Poll: The most vital part of a game

[ZenMonkey47]

What is the most vital part of a game? For the optimists, which 1/3, if done exceptionally well can excuse the other 2/3? Or for the pessimists out there, which 1/3 can ruin the game even if the other 2/3 are done quite well?

the beginning: the tutorial, something to grab you by the nose and tell you "You MUST play this game"
the middle: the meat of the game, you're going to be spending the most time with this part.
the end: the dessert, the climax, a bit of sweetness for a job well done.

what are some examples of beginnings, middles, and ends done well (or poorly)?

 

[geldonyetich]

the middle: the meat of the game, you're going to be spending the most time with this part.

If this is your definition of what you mean by "middle" then yeah, I'm going to have to support the game part of the game as being the most important. Beginning and end have some satisfaction, but I don't play games to be about to play them or be pat on the back for nothing.

Ideally, a game should have all three, of course. 2/3rds of a game is a lesser game by definition.

 

[Neosage]

It needs to have a decent enough start and middle but the end gives me the overall impression of the game.

 

[[Gavo]]

I guess the middle, because any game can have a great beginning, but if it keeps going to the middle, the meat of the game, it makes it great.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

I don't think it's necessarily a section of a game that makes it good or bad. A strong opening is important obviously, but it doesn't excuse a lacklustre middle and end. Similarly, many a good game is ruined by a daft ending.

Case (cases?) in point, Alone in the Dark has a strong opening, but goes rapidly downhill from there, and Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy is great right up until the final chapters when it becomes ridiculous.

 

[fix-the-spade]

The gameplay mechanics.


Provided these work all sections are irrelevant.

 

[Good morning blues]

If the beginning doesn't work I'm not even going to get to the middle.

 

[Graustein]

The bit that's meant to be fun. Or scary, or whatever, depending on genre.

 

[DeusFps]

The whole thing is vital...

 

[scnj]

I'm gonna say the end, but not your definition of it. To me, the end of the game is the final third or so, where things start to become much more intense, and the story kicks into overdrive. If that part is exciting enough, it can't excuse a bad beginning and middle, but it can certainly help with my enjoyment of the game.

Second, I'll say the beginning. A game, in order to hook me, needs a good beginning that introduces the story and characters, and makes me want to continue playing to see what happens.

The middle, while certainly not unimportant, serves to carry the story, and it also needs to be good in order for me not to stop playing half way through.

 

[Fightgarr]

The whole thing is vital...

Yeah I agree with this one. I don't want a game that requires a redeeming section of the game to excuse mediocre areas. If its story-wise, I need a good beginning to draw me in, a good middle because otherwise there is no real story, something that will keep my attention and then the ending needs to be satisfying enough to complete the story. In terms of gameplay, the beginning has to make me enjoy the mechanics and train me in how they work, the middle has to keep gameplay fresh so I don't get bored and the end isn't so concerning then.
But I like games as a whole not just sections.

 

[Librarian Mike]

For me it's not so much about a particular part as it is about pacing. When I think about some of my favorite games (i.e. Half Life, Resident Evil 4) they have a great sense of when to pile on the tension and when to let you catch your breath.

 

[superbleeder12]

I'd say the gameplay is the most important thing.

Pacing is also an important part of the game.

 

[Social Pariah]

All of these sections are important... screw one up and you'll have a hard time pulling off the other two or even one of them.

 

[Jandau]

The end. While having any 1/3 of a game be bad, there is nothing worse than a crappy ending level.

Case in point: Dead Space. Worst... last... level... EVER! Zero atmosphere, zero horror, just waves of enemies running at you in large well-lit areas...

 

[Sir Pysco Sexy]

Suspension of disbelief.

 

[honeymonster]

Well with most of the now recent games the best part of the game is the graphics and the chance to make a sequel, story-line be damned.

 

[blood77]

Well the end is always the part that the designers do last and as a result usually feels a little under done. Yet there have been a number of my friends that said they liked a game just that the ending was bad. So this would lead me to believe that endings aren't really necessary. Yet the same too could be said for the start of some games as well. So I suppose that the most important part for an game would, by default, have to be the middle. That is unless some one has played a game where the beginning and ending were fantastic, but playing most of the game sucked.

 

[Reaperman Wompa]

The middle. That's where the most experience in the game is, with beginning you're learning, doing basic stuff who cares and the end you've already done most of the stuff so It's mainly wrapping stuff up, and if it sucks then at least you can look back at the middle fondly.

 

[excessum ado]

It depends on the game really. for a game that is very story centralized I would say the end. For a game that is mainly gameplay Id say the middle eg gears of war/2