredited for “only” playing 10 hours—as if they just sniffed the box and walked away.

I get it… kind of. If we’re talking about something massive and layered like Skyrim, then sure. One playthrough can take weeks out of your life. But is that the standard?

Take a glance at GOG, which often lists average completion times. Here’s a small sample:

• Kingdom Come: Deliverance - 41.5 hours
• Deus Ex - 22.5 hours
• Frostpunk - 10.5 hours
• The Invincible - 6.5 hours
• Project Warlock - 4 hours

That’s a huge range. Why?

Mostly genre. The more RPG-like a game is, the longer it will take to finish. But the more arcade-y a game is, the tighter the runtime.

But there’s this myth—especially among purists—that a “real” PC game shouldn’t feel arcade-y. That PC games are meant to be vast, deep, and long.

I’ve been a PC gamer for decades. That idea’s nonsense.

When I had a physical Commodore 64, I could beat Uridium in under 20 minutes. Sure, the C64 is technically an 8-bit micro—not a “PC” in the strictest sense—but I also played Dangerous Dave on DOS. That took about 30 minutes.

What about much more modern games? A few months ago, I played Virginia (2016). I was done in one sitting. It took me an hour and a half.

Which brings us back to the real question: what does it mean to “understand” a game? Is it the same as completing it?

I don’t think so. Plenty of games aren’t even meant to be completed. Take puzzle games. Tetris, for instance, never ends—just speeds up until you die. That’s still a PC game, by the way. It launched on DOS before it ever hit arcades or home consoles.

And even for games that do have an ending, completion doesn’t necessarily equal comprehension. What’s the point of dragging yourself through 30 hours of crap just to say you finished it? I’ve done that with bad games—and trust me, the only thing I gained was regret. Pongo, for example. I played that mess to the bitter end. I don’t understand it any better than I did five minutes in. I just feel cheated out of my time.

Most games tell you what they’re about in the first five minutes. If it’s unresponsive, broken, or filled with jank right out of the gate, that’s usually your cue to uninstall. And I’m not just talking about asset flips.

Elder Scrolls: Arena stinks. It’s got one of the worst control schemes I’ve ever witnessed. And even by the standards of 1995, it is an ugly game. No, I haven’t finished Arena, nor do I intend to—I have suffered enough. I gave it a solid 30 minutes—everyone told me it was a great—but some games are not worth it.

Granted, sometimes there are games that massively improve after the first five minutes. Star Wars Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith is a good example of this. Initially, trying to figure out what to do is such a chore. But afterwards, it’s pure bliss. And for this reason, I feel most negative reviews on Steam are wrong.

But Mysteries of the Sith is an exception—not the rule. Most of the time, if you like a game within five minutes of play, you’ll probably like it 50 hours afterwards.

If it’s bad at the start, it rarely gets better.

 So no—hundreds of hours aren’t necessary to “get” a game. You don’t owe your time to any title. Five minutes can be enough. And if that five minutes fills you with joy, then the game has already done its job.

After all, isn’t the point to have fun?

How long should you play a game before you truly understand it?

There’s a certain contingent of PC gamers who believe you need to spend hundreds of hours with a title before you’re allowed to form an opinion. Especially in online spaces, it’s common to see someone discredited for “only” playing 10 hours—as if they just sniffed the box and walked away.

I get it… kind of. If we’re talking about something massive and layered like Skyrim, then sure. One playthrough can take weeks out of your life. But is that the standard?

Take a glance at GOG, which often lists average completion times. Here’s a small sample:

• Kingdom Come: Deliverance - 41.5 hours
• Deus Ex - 22.5 hours
• Frostpunk - 10.5 hours
• The Invincible - 6.5 hours
• Project Warlock - 4 hours

That’s a huge range. Why?

Mostly genre. The more RPG-like a game is, the longer it will take to finish. But the more arcade-y a game is, the tighter the runtime.

But there’s this myth—especially among purists—that a “real” PC game shouldn’t feel arcade-y. That PC games are meant to be vast, deep, and long.

I’ve been a PC gamer for decades. That idea’s nonsense.

When I had a physical Commodore 64, I could beat Uridium in under 20 minutes. Sure, the C64 is technically an 8-bit micro—not a “PC” in the strictest sense—but I also played Dangerous Dave on DOS. That took about 30 minutes.

What about much more modern games? A few months ago, I played Virginia (2016). I was done in one sitting. It took me an hour and a half.

Which brings us back to the real question: what does it mean to “understand” a game? Is it the same as completing it?

I don’t think so. Plenty of games aren’t even meant to be completed. Take puzzle games. Tetris, for instance, never ends—just speeds up until you die. That’s still a PC game, by the way. It launched on DOS before it ever hit arcades or home consoles.

And even for games that do have an ending, completion doesn’t necessarily equal comprehension. What’s the point of dragging yourself through 30 hours of crap just to say you finished it? I’ve done that with bad games—and trust me, the only thing I gained was regret. Pongo, for example. I played that mess to the bitter end. I don’t understand it any better than I did five minutes in. I just feel cheated out of my time.

Most games tell you what they’re about in the first five minutes. If it’s unresponsive, broken, or filled with jank right out of the gate, that’s usually your cue to uninstall. And I’m not just talking about asset flips.

Elder Scrolls: Arena stinks. It’s got one of the worst control schemes I’ve ever witnessed. And even by the standards of 1995, it is an ugly game. No, I haven’t finished Arena, nor do I intend to—I have suffered enough. I gave it a solid 30 minutes—everyone told me it was a great—but some games are not worth it.

Granted, sometimes there are games that massively improve after the first five minutes. Star Wars Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith is a good example of this. Initially, trying to figure out what to do is such a chore. But afterwards, it’s pure bliss. And for this reason, I feel most negative reviews on Steam are wrong.

But Mysteries of the Sith is an exception—not the rule. Most of the time, if you like a game within five minutes of play, you’ll probably like it 50 hours afterwards.

If it’s bad at the start, it rarely gets better.

 So no—hundreds of hours aren’t necessary to “get” a game. You don’t owe your time to any title. Five minutes can be enough. And if that five minutes fills you with joy, then the game has already done its job.

After all, isn’t the point to have fun?

How long should you play a game before you truly understand it?

There’s a certain contingent of PC gamers who believe you need to spend hundreds of hours with a title before you’re allowed to form an opinion. Especially in online spaces, it’s common to see someone discredited for “only” playing 10 hours—as if they just sniffed the box and walked away.

I get it… kind of. If we’re talking about something massive and layered like Skyrim, then sure. One playthrough can take weeks out of your life. But is that the standard?

Take a glance at GOG, which often lists average completion times. Here’s a small sample:

• Kingdom Come: Deliverance - 41.5 hours
• Deus Ex - 22.5 hours
• Frostpunk - 10.5 hours
• The Invincible - 6.5 hours
• Project Warlock - 4 hours

That’s a huge range. Why?

Mostly genre. The more RPG-like a game is, the longer it will take to finish. But the more arcade-y a game is, the tighter the runtime.

But there’s this myth—especially among purists—that a “real” PC game shouldn’t feel arcade-y. That PC games are meant to be vast, deep, and long.

I’ve been a PC gamer for decades. That idea’s nonsense.

When I had a physical Commodore 64, I could beat Uridium in under 20 minutes. Sure, the C64 is technically an 8-bit micro—not a “PC” in the strictest sense—but I also played Dangerous Dave on DOS. That took about 30 minutes.

What about much more modern games? A few months ago, I played Virginia (2016). I was done in one sitting. It took me an hour and a half.

Which brings us back to the real question: what does it mean to “understand” a game? Is it the same as completing it?

I don’t think so. Plenty of games aren’t even meant to be completed. Take puzzle games. Tetris, for instance, never ends—just speeds up until you die. That’s still a PC game, by the way. It launched on DOS before it ever hit arcades or home consoles.

And even for games that do have an ending, completion doesn’t necessarily equal comprehension. What’s the point of dragging yourself through 30 hours of crap just to say you finished it? I’ve done that with bad games—and trust me, the only thing I gained was regret. Pongo, for example. I played that mess to the bitter end. I don’t understand it any better than I did five minutes in. I just feel cheated out of my time.

Most games tell you what they’re about in the first five minutes. If it’s unresponsive, broken, or filled with jank right out of the gate, that’s usually your cue to uninstall. And I’m not just talking about asset flips.

Elder Scrolls: Arena stinks. It’s got one of the worst control schemes I’ve ever witnessed. And even by the standards of 1995, it is an ugly game. No, I haven’t finished Arena, nor do I intend to—I have suffered enough. I gave it a solid 30 minutes—everyone told me it was a great—but some games are not worth it.

Granted, sometimes there are games that massively improve after the first five minutes. Star Wars Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith is a good example of this. Initially, trying to figure out what to do is such a chore. But afterwards, it’s pure bliss. And for this reason, I feel most negative reviews on Steam are wrong.

But Mysteries of the Sith is an exception—not the rule. Most of the time, if you like a game within five minutes of play, you’ll probably like it 50 hours afterwards.

If it’s bad at the start, it rarely gets better.

 So no—hundreds of hours aren’t necessary to “get” a game. You don’t owe your time to any title. Five minutes can be enough. And if that five minutes fills you with joy, then the game has already done its job.

After all, isn’t the point to have fun?

How long should you play a game before you truly understand it?

There’s a certain contingent of PC gamers who believe you need to spend hundreds of hours with a title before you’re allowed to form an opinion. Especially in online spaces, it’s common to see someone discredited for “only” playing 10 hours—as if they just sniffed the box and walked away.

I get it… kind of. If we’re talking about something massive and layered like Skyrim, then sure. One playthrough can take weeks out of your life. But is that the standard?

Take a glance at GOG, which often lists average completion times. Here’s a small sample:

• Kingdom Come: Deliverance - 41.5 hours
• Deus Ex - 22.5 hours
• Frostpunk - 10.5 hours
• The Invincible - 6.5 hours
• Project Warlock - 4 hours

That’s a huge range. Why?

Mostly genre. The more RPG-like a game is, the longer it will take to finish. But the more arcade-y a game is, the tighter the runtime.

But there’s this myth—especially among purists—that a “real” PC game shouldn’t feel arcade-y. That PC games are meant to be vast, deep, and long.

I’ve been a PC gamer for decades. That idea’s nonsense.

When I had a physical Commodore 64, I could beat Uridium in under 20 minutes. Sure, the C64 is technically an 8-bit micro—not a “PC” in the strictest sense—but I also played Dangerous Dave on DOS. That took about 30 minutes.

What about much more modern games? A few months ago, I played Virginia (2016). I was done in one sitting. It took me an hour and a half.

Which brings us back to the real question: what does it mean to “understand” a game? Is it the same as completing it?

I don’t think so. Plenty of games aren’t even meant to be completed. Take puzzle games. Tetris, for instance, never ends—just speeds up until you die. That’s still a PC game, by the way. It launched on DOS before it ever hit arcades or home consoles.

And even for games that do have an ending, completion doesn’t necessarily equal comprehension. What’s the point of dragging yourself through 30 hours of crap just to say you finished it? I’ve done that with bad games—and trust me, the only thing I gained was regret. Pongo, for example. I played that mess to the bitter end. I don’t understand it any better than I did five minutes in. I just feel cheated out of my time.

Most games tell you what they’re about in the first five minutes. If it’s unresponsive, broken, or filled with jank right out of the gate, that’s usually your cue to uninstall. And I’m not just talking about asset flips.

Elder Scrolls: Arena stinks. It’s got one of the worst control schemes I’ve ever witnessed. And even by the standards of 1995, it is an ugly game. No, I haven’t finished Arena, nor do I intend to—I have suffered enough. I gave it a solid 30 minutes—everyone told me it was a great—but some games are not worth it.

Granted, sometimes there are games that massively improve after the first five minutes. Star Wars Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith is a good example of this. Initially, trying to figure out what to do is such a chore. But afterwards, it’s pure bliss. And for this reason, I feel most negative reviews on Steam are wrong.

But Mysteries of the Sith is an exception—not the rule. Most of the time, if you like a game within five minutes of play, you’ll probably like it 50 hours afterwards.

If it’s bad at the start, it rarely gets better.

 So no—hundreds of hours aren’t necessary to “get” a game. You don’t owe your time to any title. Five minutes can be enough. And if that five minutes fills you with joy, then the game has already done its job.

After all, isn’t the point to have fun?

Sometimes you can spot a critical design decision that experience with the genre can tell you right off the bat it won’t be for you.

Sometimes you have to play through it to realize it doesn’t meet expectations. A lot of the games I play are deep sandboxes that if I like I’ll sink hundreds of hours into, and often come with a very steep learning period. With those the problems can be subtle and take a depth of experience to understand. I have 108 hours in Civ 5 because that’s how long it took me to realize I didn’t like it at all, despite previously being a fan of the series. There are other games I’ve played for longer and wouldn’t recommend if asked because having developed a nuanced understanding of the systems I see how some design decisions undermine the fantasy the game is trying to sell. Sure I enjoyed it well enough at the time, but for someone who likes to engage with depth this sort of perspective can be appreciated in a review so you know the time is better spent elsewhere.

How long should you play a game before you truly understand it?

There’s a certain contingent of PC gamers who believe you need to spend hundreds of hours with a title before you’re allowed to form an opinion. Especially in online spaces, it’s common to see someone discredited for “only” playing 10 hours—as if they just sniffed the box and walked away.

I get it… kind of. If we’re talking about something massive and layered like Skyrim, then sure. One playthrough can take weeks out of your life. But is that the standard?

Take a glance at GOG, which often lists average completion times. Here’s a small sample:

• Kingdom Come: Deliverance - 41.5 hours
• Deus Ex - 22.5 hours
• Frostpunk - 10.5 hours
• The Invincible - 6.5 hours
• Project Warlock - 4 hours

That’s a huge range. Why?

Mostly genre. The more RPG-like a game is, the longer it will take to finish. But the more arcade-y a game is, the tighter the runtime.

But there’s this myth—especially among purists—that a “real” PC game shouldn’t feel arcade-y. That PC games are meant to be vast, deep, and long.

I’ve been a PC gamer for decades. That idea’s nonsense.

When I had a physical Commodore 64, I could beat Uridium in under 20 minutes. Sure, the C64 is technically an 8-bit micro—not a “PC” in the strictest sense—but I also played Dangerous Dave on DOS. That took about 30 minutes.

What about much more modern games? A few months ago, I played Virginia (2016). I was done in one sitting. It took me an hour and a half.

Which brings us back to the real question: what does it mean to “understand” a game? Is it the same as completing it?

I don’t think so. Plenty of games aren’t even meant to be completed. Take puzzle games. Tetris, for instance, never ends—just speeds up until you die. That’s still a PC game, by the way. It launched on DOS before it ever hit arcades or home consoles.

And even for games that do have an ending, completion doesn’t necessarily equal comprehension. What’s the point of dragging yourself through 30 hours of crap just to say you finished it? I’ve done that with bad games—and trust me, the only thing I gained was regret. Pongo, for example. I played that mess to the bitter end. I don’t understand it any better than I did five minutes in. I just feel cheated out of my time.

Most games tell you what they’re about in the first five minutes. If it’s unresponsive, broken, or filled with jank right out of the gate, that’s usually your cue to uninstall. And I’m not just talking about asset flips.

Elder Scrolls: Arena stinks. It’s got one of the worst control schemes I’ve ever witnessed. And even by the standards of 1995, it is an ugly game. No, I haven’t finished Arena, nor do I intend to—I have suffered enough. I gave it a solid 30 minutes—everyone told me it was a great—but some games are not worth it.

Granted, sometimes there are games that massively improve after the first five minutes. Star Wars Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith is a good example of this. Initially, trying to figure out what to do is such a chore. But afterwards, it’s pure bliss. And for this reason, I feel most negative reviews on Steam are wrong.

But Mysteries of the Sith is an exception—not the rule. Most of the time, if you like a game within five minutes of play, you’ll probably like it 50 hours afterwards.

If it’s bad at the start, it rarely gets better.

 So no—hundreds of hours aren’t necessary to “get” a game. You don’t owe your time to any title. Five minutes can be enough. And if that five minutes fills you with joy, then the game has already done its job.

After all, isn’t the point to have fun?

How long should you play a game before you truly understand it?

There’s a certain contingent of PC gamers who believe you need to spend hundreds of hours with a title before you’re allowed to form an opinion. Especially in online spaces, it’s common to see someone discredited for “only” playing 10 hours—as if they just sniffed the box and walked away.

I get it… kind of. If we’re talking about something massive and layered like Skyrim, then sure. One playthrough can take weeks out of your life. But is that the standard?

Take a glance at GOG, which often lists average completion times. Here’s a small sample:

• Kingdom Come: Deliverance - 41.5 hours
• Deus Ex - 22.5 hours
• Frostpunk - 10.5 hours
• The Invincible - 6.5 hours
• Project Warlock - 4 hours

That’s a huge range. Why?

Mostly genre. The more RPG-like a game is, the longer it will take to finish. But the more arcade-y a game is, the tighter the runtime.

But there’s this myth—especially among purists—that a “real” PC game shouldn’t feel arcade-y. That PC games are meant to be vast, deep, and long.

I’ve been a PC gamer for decades. That idea’s nonsense.

When I had a physical Commodore 64, I could beat Uridium in under 20 minutes. Sure, the C64 is technically an 8-bit micro—not a “PC” in the strictest sense—but I also played Dangerous Dave on DOS. That took about 30 minutes.

What about much more modern games? A few months ago, I played Virginia (2016). I was done in one sitting. It took me an hour and a half.

Which brings us back to the real question: what does it mean to “understand” a game? Is it the same as completing it?

I don’t think so. Plenty of games aren’t even meant to be completed. Take puzzle games. Tetris, for instance, never ends—just speeds up until you die. That’s still a PC game, by the way. It launched on DOS before it ever hit arcades or home consoles.

And even for games that do have an ending, completion doesn’t necessarily equal comprehension. What’s the point of dragging yourself through 30 hours of crap just to say you finished it? I’ve done that with bad games—and trust me, the only thing I gained was regret. Pongo, for example. I played that mess to the bitter end. I don’t understand it any better than I did five minutes in. I just feel cheated out of my time.

Most games tell you what they’re about in the first five minutes. If it’s unresponsive, broken, or filled with jank right out of the gate, that’s usually your cue to uninstall. And I’m not just talking about asset flips.

Elder Scrolls: Arena stinks. It’s got one of the worst control schemes I’ve ever witnessed. And even by the standards of 1995, it is an ugly game. No, I haven’t finished Arena, nor do I intend to—I have suffered enough. I gave it a solid 30 minutes—everyone told me it was a great—but some games are not worth it.

Granted, sometimes there are games that massively improve after the first five minutes. Star Wars Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith is a good example of this. Initially, trying to figure out what to do is such a chore. But afterwards, it’s pure bliss. And for this reason, I feel most negative reviews on Steam are wrong.

But Mysteries of the Sith is an exception—not the rule. Most of the time, if you like a game within five minutes of play, you’ll probably like it 50 hours afterwards.

If it’s bad at the start, it rarely gets better.

 So no—hundreds of hours aren’t necessary to “get” a game. You don’t owe your time to any title. Five minutes can be enough. And if that five minutes fills you with joy, then the game has already done its job.

After all, isn’t the point to have fun?

I agree with much of what you wrote, and I’m glad you spoke up about it. One small nit to pick, though:

Sure, the C64 is technically an 8-bit micro—not a “PC” in the strictest sense

The 8-bit microcomputers of that time, especially those like the Commodore 64, were personal computers in every sense. Some of them predated the IBM PC.

How long should you play a game before you truly understand it?

There’s a certain contingent of PC gamers who believe you need to spend hundreds of hours with a title before you’re allowed to form an opinion. Especially in online spaces, it’s common to see someone discredited for “only” playing 10 hours—as if they just sniffed the box and walked away.

I get it… kind of. If we’re talking about something massive and layered like Skyrim, then sure. One playthrough can take weeks out of your life. But is that the standard?

Take a glance at GOG, which often lists average completion times. Here’s a small sample:

• Kingdom Come: Deliverance - 41.5 hours
• Deus Ex - 22.5 hours
• Frostpunk - 10.5 hours
• The Invincible - 6.5 hours
• Project Warlock - 4 hours

That’s a huge range. Why?

Mostly genre. The more RPG-like a game is, the longer it will take to finish. But the more arcade-y a game is, the tighter the runtime.

But there’s this myth—especially among purists—that a “real” PC game shouldn’t feel arcade-y. That PC games are meant to be vast, deep, and long.

I’ve been a PC gamer for decades. That idea’s nonsense.

When I had a physical Commodore 64, I could beat Uridium in under 20 minutes. Sure, the C64 is technically an 8-bit micro—not a “PC” in the strictest sense—but I also played Dangerous Dave on DOS. That took about 30 minutes.

What about much more modern games? A few months ago, I played Virginia (2016). I was done in one sitting. It took me an hour and a half.

Which brings us back to the real question: what does it mean to “understand” a game? Is it the same as completing it?

I don’t think so. Plenty of games aren’t even meant to be completed. Take puzzle games. Tetris, for instance, never ends—just speeds up until you die. That’s still a PC game, by the way. It launched on DOS before it ever hit arcades or home consoles.

And even for games that do have an ending, completion doesn’t necessarily equal comprehension. What’s the point of dragging yourself through 30 hours of crap just to say you finished it? I’ve done that with bad games—and trust me, the only thing I gained was regret. Pongo, for example. I played that mess to the bitter end. I don’t understand it any better than I did five minutes in. I just feel cheated out of my time.

Most games tell you what they’re about in the first five minutes. If it’s unresponsive, broken, or filled with jank right out of the gate, that’s usually your cue to uninstall. And I’m not just talking about asset flips.

Elder Scrolls: Arena stinks. It’s got one of the worst control schemes I’ve ever witnessed. And even by the standards of 1995, it is an ugly game. No, I haven’t finished Arena, nor do I intend to—I have suffered enough. I gave it a solid 30 minutes—everyone told me it was a great—but some games are not worth it.

Granted, sometimes there are games that massively improve after the first five minutes. Star Wars Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith is a good example of this. Initially, trying to figure out what to do is such a chore. But afterwards, it’s pure bliss. And for this reason, I feel most negative reviews on Steam are wrong.

But Mysteries of the Sith is an exception—not the rule. Most of the time, if you like a game within five minutes of play, you’ll probably like it 50 hours afterwards.

If it’s bad at the start, it rarely gets better.

 So no—hundreds of hours aren’t necessary to “get” a game. You don’t owe your time to any title. Five minutes can be enough. And if that five minutes fills you with joy, then the game has already done its job.

After all, isn’t the point to have fun?

How long should you play a game before you truly understand it?

There’s a certain contingent of PC gamers who believe you need to spend hundreds of hours with a title before you’re allowed to form an opinion. Especially in online spaces, it’s common to see someone discredited for “only” playing 10 hours—as if they just sniffed the box and walked away.

I get it… kind of. If we’re talking about something massive and layered like Skyrim, then sure. One playthrough can take weeks out of your life. But is that the standard?

Take a glance at GOG, which often lists average completion times. Here’s a small sample:

• Kingdom Come: Deliverance - 41.5 hours
• Deus Ex - 22.5 hours
• Frostpunk - 10.5 hours
• The Invincible - 6.5 hours
• Project Warlock - 4 hours

That’s a huge range. Why?

Mostly genre. The more RPG-like a game is, the longer it will take to finish. But the more arcade-y a game is, the tighter the runtime.

But there’s this myth—especially among purists—that a “real” PC game shouldn’t feel arcade-y. That PC games are meant to be vast, deep, and long.

I’ve been a PC gamer for decades. That idea’s nonsense.

When I had a physical Commodore 64, I could beat Uridium in under 20 minutes. Sure, the C64 is technically an 8-bit micro—not a “PC” in the strictest sense—but I also played Dangerous Dave on DOS. That took about 30 minutes.

What about much more modern games? A few months ago, I played Virginia (2016). I was done in one sitting. It took me an hour and a half.

Which brings us back to the real question: what does it mean to “understand” a game? Is it the same as completing it?

I don’t think so. Plenty of games aren’t even meant to be completed. Take puzzle games. Tetris, for instance, never ends—just speeds up until you die. That’s still a PC game, by the way. It launched on DOS before it ever hit arcades or home consoles.

And even for games that do have an ending, completion doesn’t necessarily equal comprehension. What’s the point of dragging yourself through 30 hours of crap just to say you finished it? I’ve done that with bad games—and trust me, the only thing I gained was regret. Pongo, for example. I played that mess to the bitter end. I don’t understand it any better than I did five minutes in. I just feel cheated out of my time.

Most games tell you what they’re about in the first five minutes. If it’s unresponsive, broken, or filled with jank right out of the gate, that’s usually your cue to uninstall. And I’m not just talking about asset flips.

Elder Scrolls: Arena stinks. It’s got one of the worst control schemes I’ve ever witnessed. And even by the standards of 1995, it is an ugly game. No, I haven’t finished Arena, nor do I intend to—I have suffered enough. I gave it a solid 30 minutes—everyone told me it was a great—but some games are not worth it.

Granted, sometimes there are games that massively improve after the first five minutes. Star Wars Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith is a good example of this. Initially, trying to figure out what to do is such a chore. But afterwards, it’s pure bliss. And for this reason, I feel most negative reviews on Steam are wrong.

But Mysteries of the Sith is an exception—not the rule. Most of the time, if you like a game within five minutes of play, you’ll probably like it 50 hours afterwards.

If it’s bad at the start, it rarely gets better.

 So no—hundreds of hours aren’t necessary to “get” a game. You don’t owe your time to any title. Five minutes can be enough. And if that five minutes fills you with joy, then the game has already done its job.

After all, isn’t the point to have fun?

There’s a reason I put “PC” in quotes.

Yes, the C64 was—and is—a personal computer. But when people often say “PC”, what they mean are DOS and Windows machines.

I don’t mind if people give their opinion no matter whether they have played 5 minutes before shutting it off, 1000 hours or not played it all.

But I do take issue with anyone acting like an expert, while making claims that shows their inexperience with a game or genre. One of the most egregious example is with people like Elon Musk, but you’ll see it with IGN reviewers sometimes, or people on forums acting like hotshots. It’s like a student who just passed Electronics 101 or Economics 101 acting like they know it all because of the four new formulas they learned. Anyone with more knowledge can see through it transparently, so just be honest with your experience in a preface before stating your opinion, then there is no problem.

How long should you play a game before you truly understand it?

There’s a certain contingent of PC gamers who believe you need to spend hundreds of hours with a title before you’re allowed to form an opinion. Especially in online spaces, it’s common to see someone discredited for “only” playing 10 hours—as if they just sniffed the box and walked away.

I get it… kind of. If we’re talking about something massive and layered like Skyrim, then sure. One playthrough can take weeks out of your life. But is that the standard?

Take a glance at GOG, which often lists average completion times. Here’s a small sample:

• Kingdom Come: Deliverance - 41.5 hours
• Deus Ex - 22.5 hours
• Frostpunk - 10.5 hours
• The Invincible - 6.5 hours
• Project Warlock - 4 hours

That’s a huge range. Why?

Mostly genre. The more RPG-like a game is, the longer it will take to finish. But the more arcade-y a game is, the tighter the runtime.

But there’s this myth—especially among purists—that a “real” PC game shouldn’t feel arcade-y. That PC games are meant to be vast, deep, and long.

I’ve been a PC gamer for decades. That idea’s nonsense.

When I had a physical Commodore 64, I could beat Uridium in under 20 minutes. Sure, the C64 is technically an 8-bit micro—not a “PC” in the strictest sense—but I also played Dangerous Dave on DOS. That took about 30 minutes.

What about much more modern games? A few months ago, I played Virginia (2016). I was done in one sitting. It took me an hour and a half.

Which brings us back to the real question: what does it mean to “understand” a game? Is it the same as completing it?

I don’t think so. Plenty of games aren’t even meant to be completed. Take puzzle games. Tetris, for instance, never ends—just speeds up until you die. That’s still a PC game, by the way. It launched on DOS before it ever hit arcades or home consoles.

And even for games that do have an ending, completion doesn’t necessarily equal comprehension. What’s the point of dragging yourself through 30 hours of crap just to say you finished it? I’ve done that with bad games—and trust me, the only thing I gained was regret. Pongo, for example. I played that mess to the bitter end. I don’t understand it any better than I did five minutes in. I just feel cheated out of my time.

Most games tell you what they’re about in the first five minutes. If it’s unresponsive, broken, or filled with jank right out of the gate, that’s usually your cue to uninstall. And I’m not just talking about asset flips.

Elder Scrolls: Arena stinks. It’s got one of the worst control schemes I’ve ever witnessed. And even by the standards of 1995, it is an ugly game. No, I haven’t finished Arena, nor do I intend to—I have suffered enough. I gave it a solid 30 minutes—everyone told me it was a great—but some games are not worth it.

Granted, sometimes there are games that massively improve after the first five minutes. Star Wars Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith is a good example of this. Initially, trying to figure out what to do is such a chore. But afterwards, it’s pure bliss. And for this reason, I feel most negative reviews on Steam are wrong.

But Mysteries of the Sith is an exception—not the rule. Most of the time, if you like a game within five minutes of play, you’ll probably like it 50 hours afterwards.

If it’s bad at the start, it rarely gets better.

 So no—hundreds of hours aren’t necessary to “get” a game. You don’t owe your time to any title. Five minutes can be enough. And if that five minutes fills you with joy, then the game has already done its job.

After all, isn’t the point to have fun?

There’s a really weird and large contingent of gamers that believe you can’t criticize or have a valid opinion on a game unless you complete the game.

I don’t know man. I’ve dropped off Red Dead redemption 2 quite a few times now, and have only made it up to maybe chapter 2 each time before I get bored of the slow pace of movement, looting and boring shooting. I don’t think I have a very valid opinion of the game because I haven’t seen the so-called amazing story yet, so I don’t hold a strong opinion about it, and don’t think I’m entitled to over people who have experienced the whole thing.

How long should you play a game before you truly understand it?

There’s a certain contingent of PC gamers who believe you need to spend hundreds of hours with a title before you’re allowed to form an opinion. Especially in online spaces, it’s common to see someone discredited for “only” playing 10 hours—as if they just sniffed the box and walked away.

I get it… kind of. If we’re talking about something massive and layered like Skyrim, then sure. One playthrough can take weeks out of your life. But is that the standard?

Take a glance at GOG, which often lists average completion times. Here’s a small sample:

• Kingdom Come: Deliverance - 41.5 hours
• Deus Ex - 22.5 hours
• Frostpunk - 10.5 hours
• The Invincible - 6.5 hours
• Project Warlock - 4 hours

That’s a huge range. Why?

Mostly genre. The more RPG-like a game is, the longer it will take to finish. But the more arcade-y a game is, the tighter the runtime.

But there’s this myth—especially among purists—that a “real” PC game shouldn’t feel arcade-y. That PC games are meant to be vast, deep, and long.

I’ve been a PC gamer for decades. That idea’s nonsense.

When I had a physical Commodore 64, I could beat Uridium in under 20 minutes. Sure, the C64 is technically an 8-bit micro—not a “PC” in the strictest sense—but I also played Dangerous Dave on DOS. That took about 30 minutes.

What about much more modern games? A few months ago, I played Virginia (2016). I was done in one sitting. It took me an hour and a half.

Which brings us back to the real question: what does it mean to “understand” a game? Is it the same as completing it?

I don’t think so. Plenty of games aren’t even meant to be completed. Take puzzle games. Tetris, for instance, never ends—just speeds up until you die. That’s still a PC game, by the way. It launched on DOS before it ever hit arcades or home consoles.

And even for games that do have an ending, completion doesn’t necessarily equal comprehension. What’s the point of dragging yourself through 30 hours of crap just to say you finished it? I’ve done that with bad games—and trust me, the only thing I gained was regret. Pongo, for example. I played that mess to the bitter end. I don’t understand it any better than I did five minutes in. I just feel cheated out of my time.

Most games tell you what they’re about in the first five minutes. If it’s unresponsive, broken, or filled with jank right out of the gate, that’s usually your cue to uninstall. And I’m not just talking about asset flips.

Elder Scrolls: Arena stinks. It’s got one of the worst control schemes I’ve ever witnessed. And even by the standards of 1995, it is an ugly game. No, I haven’t finished Arena, nor do I intend to—I have suffered enough. I gave it a solid 30 minutes—everyone told me it was a great—but some games are not worth it.

Granted, sometimes there are games that massively improve after the first five minutes. Star Wars Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith is a good example of this. Initially, trying to figure out what to do is such a chore. But afterwards, it’s pure bliss. And for this reason, I feel most negative reviews on Steam are wrong.

But Mysteries of the Sith is an exception—not the rule. Most of the time, if you like a game within five minutes of play, you’ll probably like it 50 hours afterwards.

If it’s bad at the start, it rarely gets better.

 So no—hundreds of hours aren’t necessary to “get” a game. You don’t owe your time to any title. Five minutes can be enough. And if that five minutes fills you with joy, then the game has already done its job.

After all, isn’t the point to have fun?

20 minutes is enough to get an idea if a game is going to be fun or not.