If a game feels like "work" then no amount of good can really compensate for it. Story-less MMOs *cough* Destiny *cough* or grindfest games/MMOs *cough* Destiny *cough*, no amount of Good could compensate for that.
Poll: "The game gets better later on"
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nope, if the game can't "win" me in a few hours, I give up.
Youtube is there for a reason. Sad but true.
Youtube is there for a reason. Sad but true.
Depends by what you mean when you say "later on"? Two to three hours like Persona 4? Or 20-50 hours like an MMO? If it's the latter, no thanks. But I will admit that a lot of the games I ended up enjoying greatly did have a slow beginning. MGS 3 is a good example where the first hour of that game is nothing but cutscenes and back tracking. Once you get to the Ocelot boss fight, it's non-stop craziness and fun.
It depend more than me really since I gave up on Mass Effect and yet I tough it out with Infinite Space (you died alot when you get your first ship).
True, except the part about FFXIII. . . I played through the whole thing and was still disappointed to tears, and it remains the worst game I have ever beaten. If the joy of the game comes from mastery of its mechanics and play-style, then this is a valid thing to say. Godhand and many Platinum games come to mind as examples of this. Great stories and narratives can keep me interested while gameplay develops and mechanics deepen as well. However, the stories and worlds need to be developed properly, through exploration, conversation, and gameplay, not with endless cutscenes. And no, FF XII and onwards do not count as great narratives, worlds, or stories.MarsAtlas said:
I wasted 10 hours of my life watching an LP of FF13(so basically just all the cutscenes, conversations and a few cuts of "clop clop clop clop" through the tunnel). It never really does get interesting. There are continual hints that something interesting is going on, or will be going on, or did occur, but it never seems to happen to you. So it's a lot of "Stuff happens, more stuff happens, boring conversation, Vannile says something kooky, something with the word Cie in it, etc, etc".Signa said:
Oh, and the bad guy telling them if they go kill a dude, the world will end. So they then go and spend the rest the game trying to kill that dude because fate says so. Which then causes the world to end(nearly, except for a deus ex machina).
It depends. Some games are front-loaded with a lot of learning, and until you understand the game, it's not going to be great. Mount and Blade, or Age of Empires, or Payday, or Rust, for instance, all take a certain amount of learning and preparation before the game really opens up.
I'm not interested in playing the apocryphal Final Fantasy title that gets good 15 hours in. It doesn't take 15 hours to learn how to play Final Fantasy well enough to finish the game. That time is wasted. I'm not interested in slogging through if there's no payoff.
I'm not interested in playing the apocryphal Final Fantasy title that gets good 15 hours in. It doesn't take 15 hours to learn how to play Final Fantasy well enough to finish the game. That time is wasted. I'm not interested in slogging through if there's no payoff.
I absolutely would play through the "bad" parts to get to the "good" parts, but only on the condition that the bad parts really aren't that bad. If it's a decent and still enjoyable but not earthshattering sort of bad, then I'm okay with it. If it's just straight up bar, boring bullshit, then no.
The only game that ever "got good" was Dark Souls, because it takes a while for the quality to sink in. Once you realize what you're dealing with, its fantastic, but it takes a while to really "get" it.
Otherwise, no. I don't care how great it gets, a good game should capture your interet fro the start. I'll give a game 2 hours at the most. Lifes too short.
Otherwise, no. I don't care how great it gets, a good game should capture your interet fro the start. I'll give a game 2 hours at the most. Lifes too short.
As I have only little time for games these days a game really has to hook me to keep me going. I neither have the money nor the time to buy things that are boring for a few hours before they get good enough for me to enjoy.
Probably won't change a thing but the first time you see the first boss you're supposed to run away from him through a door on the left side wall of the room. You get to the rest of the tutorial and some starting gear that makes the first boss pretty easy (unless you chose thief). The game messes a lot with your sense of direction though, so it might not be for you anyway. It is kind of a hate it before you love it(or hate it some more) game/series.Tojumaru said:
OT: It really depends on whether it feels like there is a payoff and how painful the trudge is.
If it's because it is really boring and does not show much or any promise to get more interesting, I Usually drop the game. (Final fantasy XIII though i actually finished it)
If it is because the mechanics are something I'm not used to and need to learn them to play, I usually stick with it for a while as these games often can became favorites of mine. (Souls series, Crafting games, Mirror's edge) It really helps if the atmosphere/story is interesting.
If it takes a long time to unlock interesting mechanics (like earning skills or gear with level ups that take too long to reach) and the game is really boring until that point, It might not feel worth it. (Borderlands, especially if played solo)
The game has to show some potential during those early hours to merit further playing whether it is mechanics, story or atmosphere. It does not always have to be immediately accessible as long as there is clearly something underneath.
Yup.Buzz Killington said:
Games are a huge time investment. Telling me a game gets good 5 hours in is the same as telling me it's not a good game. Maybe if there is some auxiliary reason, such as a steep learning curve, but generally, games should draw you in at the start.
As long as the game is somewhat entertaining (story or gameplay) I can wait until the game gets "good" though granted I have too much time on my hands at the moment so I have the time to wait and see. If i find a game to be too much of a chore I'll probably leave it alone for a couple of weeks and then maybe give it another go, which is exactly may relationship with "The Witcher" right now.
Right now I'm playing DA:I and I thought the gameplay got good after 5 hours once I unlocked more spells and abilities to play around with and before then it wasn't exactly boring either (though it may be for future playthroughs). Story starts to get good once you go to Val Roulayx though depending on how much you dick around that could be anywhere from 5-20 hours in until you do.
Right now I'm playing DA:I and I thought the gameplay got good after 5 hours once I unlocked more spells and abilities to play around with and before then it wasn't exactly boring either (though it may be for future playthroughs). Story starts to get good once you go to Val Roulayx though depending on how much you dick around that could be anywhere from 5-20 hours in until you do.
I seem to have a high tolerance for any game that's suppose to "get good" XX amount of hours in... I mean, how else was I able to play through Sonic 06 multiple times?
Other than that, I rather "trudge" through a game with a slow start than play one that has a slow finish, anyway...
Other than that, I rather "trudge" through a game with a slow start than play one that has a slow finish, anyway...
if I'm not having fun after the first 1-5 hours then it's certainly not worth playing further to me, any game I play has to grab my attention or at least be addicting and fun for me to want to play it, someone claiming "oh it gets better later on" means absolutely nothing to me but an empty subjective promise.
"I've hear that Final Fantasy 13 "gets good about twenty hours in", y'know that's not a point in it's favour, right?" -Yahtzee.
Just something I was reminded about...
But for me, it varies. Mostly on how good the game is before the "good part", and a little bit on how good the actual "good part" is.
Just something I was reminded about...
But for me, it varies. Mostly on how good the game is before the "good part", and a little bit on how good the actual "good part" is.
It really depends for me. I want to be a game developer one of these days. If I'm hoping to do that, then that means if a game has some sort of idea or mechanic in it that I have to trudge through to get to see it, I'll do it, or if it's a game that I know will become amazing down the line. Basically, either it has to make up for it by the end, or at least teach me something, I'm not wasting my time with dead end games anymore.
I find others like different things. For example, I was assured when starting WoW that the game didn't really begin until max level. I had a great time exploring zones, hoarding crafting materials, and leveling up. The endgame of constant raids and boss farming held far less appeal for me. Their "good part" was where the game ended for me, not where it began.
Basically the answer is no. If I'm not enjoying myself, what's the point? I've got 150 other games in my Steam library I could try.
Basically the answer is no. If I'm not enjoying myself, what's the point? I've got 150 other games in my Steam library I could try.