I feel "It gets better at point X" is not a valid defense.

[Bomblord]

I see this a lot in threads where someone has a grievance big or small with some game mechanic, game section, or just are not feeling a game at all. This can come in the form of a LTTP thread, a discussion about perceived problems with a game, or just a random comment in an otherwise unrelated discussion. Someone attempts to explain why they didn't like a game or why a game isn't working for them and inevitably someone (frequently a person who didn't actually see that as an issue in the first place) comes in and says "hey after the 3rd act that thing that you're having issues with is no longer an issue". I, myself, have used the same defense before and after seeing a nearly 100% failure rate I've come to realize that that particular advice almost never works.

Here's a few reasons why

- Time is a legitimate problem: If someone isn't enjoying something they shouldn't need to slog through 5, 10, or even 20+ hours of bad content (looking at you FFXIII) to get to a part that they would otherwise enjoy.
- First Impressions color the entire experience: If someone is not enjoying a game even if they reach a point where every problem they thought they had is addressed the game has already been ruined by the first impression. From that point forward, the sour taste in their mouth will cause them to find more nitpicks.
- Bad content is bad content: Even if a problem stops existing after a certain point it existing at all is a deal breaker for many people (this is especially true with uncomfortable story beats or out of place "fan service")
- Content Issues usually take a mindset shift not more playtime: I've seen people eventually change their opinion on a game but I've never seen someone do it just by slogging through content they're not enjoying. It always requires a shift in mindset and approaching things from a different angle. For example, I remember a BOTW thread where the game switched from an unenjoyable slog for an individual to a GOTY simply by restarting and embracing the fact the game is not meant to be a traditional Zelda and that weapons are disposable.

Now none of this is to say you aren't justified in defending a game you're enjoying but simply that "play more" almost never fixes the issues people are having with it. At the same time you should also accept some game experiences simply aren't for some people and that's ok. Should you feel the need to defend a game someone else isn't enjoying try shifting your perspective. If someone doesn't like the weapon breaking in BOTW talk about why you do like it don't tell them they'll get used to it after a while. If someone isn't enjoying FFXIII's 20 hour of linear corridors.... well maybe just concede that game isn't for them.

 

[Lant_War]

I don't think people say it as a way to deflect criticism of the beginning of the game, it's just a "if you keep playing you might enjoy it" advice.

 

[Jegriva]

I have never been a big fan of X-men comics.

/s

 

[Deleted member 2254]

Absolutely agreed. A game should be fun and varied from the start, if it's a slog for hours and only at one point it becomes good, that's bad game design. It's one thing to have a 30 minute opening sequence that isn't that good, but when people try to dismiss criticisms against some 100+ hours RPG saying "well it's GREAT after 50 hours", well, fuck that. I ain't wasting weeks (considering I have a life, other hobbies, other games too, etc.) on a game if it has no convincing elements a couple hours in, and in fact I dropped a lot of beloved RPGs or heavily story-based titles. Gaming doesn't have to be instant gratification, but there has to be enough of a hook to make me bother past the first minutes, and most importantly the gameplay should be fun. A game could have the most tactical gameplay ever and the most bonkers storyline ever put in a videogame, but if it's not fun to play I will not bother just because after 10-20-50 hours things become great.

 

[Aaron D.]

Some games just require a greater investment upfront.

See: Crusader Kings II, Dwarf Fortress, Kerbal Space Program, etc.

I see nothing wrong with this.

 

[Doggg]

I also find that it's usually just not really true. Games tend not to radically change how they play after a few hours.

 

[Hollywood Duo]

I generally agree but it depends how long in to the game that point is IMO. FF13 is an example of way way too long to be acceptable.

 

[Zombine]

Sometimes you have to play with your shit to get to the diamond you accidentally swallowed.

 

[zombiejames]

Games are a lot like movies and books in the sense that sometimes you need to take time to set things up, set the scene, introduce mechanics, and gradually ramp things up. Some games are a slow burn and I have no problem with that.

 

[DNAbro]

A game can have a bad/boring start and actually get better later which you may like. Some people should also accept that if you drop it, you may not get to that point.

 

[Lobster Roll]

If the game developer can't keep my interest from hour 0 to hour 20, you better believe I'm not going to play until I get to hour 20 because some diehards feel that it "opens up" or "gets better" from that point forward. If I am just genuinely not enjoying my time with a game, I set it down. I usually hit that mark around the 1 to 1.5 hour mark. To be fair, I have gone back to several games with a fresh mind and have blown through that initial 1 to 1.5 hour mark for games that I wasn't initially feeling (hello there Hollow Knight and Divinity: Original Sin 2). But I'm firmly in the camp of "keep me entertained or I walk". I forget what game it is, I think it's Final Fantasy XIV or XI where people are insistent that once you hit Level 80 (lol) or something, the game truly shines. I'm sorry, but if the game isn't fun for Levels 1-79, I sure as shit am not interested in burying my time to see the true wonder that is Level 80.

 

[LumberPanda]

Sometimes that's the nature of something being interactive. Guitar doesn't get good until far longer than FF13's campaign.

 

[Deleted member 41520]

Yes, it's a legitimate problem, but many games are more complicated and vast than most creative works, often made by teams unfathomably large. So it'll never be consistent.

In short, in some cases the sum of the experience may be exponentially greater than its weak parts (e.g. opening hours).

It's possible for a game to have five 6/10 hours, then quickly ramp up into fifty 9/10 hours.

Those fifty GOAT hours will massively offset the mediocre opening or weaker parts.

Of course,
- the reverse happens too (great opening, then tens of hours of mediocrity)
- it's subjective so where one person might feel this way another might not have had this experience
- yes, it is still a flaw, but hard to avoid when some games are made by hundreds of people/tens of teams

Either way, I always recommend sticking with something A LITTLE more than you feel like it. If there's a CHANCE a game will flip for you, it's worth taking, because the potential for changing your life/worldview is so great.

I've seen too many people completely flip on games that they almost hated to begin with. Main offenders being The Witcher 3, God Hand and Breath of the Wild.

 

[Neoleo2143]

It is true sometimes. But most games don't improve from a weaker mechanical or narrative base without letting the player know there's more to their systems, plots, and characters in their subtext at the very least.

 

[DontHateTheBacon]

I'm not so sure it's used as a defense as much as it is just a statement that the game starts really slow but picks up later.

 

[Deleted member 2254]

Some games just require a greater investment upfront.

See: Crusader Kings II, Dwarf Fortress, Kerbal Space Program, etc.

I see nothing wrong with this.

Click to shrink...

A good game has you hooked early on despite the fact you don't understand even 0.1% of the game's rules and logic. Sometimes the mere discovery of how things work is exhilarating. But I don't thing that's what the OP was referring at, it's more like games that have (even according to their hardcore fans) the first 5-10-20-50-100 hours that are pretty disappointing, but then the game becomes GOAT. That's pretty absurd and is bad design if you can't make good content early on and it only starts being fun late on.

 

[Deleted member 13798]

You need to be hooked quickly, but if you're not enjoying it by 2-4 hours in, it's probably not for you. I think that timeline is fair though, a lot of games have learning curves to them that require some investment.

 

[SteveWinwood]

why can't i just start off being an expert playing the piano

piano sucks

 

[TransEuropaExpress]

Eh, there are several games this gen even that I ended up being super into after some further time investment and the proverbial light bulb going on after ERA members urged me to give it a bit more time. Prey and Nioh are two examples I can think of right off the bat. This usually happened because I was set in my ways, expecting something very specific and just wasn't looking at these games on their own terms.

 

[Deleted member 2254]

why can't i just start off being an expert playing the piano

piano sucks

Click to shrink...

Bad argument because I'd argue that most creative things are fun early on. In the case of a musical instrument, it's exciting when you first start making a somewhat pleasant melody, when you start hitting notes at a decent speed and so on. Most hobbies and media are better when you're good at them, but that doesn't mean they suck early on.

 

[Teriyaki Blues]

Counterpoint: the LTTP LttP thread where the OP was upset that the game was about to end right before entering the Dark World.

 

[CanUKlehead]

Depends on how much time it gets there (FFXIII, for instance, I'd say isn't worth Ch 11 onwards).

But something like Civ, geez, that shit is dull at the start, but it gets addictive. True for me for a lot of jRPGs

If you're saying a game that's fundamentally broken from the start won't be fun, you're right, but sometimes there's an art to it, where a game's design is confident enough to let things simmer before grabbing you fully.

That there is a difficult thing to balance, granted.

 

[Lobster Roll]

why can't i just start off being an expert playing the piano

piano sucks

Click to shrink...

I think you've got your analogy mixed up. You can walk up to any piano in the world and start playing chopsticks, but to be truly proficient you need thousands and thousands of hours of practice and work. However, you can still hit the keys and play the most rudimentary, 0-hour experience tunes if you truly wanted to do so. When people say "the game really gets good after the (x)th hour when the (y) content arrives and you're fully able to do (z)", it would be like wanting to play a piano but you have to wait for all 88 keys to be individually delivered before you can start playing chopsticks.

 

[Deleted member 49438]

It doesn't have to be a valid defense to be true though. It just means that for some people the early game will be an insurmountable barrier. That's fine. All the points you make in the OP are certainly true, but none of them hold back a game from getting better as it goes on.

 

[Deleted member 41520]

A good game has you hooked early on despite the fact you don't understand even 0.1% of the game's rules and logic. Sometimes the mere discovery of how things work is exhilarating. But I don't thing that's what the OP was referring at, it's more like games that have (even according to their hardcore fans) the first 5-10-20-50-100 hours that are pretty disappointing, but then the game becomes GOAT. That's pretty absurd and is bad design if you can't make good content early on and it only starts being fun late on.

Click to shrink...

It's absurd and yes is a flaw in the design, but it only arises because the medium is still in relative infancy while it makes TONS of money, so there's no "rulebook" on how to get everything perfect when you're making a 50 hour game. It's still being worked out.

And as I said above, those 50 GOAT hours can easily offset 1-10 mediocre hours. Happened to me with Assassin's Creed Odyssey and The Witcher 3. I don't knock those opening hours at all, the devs tried their best but just failed to pull it off.

 

[Calvarok]

anyone who says this was probably already enjoying it despite whatever problems it had prior.

its bad when framed as a defense, but useful information if not positioned as tho it destroys the argument.

people reacting to criticism about things they didnt really consciously notice at the time tend to not be that mindful of that difference in how they're coming off, since they're just kneejerk responding to stuff they'd never considered.

part of it is kind of pretending you felt just as strongly negative about whatever issues as the other person did so you don't look like you're uncritical or dumb. stupid reflex, doesn't help anyone. be honest when things didnt actually bother you that much.

 

[Deleted member 33533]

Eh, I disagree. It can be valid sometimes. Not all games are perfect and some have slow starts. That doesn't mean that once they get going what the regular gameplay loop isn't great. A game doesn't need to be perfect from beginning to end to be worth playing.

Kingdom Hearts 2 is the biggest example I can think of. That game has such a slow start but once you get to the climax of Roxas's story, it really does get better and then once you have Sora it just becomes an incredible game. It really depends on the game you're talking about.

 

[Jimnymebob]

why can't i just start off being an expert playing the piano

piano sucks

Click to shrink...

I mean, it's more like you have to sit through the entire Land Before Franchise from 2, and TV series, before you can watch the original.

 

[Undeniablybiased]

Nah it's totally valid because in many cases it's totally true, and it makes sense for many games to start out either more slowly, or with a certain level of quality, and then to ramp it up over the course of the game. And it's especially valid for games where learning is much more prominent than other pass times. You're really gonna tell me it's not valid to tell someone monster hunter gets better later isn't valid? They're obviously not going to just throw you into fighting late game monsters with late game gear right away. And you'll stumble through fighting early fights because you still have to learn the intricacies of your weapons. And yet, millions of people love it.

Now, while I disagree that it's never valid, it's definitely sometimes not true. I remember this argument gained a lot of traction back when FFXIII came out. And yeah, it wasn't true. The game didn't get better. But that doesn't mean the argument isn't valid. Just means it only works on a game by game, person by person basis. Like most things.

 

[Deleted member 15440]

why are people talking about learning curves when OP is complaining about later good content being gated by earlier bad content? those are entirely different concepts

 

[Bleu]

A factual statement is not a defence.
Not every game is perfect, some may have a slow start but they remains good games overall.
Some games do the slow limited start thing on purpose to end up in an explosion or complexify their rule-sets, it's a design decision, and i'm glad some games do that well and do not gimp their design to please the ADHD crowd.
Not every game has to be for everyone, let designers design the way they want even if it means getting it wrong sometimes or exclude some players, it's a better thing overall, to say every game needs to hook you from the start or else they are flawed is as profoundly stupid as the 'i need an easy mode in every game' mantra.

 

[Jimnymebob]

why are people talking about learning curves when OP is complaining about later good content being gated by earlier bad content? those are entirely different concepts

Click to shrink...

God knows.

 

[SteveWinwood]

Bad argument because I'd argue that most creative things are fun early on. In the case of a musical instrument, it's exciting when you first start making a somewhat pleasant melody, when you start hitting notes at a decent speed and so on. Most hobbies and media are better when you're good at them, but that doesn't mean they suck early on.

Click to shrink...

lots of creative things suck early on

most instruments barely make a pleasant noise until a decent amount of practice

edit but yes I guess hes talking about gated created content and not learning curves so what im going on about doesn't really apply for this

 

[A. D. Skinner]

Regardless of how long the overall game is, I shouldn't have to slog through 1X number of hours in Red Dead Redemption II before it "gets good". Whether it's 30+ or 100+ hours, what the fuck am I doing?

 

[Dreamwriter]

I disagree, it is a very valid statement. Yes, it would be best if every game ever made was exactly as fun in the first minute as it was in the last minute and every minute in between. But that's just not realistic, in part because developers learn what works and what doesn't as they develop a game, and if they did the first part of the game first, that part of the game is going to be the worst part of the game, clearly (it's why the God of War developers tend to create the game's intro last). If someone is playing the beginning of a game and saying they aren't having fun, advising them that the 40 hour game gets a lot better in the second or third hour if they just hang in there is good advice.

In fact, the parts people usually find un-fun at the beginning are often the tutorial, which is designed to teach you the game mechanics so they can then make a fun game out of them that is more complicated than it would have needed to be without the tutorial. And tutorials are incredibly hard to make fun.

Explaining that a game gets better later isn't saying that the start of the game isn't a flaw, it's saying that if you keep playing you will likely have more fun. Some games are really amazing but have crappy starts, it's just how things are.

 

[Jimnymebob]

lots of creative things suck early on

most instruments barely make a pleasant noise until a decent amount of practice

Click to shrink...

But an instrument isn't purposefully designed to sound bad for 40 hours if you can play it already.

 

[Bomblord]

Nah it's totally valid because in many cases it's totally true, and it makes sense for many games to start out either more slowly, or with a certain level of quality, and then to ramp it up over the course of the game. And it's especially valid for games where learning is much more prominent than other pass times. You're really gonna tell me it's not valid to tell someone monster hunter gets better later isn't valid? They're obviously not going to just throw you into fighting late game monsters with late game gear right away. And you'll stumble through fighting early fights because you still have to learn the intricacies of your weapons. And yet, millions of people love it.

Now, while I disagree that it's never valid, it's definitely sometimes not true. I remember this argument gained a lot of traction back when FFXIII came out. And yeah, it wasn't true. The game didn't get better. But that doesn't mean the argument isn't valid. Just means it only works on a game by game, person by person basis. Like most things.

Click to shrink...

Even in Monster Hunter the early hours and gameplay loop are enjoyable and the core experience doesn't massively change in anything but intensity over time. If someone hated hunting a Great Jaggi because they find the process of finding and chasing the monster tedious and the time it takes to kill it annoying they'll probably not enjoy hunting a Rathalos 20 hours later. It's not that you shouldn't need to learn a game or a game shouldn't be able to pace itself it's that if someone is having an issue with a game (for example the first 5 hours is just awful content) they'll rarely get over it by doing nothing but playing more of it. There's a difference between a difficulty curve and someone not liking a game or mechanic.

 

[EvilBoris]

Where do you draw the line?

First Hour
Past the tutorial
First 5 minutes
Title screen?

 

[slothrop]

Some games just require a greater investment upfront.

See: Crusader Kings II, Dwarf Fortress, Kerbal Space Program, etc.

I see nothing wrong with this.

Click to shrink...

Those games have long learning curves, but I think that's an entirely different concept. With good learning curve games, you'll know you suck and can't do anything, but it's clear the game will be awesome once you figure it out. You don't need to wait until a certain point really, you just need to uncover how to use the tools the game gives you. If they do it right, the sense of Discovery is itself a fun game.

With some narrative games or games that people say will get good once you get to X point, the player is kind of relying on blind Faith. You can't see that there are skills and systems they still have to fully Master, you're just treading water for a while until the game decides you're worthy of it's best.

 

[Bigg]

why can't i just start off being an expert playing the piano

piano sucks

Click to shrink...

This argument works for competitive games but less so for something like, say, a Zelda game that takes three hours to explain how everything works when its painfully obvious in the first half hour and the rest just feels like padding (here's a hint, it starts with a T and ends with "wilight Princess")

why are people talking about learning curves when OP is complaining about later good content being gated by earlier bad content? those are entirely different concepts

Click to shrink...

Exactly! These are two separate things!

 

[Jimnymebob]

Even in Monster Hunter the early hours and gameplay loop are enjoyable and the core experience doesn't really change in anything but intensity

Click to shrink...

3U was bad for this in my opinion.
I know I'm not gonna be fighting the big monsters as soon as I load in, but there was so much butterfly collecting and killing the sort of fodder monsters before I got to do anything fun. World handles it much, much better.

 

[Lobster Roll]

I disagree, it is a very valid statement. Yes, it would be best if every game ever made was exactly as fun in the first minute as it was in the last minute and every minute in between. But that's just not realistic, in part because developers learn what works and what doesn't as they develop a game, and if they did the first part of the game first, that part of the game is going to be the worst part of the game, clearly. If someone is playing the beginning of a game and saying they aren't having fun, advising them that the 40 hour game gets a lot better in the second or third hour if they just hang in there is good advice.

In fact, the parts people usually find un-fun at the beginning are often the tutorial, which is designed to teach you the game mechanics so they can then make a fun game out of them that is more complicated than it would have needed to be without the tutorial. And tutorials are incredibly hard to make fun.

Click to shrink...

Right, and that's the difference between good game design and bad game design. Playing through the prologue mission of Mega Man X or the Great Plateau in BOTW never feels like a "tutorial". It just feels like you're playing a game, while the game is teaching the mechanics in a fluid and interesting way. I think it's a failure on the game designer if they can't keep the player even marginally interested in the first few hours. Yes, some games are very deep and take a long time for its full suite of mechanics to open up. But you can't just have the player straight-up bored for the first several hours. Who wants to boot up a brand new game and spend several precious hours being bored?

 

[JCHandsom]

I usually find the opposite to be a problem; with games that have strong or promising starts fizzling out after a while and need to be pushed through just to finish.

 

[More Butter]

The reality is that there are movies, shows and games that may for narrative reasons not open up instantly to be enjoyable. It's a valid critique to say that it takes too long to get enjoyable. It's also valid advice to say "hey if you give this a little time it really opens up".

 

[Bomblord]

Where do you draw the line?

First Hour
Past the tutorial
First 5 minutes
Title screen?

Click to shrink...

If the title screen has bad gameplay you're probably in for a bad experience xP

 

[Vincent Grayson]

My general feeling at this point is that if it's not good immediately, I'd rather move on. There's enough other things, that I can play/read/watch/etc better stuff.

 

[zoltek]

I would not have finished RDR, one of my favorite games of all time, if this were true so I disagree.

 

[Starlatine]

its specially egregious for FFXIII since you need to endure dozens of hours of bad content to get to ONE area with maybe a couple of hours of "good" content and then the game ends. its like eating shit for one entire year just to get to eat turkey during christmas then you dont get to eat anything ever again

 

[Truner]

I used to think the same, but it really does happen.
Most recently, Ys VIII was exactly that for me. The first half of the nearly 70 hour experience was a mix of just "okay stuff" and downright mediocre bloat. It wasn't until the start of the second half that the game got ridiculously good ridiculously fast and redeemed itself completely.

 

[Dreamwriter]

Right, and that's the difference between good game design and bad game design. Playing through the prologue mission of Mega Man X or the Great Plateau in BOTW never feels like a "tutorial". It just feels like you're playing a game, while the game is teaching the mechanics in a fluid and interesting way. I think it's a failure on the game designer if they can't keep the player even marginally interested in the first few hours. Yes, some games are very deep and take a long time for its full suite of mechanics to open up. But you can't just have the player straight-up bored for the first several hours. Who wants to boot up a brand new game and spend several precious hours being bored?

Click to shrink...

You are correct, that doesn't make the intro "good" when the rest of the game is better. But it does mean that it's a valid statement to tell someone that the game gets better if they stick with it just a little bit more. Having a bad start doesn't make an entire game bad.

And I *have* read statements that Zelda BotW was too linear, from people who hadn't made it off the Great Plateau yet. Are you suggesting those people shouldn't be told that the game gets better once they make it off the Plateau?