> If you think it's not fun -and- it has nothing going on, why play it -twice-?

"If you think the car is no fun to drive, why take it for a spin, twice?"

Playing it twice is what allowed me to form this opinion. The game offers multiple "paths" after all. It's called giving it the benefit of the doubt.

eh, I dunno. I used to do that, thinking that I "needed to get my money's worth", but I've started bailing on games if I'm not having fun after 2 or 3 hours and don't ever regret it. The way I look at it now is that paying for a game is like paying the price of admission to a museum. If I'm not liking the show on display, I'm not going to stay there for longer just to feel like I got my money's worth. Paying the price of admission isn't a promise of enjoyment.

but like, I'm not really trying to convince you of anything, I'm trying to get clarity on what you're saying, because your original comment is so ambiguous that it doesn't actually help me figure out whether or not I want to play Cyberpunk.

You got one answer, but I'd also suggest that someone might play a game out of spite. They might play it to check their experience ("maybe I was in a bad mood the first time"). Maybe all the coverage in the media made them feel like they needed to give the game a second chance. Maybe they wanted to see if the path or play style they chose was just a bad fit. Maybe they wanted to ensure they had enough data to back up their critique.

As someone who has spent years in the games industry, I strongly encourage you to take your players seriously and don't just assume you know better.

it's not "assuming you know better" to talk about the subtext of someone's comment.