Poll: Can you play a game based on the promise that it will get interesting later on?

Recommended Videos

Autumnflame

New member
Sep 18, 2008
544
0
0
Xeorm said:
It depends entirely on the game and how bad the introduction is. I can usually stomach some, but it definitely wears thin pretty quickly. Worse if it feels like a negative experience, rather than merely dull.

But I wouldn't at all call this unique to games as a medium. There've been more than a few books that start out tremendously dull as they establish the world or whatnot, before actually getting into the meat of the story. Whedon's tv shows are even known for doing this, as he'll spend quite a few episodes establishing the story and setting before actually making the real episodes that can take what he's constructed and build something really worthy of all the setup.
Books tend to tell the story and slowly build with some movement with the story.

while games hes describing sit no where with no development for along time.
 

Meinos Kaen

New member
Jun 17, 2009
200
0
0
RJ 17 said:
I believe that Yahtzee put it best in his review of FF13. "A lot of people have told me that it gets better later on. Well that's not exactly a point in it's favor. If you leave your hand on a burning stove for 20 hours and yeah you'll probably stop feeling the pain but you'll have done considerable damage to yourself in the process."

For me it just doesn't make sense. "It gets better later on!" "Oh, so the first 20 hours are just a waste of time, then? Why not just start where things "start getting good?" Or here's a novel idea: have the stuff that makes the game "better" at the beginning, don't make me dig through 20 hours of crap before finally deciding to do something interesting.

So no, someone telling me "It gets better later on" doesn't make me reconsider a game.
Yathzee to the rescue! Couldn't have said it better! Anyway, update on the discussion: I got suckered into buying a PS Vita. -_-''
 

smithy_2045

New member
Jan 30, 2008
2,561
0
0
There needs to be a hook that keeps be interested. For example, first episode of the first season of Game of Thrones, there was one thing right at the end that made me want to persevere with the initial grind. Having that hook kept me interested enough to push through the character building that was probably necessary, but not particularly interesting. Same idea applies to video games. There needs to be something that grabs me so I'm emotionally invested in the characters early on if I'm going to grind through to the more interesting part.
 

Artea

New member
Jul 9, 2013
25
0
0
I tend to enjoy the opening sections that everybody else labels as a boring slog, so no. I find that the games I like always have something that immediately grabs me from the start.

I would argue that the opposite problem is more common: it's much easier to fill the early sections with the good stuff, with the rest of the game turning out a disappointment. That's certainly been my experience.
 

b.w.irenicus

New member
Apr 16, 2013
104
0
0
Depends on the game. For example a shooter thats bores me the first 1-2 hours probably isn't gonna get better, so I quit. RPGs on the other hand often have a slow start (mind you, not neccessarily a bad start), so I'm willing to give it some time. Hell, I played through FF XIII and yes it gets better once the battle-system and the character development is fully unlocked, which happend .... in the last chapter. Seriously, wtf? Basicly the whole game is only a tutorial for post-game content. I wouldn't recommend it.
 

votemarvel

Elite Member
Legacy
Nov 29, 2009
1,353
3
43
Country
England
No.

I want a game to be good from the start. It doesn't matter if it's a slow build up, a quick action sequence, etc, it has to be good.

Why would I put time into something on chance that it'll 'get good' later on, when I could be playing things that interest me all the way through.
 

Vykrel

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,317
0
0
yeah, i can deal with a few hours of working to get to the interesting part. as long as the game is long enough, it isnt so bad. having to go through 2 hours of uninteresting prologue is a small price to pay, so long as there are like at least 12 hours of fun gameplay following it.

it definitely hurts replayability, though.
 

Meinos Kaen

New member
Jun 17, 2009
200
0
0
Shanicus said:
Now I have a problem with your poll because it doesn't have my position on it - Yes I can, but only if the beginning isn't so terrible and the 'Good part' isn't so late in the game it's a fucking minority. Good ending doesn't make up for a terrible game and gives me no incentive to play it again, you know?

Final Fantasy XIII is probably the easiest for me to use as an example - it had a terrible ass beginning but honestly I found the end part to be pretty good (borrowed my brothers PS3 to play it), but I'm never going to get through to that end part on my 360 because... it's just too bad to be worth it. On the other side of the fence is Dragon Age: Origins - I personally dislike the beginning parts of the game, but the sometime after Ostagar it gets much better, so I'll willingly slog through Ostagar because the stuff that comes afterwards is much nicer and the bad bits don't overstay their welcome.

In short - if I have to put up with shit to get to the good stuff, I'll give it about 30-40% of the game, with the less boring shit the better. If I have to slog through 60%+ for your characters to stop being terrible, your story line to get interesting and your gameplay to actually open up, it's not really worth it. Considering I like to replay my games as well, having big boring sections in the opening really isn't going to sell me on your game.
Yeah, I feel you... I guess that I should have put more options in the poll. Would I get a Mod Warning if I put another one with more options? It seems like a nice discussion.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,870
2,349
118
Meinos Kaen said:
Yeah, I feel you... I guess that I should have put more options in the poll. Would I get a Mod Warning if I put another one with more options? It seems like a nice discussion.
You could but it might completely and utterly invalidate your poll unfortunately.

The system can go kind of wonky if you add more polls to it. If you keep them in the same order:

1. No... (26)
2. Yes... (60)
3. New thing (0)
4. New thing (0)
etc

it should work fine. If you switched anything around, the results would go to the new thing:

1. No...(26)
2. No for different reason (60)
3. Yes...(0)

It also has the tendency to screw up the text in the poll so you might break your poll even if you kept the same order.

...I hope what I said made sense :)

Also, it's not against the rules to do it so you'd be fine for Mod purposes (unless you changed it to something waaaaay off base like "I love the bum sex" or something like that. Then you might get yourself in trouble.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Vivi22 said:
BloatedGuppy said:
Yes. I have a friend who can't, though. If he's not enjoying a game in the first hour or two he'll dump it, regardless of how much promise it has or whether or not he is assured it will eventually get good. Drives me nuts.
See, I'll dump a game after a few hours if it's not interesting because every single time I haven't it didn't actually get better.

I'm a big believer in not wasting time with a game you don't like. So what if it gets better five hours in, or ten hours, or whatever? You're still playing a game you hate until then so is it really going to make up for the time that you're just plodding through completely uninterested to get to the good parts? Will you even find the good parts that good? You aren't liking the first few hours and those were made by the same people. And why should I pretend it's acceptable for a company to make a shitty first half of the game just because the second half is good? I don't want half of a good game, I want an entire good game.
Most recently, Dark Souls and Mount and Blade leap to mind. Both games started ugly. The former was glitchy as hell and violently anti-intuitive. The latter was ugly as sin and saddled with a cumbersome, player-hostile UI. I've put almost 70 hours into the former and almost 200 into the latter.

Sometimes patience is rewarded.
And sometimes patience just drops trow and shits on your pillow before you lay down for the night. I still say that if the studio that made the game couldn't be arsed to put anything worth-while (attention grabbing, entertaining, thought-provoking, emotionally engaging, etc) within the first hour or two of a game, why the hell should I be arsed to play through 20 hours of bullshit to get to the bits that are worth-while, attention grabbing, entertaining, thought-provoking, emotionally engaging, etc.?

I'm playing a game to enjoy my spare time, I'm not playing it to murder my spare time in search for little nuggets of enjoyment after 20 hours of being kicked in the balls while covered in fire ants.
 

Storm Dragon

New member
Nov 29, 2011
477
0
0
Depends on what I have to go through to get to the good part and how good the good parts actually are.
 

Hero of Lime

Staaay Fresh!
Jun 3, 2013
3,114
0
41
I voted yes as that is the only way one can play and enjoy Kingdom Hearts 2, possibly even the first game too. Those games take a while to start up. Once you get into the groove of them, they get pretty good and engaging.

The same case could be said for some Zelda games, Twilight Princess and Skyward in particular. Getting to the point where Link has his tunic, sword, and shield takes about an hour or two of tutorials and setting up the story. After that you are rewarded handsomely for staying with the game.
 

uchytjes

New member
Mar 19, 2011
969
0
0
Unless it gets absolutely fricking amazing later on, and you can site why it gets like that and tell me why it does, then no. Its the same reason we all give shit to the one person in my anime club that keeps trying to get us to watch hitman reborn: She always says "it gets really good 15 episodes in" and you know what? It very well could be the best anime ever made, but it'd still be a waste of ~7 hours to get there. that time I don't really have.
 

Auron225

New member
Oct 26, 2009
1,790
0
0
I often do. I maintain that ones opinion on something doesn't account for as much if they haven't fully experienced it. Obviously there is a limit - I have given up on stuff before (but that was usually without promise that it ever gets decent). I wouldn't play a game that's designed to be woeful for the first 5 hours and amazing after that.

I'm actually kinda doing it at the moment... with Xenoblade Chronicles of all things. I'm not really seeing what makes it "RPG of the generation" or the "Best Wii game ever" as soo many have told me it was. I got it cause I heard it was gobsmackingly amazing. Still yet to be amazed but I'm persisting.
 
Jan 18, 2012
219
0
0
It depends on how long people say you have to wait until it "gets good." If its within a couple hours, I can stick with it. If is 4-6, I'd probably get turned off. Once it goes into the double digits, then I just won't even bother.
 

JonnyHG

New member
Nov 7, 2011
141
0
0
It took 30 hours for Xenoblade Chronicles to get interesting. It was totally worth it though.
 

Fishcactus

New member
Mar 8, 2012
32
0
0
I can only think of one game i've done this with, and that was Kingdom Hearts 2. I know it's not a epic RPG by any stretch of the imagination, but considering I don't play RPG's the first part of the game in Twilight Town was horrible -_- I just wanted to get to the Disney so I kept playing through that.

Usually I won't keep playing though, I have better things to do with my time. And if I start a game, don't get pulled in, then stop playing for the day chances are I won't pick it up again. Same with books really.

I'm more lenient with movies, since they'll be 2.5 - 3 hours at most, and if i'm already watching them I may as well finish it. I guess it's the time needed to finish a piece of media vs. how interested you are in it.