I didn't pick an option for the poll because I am one of those weird achievement hunting chumps and the presence of achievements is usually what lets me force my self to beat a game I don't enjoy. This pretty much explains why I have beaten Skyrim completely and haven't ever progressed past the first few quests for Oblivion. I noticed that looking through my list of steam games I have marked as "Unfinished," most of them don't have achievements.
Nah.
If I don't like the game, I will simply not finish it. I did this with Finial Fantasy XIII and XII.
I will, however, go back to it later if I'm bored. I did this with Oblivion and enjoyed myself.
Definitely not, unless I've been warned ahead of time ("the first hour kinda sucks but it gets way better after that!"). There are already more games out there than I have time for, so no reason to waste time on ones I'm not really having fun with.
If I'm not enjoying the game I will stop. I do try and give it a good few hours so I'm giving it a fair shake however.
When playing Final Fantasy XIII I was about five hours in, finding it a fairly tedious grind, when a friend mentioned that it took fifteen hours 'before it got good'. I removed the game from my console and haven't played it since.
No. Unless there's something about the game that has me riveted, I stop playing if I'm not having fun, even though I hate not finishing what I start. My time is more important.
It depends on the game for me. If I really wanted the game at the time when I bought it, then I would power through it and find something that I enjoyed out of it. Other games I would just let them fall to the wayside so I could play other games.
Eventually, however, all the games in my possession will be beaten (or at least get to the final boss) before I allow myself to part with them.
Well that seems like a rather silly question to ask. I don't understand why anybody in their right mind would continue to play a game that they do not like unless they were getting paid to of course.
If I really don't enjoy it then I stop playing it, even if I spent a fair bit of money on it, although it isn't often that I buy a game I then don't enjoy at all. When it does I just have to cut my losses and move on, no matter how annoying that may be.
It's a very rare occurrence...I played through Sonic 06 because I WOULD NOT ALLOW IT TO WIN but I just couldn't be bothered to play through Shadow the Hedgehog as many times as it took to find all of the other endings. I hated playing Skyward Sword too but there was enough in it that I liked that kept me from giving that up too. I couldn't say the same about the two DS Zelda games though.
Nope. If I'm not enjoying myself, why the hell would I keep playing that game? The main reason I play videogames is for fun, but if I'm not having fun, what's the point?
Wolfenstein: The New Order is the most recent example of this. Bought the game during the last Steam sale and it was... Godawful, to put lightly. Got 3/4ths through it before getting so bored and angry at the wasted potential that I finally just quit.
If its not a requirement in my life, I tend to not do things I don't enjoy. I won't get any satisfaction from completing a game I didn't like, finding it was a waste of time to begin with. Whats the point in doing that? I won't feel I got my money's worth out of a game that I feel sucks in any way shape or form because the hours wasted playing it will be detrimental to my life and thus a bigger waste of the money spent on the game. Sometimes you have to pay money to find out something isn't worth the money in the first place and you don't have to finish it to get the most out of your money. If I pay for a meal and the meal sucks, I won't finish it either just because I paid for it. I'll just take it as a lesson never to order that dish (or sometimes go to that restaurant) again. And unless its something to do with improper cooking or spoiled food I'm not one to send back a dish just because I didn't like it, same with buying a game and finding out its not to my taste. I don't feel I need a refund just because it was crap or not my style... unless the game is so horribly buggy that its unplayable. Poorly made games and poorly QA'd games aren't the same thing. If a game is functional but just utter crap, it isn't worthy of a refund in my view. Just a lesson not to buy games without researching about them (don't believe the hype).
I only got through Dragon Age Origins by powering through the least annoying origin and then plowing the plot until it squealed. I ignored the sidequests. I spat in every NPCs face. Anyone asking me for help had to offer payment up front for my time. If my teammates were being difficult, I told them to fuck off. If there was an expedient option, I took it regardless of the consequences.
I ended up really enjoying Dragon Age Origins by maintaining this attitude. I ended up subconsciously roleplaying one of the most impatient and angry city elves in all of Thedas. And it was glorious!
Not a chance. There's so many other good games out there that I have a pretty short attention span for stuff I'm not enjoying. Even if I end up buying something full price at release I'll still leave it or sell it instead of forcing myself to play it.
And it's the cynical use of the Elites as enemies. I'm not sure how far you got into Halo 2, but for the last third of the game:
Truth deposes the Elites of their roles, ultimately leading to a full betrayal later on by the Prophets and the Brutes. The Elites then join up with Humanity to fight the common foe, and continue to do so until after the events of Halo 3.
The disregard comes from the fact that the game never explains why the Elites are your enemies in that game. One of the books which were designed to slash at the canon to fit in 343's story establishes that a rogue faction formed from the Covenant Separatists, but in game the only justification for it is "four years is a long time". I believe they put gameplay before story. Elites are more commonly known as the enemy in the Halo series, and it would attract long time fans to buy the game if they were in the enemies again
I beat Halo 2, so I know. I had a feeling it would be this. It's always this I see people complain about in regards to Halo 4.The thing is that it doesn't really contradict or ruin preexisting lore. There's nothing wrong with you having your opinion on the gameplay coming before story and the Elite enemy thing being the result. But, you made it sound like it did something much worse to the canon than find a easy cop out to the story threads weaved before it. Everyone who complains about Halo 4 talks about it like that and I feel it's just an easy way to criticize the game without having to explain their opinions in depth and exhausting themselves. That's understandable honestly, it does get exhausting, but surely there's a better way to do this than make such a blanket, not accurate, but I guess, also kind of accurate at the same time statement. Hope none of that came off insulting. I just feel there's a better way for people who didn't like Halo 4 to explain themselves without resorting to that sort of thing.
On a related note, while I know in the beginning "four years is a long time" is the initial justification I could have sworn there was a line (maybe it was throw away, "blink and you'll miss it" deal, which obviously is a terrible way to establish this new story unfolding, but still) about the Elites you fight being a rogue faction, sometime when other humans showed up. Are you sure this was only specified in the tie-in books?
Personally, I thought Halo 4 was decent enough. Not that good, but not that bad either. Perhaps, I'd have thought it was worse if I owned the game and didn't miss the parts of the story my friend went through on his own or if I had played Halo 3 before trying it.
Chaos Isaac said:
There's the morbid, "Wow, how is this so shitty and how much more shitty will it get?" kinda curiosity
I beat Halo 2, so I know. I had a feeling it would be this. It's always this I see people complain about in regards to Halo 4.The thing is that it doesn't really contradict or ruin preexisting lore. There's nothing wrong with you having your opinion on the gameplay coming before story and the Elite enemy thing being the result. But, you made it sound like it did something much worse to the canon than find a easy cop out to the story threads weaved before it. Everyone who complains about Halo 4 talks about it like that and I feel it's just an easy way to criticize the game without having to explain their opinions in depth and exhausting themselves. That's understandable honestly, it does get exhausting, but surely there's a better way to do this than make such a blanket, not accurate, but I guess, also kind of accurate at the same time statement. Hope none of that came off insulting. I just feel there's a better way for people who didn't like Halo 4 to explain themselves without resorting to that sort of thing.
On a related note, while I know in the beginning "four years is a long time" is the initial justification I could have sworn there was a line (maybe it was throw away, "blink and you'll miss it" deal, which obviously is a terrible way to establish this new story unfolding, but still) about the Elites you fight being a rogue faction, sometime when other humans showed up. Are you sure this was only specified in the tie-in books?
Personally, I thought Halo 4 was decent enough. Not that good, but not that bad either. Perhaps, I'd have thought it was worse if I owned the game and didn't miss the parts of the story my friend went through on his own or if I had played Halo 3 before trying it.
Halo 3's somewhat bitter sweet ending (not the epilogue ending) does make the "four years is a long time" excuse sting a bit more, but for the most part Halo 3 was about concluding the story and emphasising how urgent all the shit going down was.
It's not necessarily outright contradiction, it's more about how they don't care about the original story. I often refer to 343's writing as fan fiction and that's because they're working by the rules of fan fiction. They're carefully slotting in something they think is cool into a small gap in the timeline then proceeding to change some aspects that were never clearly defined (the Forerunners), then create their own story which is lazily written and often relies on convenience or outright Deus Ex Machina (The Librarian and especially Cortana at the end spring to mind). Bonus points if they replace something that already worked in the previous games with an inferior, less well developed enemy (the Prometheans are just The Flood, there was no reason to include them other than to justify having the Didact be the villain).
That's not to say all fan fiction is bad, I've read a lot of good stuff on Halo Fanon when I was still a regular there. It's just that all 343 has done is added to a story by replacing what was good with what they think is cool. It's Warcraft syndrome all over again, it's the Star Wars prequels all over again. That's all a matter of opinion, but I'd rather not have fanboys continue a story that had already concluded.
Halo: Reach did something similar, with the way they included Cortana as a plot device for little reason other than having her would be cool. I think they explained it by saying she had split herself in half and when the game was finished she merged with herself again to return to being the Cortana we know from the main story.
As for the Rogue Faction thing, I don't remember any justification for it. When I buy the MCC I will play Halo 4 again so I'll be able to tell then. The Humans just seem to refer to them as The Covenant which utterly baffled me (The Covenant had disbanded in Halo 2, and The Covenant was just a short hand expression for the Covenant Loyalists in Halo 3 and IIRC, the rogue faction are called The Storm or something like that).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
