Well, I was told I was derailing, but that wasn't you. Don't worry, I wasn't talking about you there, either. And this is new ground, so I'm happy to get into it. I don't cringe if someone is bored after 100 hours. I was bored after a lot less, for a lot of games. The boredom itself is something I can't fault. The issue is how it's used. If you got bored after "only" 100 hours of play, that's different from getting bored (naturally, as everyone does with any game) after a certain timespan. The way it was used, it put the blame on the game as supposed to the natural boredom that happens over time. Certainly, from a "get your money's worth" perspective, 100 hours is a lot for any game. Even at premium AAA collector's edition prices. Nor did I say people should therefore stop complaining. There are many complaints to be made, valid complaints, that don't involve using the fact that someone played for one hundred hours as a negative statement. All that does is reduce the discussion to inferences based on playtime alone. It's not the negative statement people try to frame it as, because value on time spent is wholly subjective. It isn't the AI not being able to siege a city. It isn't the lack of modding tools. It isn't because <faction> isn't in the game, or <isn't how you wanted it to be>. It's a number. To base your post around this qualifier makes a weak post. It's cringey, because critics could (and should) do a lot better. People expect developers to perform to a specific standard, I do and also expect critique to live up to a similar standard. Hard to fairly criticise the developers if the required effort isn't put into critique in the first place. I'm a software developer, I do a lot of frontend work. If someone didn't tell me what actually was wrong, and said "I used the program for five minutes and put it down", that's useless to me. I could spend hours performing triage and making (admittedly-useful) fixes to parts of the program that that user had no care for. Wasted effort.