It's more like "You'd better eat this broccoli 100x, these carrots 90x, these peas 80x, this cauliflower 70x (the only one you like, and might be willing to eat, say, 130x to cancel out some of the others), and these brussel sprouts 60x if you want your choice of dessert! Otherwise you're just stuck with insert undesirable dessert here (lowest tier prizes)". Yeah "just don't eat broccoli" isn't a good response to that,sorry (and "just don't go to buffets" especially isn't).

It's not an argument against only the one game (though I'll admit, I do find said particular game exceedingly tedious which makes it being the first featured game that much more annoying and thus worthy of some playful hyperbole), it's an argument against the concept as a whole. It's a lot of time to ask, period, but on top of that it's extremely rigid in format. "We need two and a half hours of your time plus you don't get any say in how it's spent" isn't fun.

And while I am very glad you were lucky enough (because it is all random, and therefore luck) to get quick Stealth Bomber wins, that isn't really an argument against the game having the inherent possibility of being quite long. You had one possible outcome of many, I had another. Trying to guess at a possible time requirement wouldn't make much sense if we only looked at the best possible circumstances.

I don't exactly think you're left with the undesirable dessert, maybe you like a lot of things and don't get everything you wanted and have to buy it from other users but I mean it's a few items vs x hours of your time. The world kind of revolves around time or money and people have to make the choice in many things everyday which is more important to them on a situational basis. In the end I don't think not playing one game everyday or maybe even just not playing half of that one game is going to make a big difference, unless you're a hoarder collecting every item on site. Not only that but your example is slightly askew. It'd be you have a whole buffet of foods and if you eat a good dinner you can have dessert, if you don't maybe you'll get a little something, but you can't eat more dessert than you did dinner. Which I don't know about you but that's what my parents told me growing up when we went out to a buffet, not I'd better eat x amount of veggies or be left with an almond cookie for dessert.

It's going to be the same way, you can play whatever you want to play, depending on how much time you have and what's enjoyable, but like courtesy in a buffet/arcade or something of the sorts you don't take the tray of macaroni and dump the whole thing on your plate, you get a few different things, play a few different games, and have some variety. In the end you'll have a better time, playing the games you like/enjoy, and getting prizes for it. I think allowing people to play any combination of past games x amount of times is like saying 'You can just play whichever game is fastest 10 times and we'll just give you max points for that' while putting different games there that take different amount of times means you can get 10 points really fast (maybe depending on game choices) and then if you want another ten points it's going to take a little more time.

Honestly your hyperbole didn't come off as playful in your opening post, but they aren't asking for a whole bunch of time. They're offering you points for whatever time you put into it. I mean they could just be like 'new game week, we'll add a new game to the site every x amount of days for a few weeks!' and people would play them a few times and meander off, but no they're giving us these games, they have points as an incentive, but they're there no matter which of the games you'll end up playing and nobody is forcing you to do the whole thing. Personally I find "We need two and a half hours of your time" to be 'fun' because it's a break from training, restocking, twiddling my thumbs, and feeding my pet. So for me, yeah that's fun, but if you don't find two and a half hours of playing the games they have offered you fun, Subeta isn't strapping you to the chair and telling you you have to sit there for two hours. I'm not saying 'you don't have to participate' I'm saying you have a choice in what you're doing to participate here, which of the games they've offered to play, and how much time you spend doing it.

You don't need wins in Stealth Bomber anymore, just plays, and I'm not seeing it as an outlier outcome because I did just finish all 10 of my games in under 20 again today.

Your buffet offers no choice. The staff are giving us the exact foods (games) we have to eat, and exact quantities. We can do less, for less reward, yes, but we can't do different. We can't make our own 'good dinner'. Besides, the metaphor of 'being good' and eating what you're given even if you don't like it isn't exactly what I would look to for a comparison to something that's supposed to be extra fun on a pet-site (an event, extra motivation to do new games, however you want to describe it).

I am fine with variety. It can be different games (hence x number of past games x times). But really, if I am out to dinner to have fun? If I like the spaghetti and want a whole plateful? Why not? It's not taking the whole tray offered or hogging the machine, the next 100 people behind me can all choose to have the majority of their games played be the same game, that is the beauty of doing it online. It can also be simply the majority of my games played without being the sole one. I'll agree that people might abuse the 'fastest' route, but forcing some variety should help deter that. Even with the current setup people can and have already looked for the fastest way out (click through without playing, abuse hints, etc).

Regardless, we clearly disagree on what is reasonable and/or fun, so I'm just going to leave this at this point.

The only other thing I have to say is that I never said your Stealth Bomber times were 'an outlier', fake, understated, anything. I simply said they were on the faster end of the whole spectrum of possibility, and that one (or two) days worth of play times, from one player, are anecdotal. I played two games right after my last post here, and one took three minutes, the other 3.5, thanks to a large starting hand (few in-hand pairs) and a bunch of back and forth at the end. I also think that since Stealth Bomber's time to play isn't based on skill or difficulty at all, merely the amount of clicks/turns/whatever required for that random game, that we should skew slightly towards those getting stuck with longer times/worse luck, if we're looking at possible 'total time spent'.