The biggest problem with Bisjac's logic is that people also say you have no right to criticize a game until you've played it "long enough" to truly understand what it's all about. So either you haven't tried everything yet and you're being unfair, or you enjoyed it enough to get through everything and therefore you have no right to complain.
------------------
Anyway the point I'm making as that you can't win with people who want to be apologist to anything that takes a period of time, which is basically everything in the universe.
I don't really want to take sides here, but voluntarily engaging in an activity doesn't mean you agree with the mechanics of the activity 100%. Having played the game for 1000+ hours should not invalidate your opinion in the slightest, it should actually validate it.
The game, Blockland, itself, is not flawed. However, the general attitude surrounding it (could) be considered flawed. I take a neutral stance on this argument, however, I can see where each side is coming from. But, I would not, under any circumstance, resort to game-time to discredit any of their stances.
You're missing the point here.
If you had a couple days of gameplay on Blockland that's a fair amount of time, yet in a sandbox game you've not experienced everything you can do. Especially seeing as how for things like building/eventing there can be a learning curve.
At the same time, that's still plenty of time to understand the game and come to terms with any bugs or glitches and such.
You might be criticised if you claim there is a lack of content, because you're in a sandbox game where you've not played it for particularly long and therefore not created much content, nor happened to have found much content (which can happen when content is provided by players, who have their own lives, and live on different sides of the world in different time-zones and cultures), since there are always going to be days or times when there isn't as much going on.
But you shouldn't be criticised if you comment on a bug or issue with the game, or even if you just don't like the game. That sort of criticism isn't happening.
The issue comes about when someone has played the game for years, and/or literal weeks and months.
And then they come about and give a review to the game and call it "disappointing" or "not worth buying".
See, had they come and mentioned any issues in the game, like a bug, that would be fair. You could criticise the game for that regardless of how long you've owned and played it for.
But if you play the game for an extensive period of time (and some of these times are pushing extensive to the extreme), and then you say that you can't recommend the game, or that it isn't entertaining, enjoyable or worth buying, then you are a big fat cunt telling a load of stuff.
It is not possible for you to have spent that much time playing the game and to not have enjoyed your time, unless you're some sad pathetic nutter who happily spends months of their free time doing something they dislike or hate.
There are big triple-A games out there where you're charged upwards of $60 to play it, and you can maybe get 24 total hours of gameplay out of it.
Then there are small Indie games like Blockland, where you pay $10-20, and you could expect to get the same 24 hours of play, but you play it (of your own choice) for 3000+ hours (and bear in mind, we're only counting the times people have on Steam. These same players, given their time of purchase or alt accounts could have thousands more hours).
If you spend that much time on a game you spent so little on how can you possibly, in good conscience, say it's not worth the time or money for others players to buy and play it?
It's just downright ridiculous and utterly disrespectful. And someone providing that opinion doesn't deserve the time of day as far as their opinion on the subject matter goes.
