In the world of instant gratification, it can be easy to label a game’s impact immediately, though that’s not a wise approach.

Judging the impact of a game, or any media for that matter, takes time, a commodity that many of us don’t want to have. I believe this applies to both societal and personal impacts.

I’ve written previously that time can bring a dulling of praise on a game, allowing the absolute best to rise as masterpieces. This concept of time helping determine how good a game can be applies also to a personal level.

We are so quick to assess games immediately after playing them. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this approach, it’s easier to reach a biased view.

Recency bias leads us to assign legendary status to games immediately after playing them. This leads to a skewed perception and, as is often the case, we move on without much assessment.

I submit that time needs to pass before you can label any kind of status outside of your level of enjoyment. It’s important to let a game sit with you before labeling it a masterpiece or even a personal favorite.

It’s not that labeling a personal ranking too soon is a bad thing. Rather, I don’t think it can truly be accurate so soon after beating it.

An example of this is I beat Horizon Zero Dawn about a year ago. When I beat it, I stepped away really happy and loving it though I’m not sure I would’ve ranked it too high on my personal favorites.

Almost a year later, I found myself thinking about the game again and realized I was craving that type of adventure again, specifically within that world.

It took that year for me to personally appreciate how much I enjoyed that game. This same concept has helped me better identify where a game stands in my personal rankings.

Taking some time away allows the emotions to settle and allows you to really think about what you liked and didn’t. It also helps you process those emotions so you can make a good assessment.

While I may have been talking scientifically about this measurement, it doesn’t have to be. It can be as simple as you still really liking a game months after beating it.

It’s important to acknowledge the other side of this spectrum. While allowing for some time to pass before fully recognizing a game, too much time can lead to nostalgia tainting your view.

Nostalgia is great but it can often warp a view of a game to the point of viewing it much better than it actually was. You enjoy the memories around the game more than the game itself.

There’s nothing wrong with that but it does lead to a potential skewed perception of a game.

Look, I get it. You may not want to think to hard about how you evaluate games. After all, why can’t a game just be enjoyable regardless of how long time has passed?

I guess the point I’m trying to make is taking some time to stew on a game can help you better appreciate what it means to you and how much you actually enjoyed it.

Again, everyone will have their own approach to classifying games and that’s the beauty of all this. We, as individual human beings, will have our own way of enjoying video games.

That makes sharing those opinions all the more interesting.

What do you think? Can you properly assess a game shortly after beating it? Does recency bias actually play a factor in evaluating games? Let us know your take in the comments below or by heading over to our Discord channel to join the conversation.

Featured Image: Guerilla Games (via GameByte)

---