-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
I feel "It gets better at point X" is not a valid defense.
- Thread starter Bomblord
- Start date
Games aren't something that need to be defended, it's just a way of someone trying to acknowledge your viewpoint, recognize they felt the same, but explain how that may have changed.
Some of you take this stuff wayyyyy too seriously
Some of you take this stuff wayyyyy too seriously
If people are bored with the Great Plateau they should put the game down and play something else. It's an enormous game with many, many things to do and see, but the Great Plateau is basically giving the player the entire gameplay loop toolbox and if they're not feeling it ... just walk.
OP
OP
Considering the plateau is everything that makes the game great just condensed I would probably say yes. Unless the reason they didn't like the plateau was weirdly specific like a lack of horses or glider to get around.
I don't think it's often used as a defence.
It's usually people trying to help someone get their money's worth.
Additionally, there's definitely a bunch of games where you can simply 'not get it's until an X amount of time with it.
Bloodborne is a big example.
More recently, it took my a long time to find the charm in Crackdown 3, Greedfall and others after bad first impressions.
It's usually people trying to help someone get their money's worth.
Additionally, there's definitely a bunch of games where you can simply 'not get it's until an X amount of time with it.
Bloodborne is a big example.
More recently, it took my a long time to find the charm in Crackdown 3, Greedfall and others after bad first impressions.
This is definitely not always true. Demon's Souls is a famous counter-example. Its bad first impression is the reason Sony did not publish it outside of Japan. Personally I came close to giving up on the game a couple times in the first few hours.
FF XIII is a perfect example. That game was so exhausting to play, and for me it never got better, or rather, i can't remember having any fun with the game. Then FFXIII-2 happened, and so many people told me, it's so good, you have to play it, even if you don't like it at the beginning. I played it till the end and never liked it. So now i just don't listen to people telling me "just keep playing, it will get better", cause it want. If you don't like the Story, Chars, World, from start, then just stop playing it.
All media actually has this issue - The Office (American version) had a horrible, horrible first season. Then it got really good. Should we not tell our friends to keep watching, because we think they will enjoy the overall show once they make it past the mistakes?
It's not that complicated. It's trying to help other people get value out of their purchase. For instance if someone wanted to drop Horizon: Zero Dawn in the earlier hours that's the advice I would give, as that was my experience.
It's 'stop playing then' responses that I think are useless.
It's 'stop playing then' responses that I think are useless.
It depends. If a game has a bad beginning, then it must nail the ending, so that you remember the ending, rather than the opening. This is the reason why FFXIII and Xenoblade 2 fell completely flat on their faces - the games got better over time, but nowhere nearly enough to redeem themselves.
OP
OP
But you could just start with the good episodes of the office.
Exactly. Having to invest time into something does not equate it being bad if you don't.
As a sidenote.
Most things in life work like that. Most things do get better at point X when doing it.
Having watched the show all the way through like eight or nine times - the first season is fantastic. It's packed with incredibly awkward and funny moments. Diversity Day alone is a top-tier episode across all seasons. Health Care is another incredible, slow-burn episode that gives us insight into Michael's complete lack of leadership and inability to be forthright with his employees. Season One really sets the "awkward" tone that carries through the rest of the seasons. In fact, season one of The Office feels like a realistic concept of office life with a touch of goofiness, where the seasons that follow it becomes a fantastical land where you've got fans wishing to actually be a Dunder-Mifflin employee.
When it comes to recommendations its absolutely valid, because the opposite would mean that it is metaphysically impossible for a game to get better, which is obviously an absurd notion. When you talk about reviews, or discussions about the game's "objective" merits as compared to other games, then certainly you might have a point. I can at least agree that it is wrong to dismiss complaints about bad opening sections just because the game happens to get better.
Some times you need to invest time and brain power into figuring a game out before it starts clicking. That can be frustrating at times!
If you need wall to wall instant gratification then you might want to check out candy crush
If you need wall to wall instant gratification then you might want to check out candy crush
There almost always appears to be some connection with the people that make that argument about a mediocre game and the amount of free time and nostalgic connection they have. I love Final Fantasy with a passion, but it's the character development, environmental design, music, and inessential dialogue that keeps me entertained. In other words, the stuff in between the major plot points. Even Dragon Quest, as conservative as that series is, still keeps me entertained between the big cut scenes. That's what I think makes a good JRPG for example, just because that sub-genre is so notorious for extended play times and the shear volume of dialogue you have to go through.
It depends.
If a game doesn't become enjoyable until you reach "point-X" due to bad game design / boring content, then it's the game's fault.
See: Twilight Princess
If a game happens to feature a learning curve and doesn't become fully enjoyable until the player has actually learned how to play, then it's the player's fault.
See: Zelda II, Alien Soldier, Vagrant Story, Demon's Souls
Last edited:
Gotta say I disagree. Learning curves aside, early game content in MH is genuinely worse than mid-late game content. The monsters are lame, the gear is lame, the quests are worse, the tutorials bombard you with info at a rapid pace, you don't have nearly as many options as you have later on. In world they make you do quests to find camps, but they don't explain why or what very well so you're just running around not sure what's going on or what to do. And that's without considering the complexity of just using your weapon properly. It makes perfect sense for somebody to not enjoy the early game of monster hunter only to be hooked later on because they stuck with it. Happened to me. Happened to my friends. Will happen again to someone else. If someone's not enjoying early portions of monster hunter it's perfectly valid to suggest they try to stick with it for a while longer because there's a potential 300 hours of fun waiting for them.
Now, that doesn't mean I'd tell them to keep trying for like 40 hours or something. But it could easily take 5 or more. And honestly will probably take looking up a few YouTube videos as well.
Depends on time compared to payoff. Not like any of it's absolute, just varies on person to person. Of course this depends on people accepting that a game that isn't for them isn't always a bad game, but that's a never ending battle.
There's so much stuff out there if a game doesn't hook me immediately (like first hour), I'm gonna put it on the shelf and do something else.
There's so much stuff out there if a game doesn't hook me immediately (like first hour), I'm gonna put it on the shelf and do something else.
I.. disagree. Sometimes things needs to flesh out to reach their full potential.
Now, I think it depends, and it will always depends. I think that waiting 20 hours for the game to get "good" is inexcusable. A couple of hours, or past the intro to get "better" is good enough in my opnion. A serviceable opening is enough to make me wait a bit to see how the game goes.
Some movies get gradually better, so unless the first couple of hours of the game are really abismally bad, I'll wait
Now, I think it depends, and it will always depends. I think that waiting 20 hours for the game to get "good" is inexcusable. A couple of hours, or past the intro to get "better" is good enough in my opnion. A serviceable opening is enough to make me wait a bit to see how the game goes.
Some movies get gradually better, so unless the first couple of hours of the game are really abismally bad, I'll wait
OP
OP
I've played multiple monster hunter games they start off good and get better over time as your skill increases. The opening hours are never deal breaking just maybe tedious. My argument isn't a game can't or won't get better it's that if it has an element, long section, or feature that is bad enough someone is hating a game over it maybe even to the point of considering dropping it completely then doing nothing other then playing more rarely fixes it. Changing views at that point requires a mindset shift. I'm strongly pro-difficulty and enjoy learning games over time it's the reason I love the YS series so much.
I agree for the most part, but it depends on the game and why a person is criticising it. I had similar feelings when I started BotW and I grew to love the weapon system as I played more, because adapting to those situations was a process that I got better at over time, which in turn was enjoyable. If you aren't enjoying a game after a few hours invested then it just isn't for you, so I probably wouldn't think your criticisms were entirely valid.
I played The Escapists for a few hours last night and left feeling that the game was nonsense, despite it being critically acclaimed. I was caught repeatedly and set back to square one with "You should've known *this*" messages , and eventually had to concede that it wasn't for me. In a game like The Escapists the fun is had in success, so repeated failure won't leave you feeling like you're having a great time, but if you played the game long enough you'd get better and eventually succeed. I just wasn't willing to play it that long.
I played The Escapists for a few hours last night and left feeling that the game was nonsense, despite it being critically acclaimed. I was caught repeatedly and set back to square one with "You should've known *this*" messages , and eventually had to concede that it wasn't for me. In a game like The Escapists the fun is had in success, so repeated failure won't leave you feeling like you're having a great time, but if you played the game long enough you'd get better and eventually succeed. I just wasn't willing to play it that long.
I think you're reading a lot into that statement that often isn't there.
It's usually not a defence, it's just a note that the issue goes away eventually. Which is useful information and something that I can't see any reason to not let people know, so they can make a decision for themselves based on that knowledge.
It's usually not a defence, it's just a note that the issue goes away eventually. Which is useful information and something that I can't see any reason to not let people know, so they can make a decision for themselves based on that knowledge.
One worst cases for me was being told that Final Fantasy XIII gets good 30-50 hours in so put up with it... Like that is a HUGE commitment of time to get to the good bit that I may or may not even like when I get there (and I didn't) and that for me is WAY to damn long for a game to get good for me.
I'm more bothered by "you're not playing it right".
The player shouldn't have to play a specific way to get enjoyment out of a game. Seems like an excuse hardcore fanbases like to use.
The player shouldn't have to play a specific way to get enjoyment out of a game. Seems like an excuse hardcore fanbases like to use.
Thank you. Not everything is about tribalistically defending XYZ game as if it was a court of law. Sometimes people are just trying to help you enjoy your hobby.
While slow starts are fine, I do feel like gaming has a lot more of them these days. Perhaps it's a result of games having more complex, interlocking systems, or perhaps it's a result of padding. Either way, I'd say 50% of the games I've played this year have had at least two hours of ramp-up before they really hit their swing.
I don't fully understand the issue with the sentiment. Oftentimes, it's a fact: some games DO just get better after time is put into it. I don't think people saying that are necessarily defending the fact that the game has a slow/bad start, just pointing out that if you don't like it now it's possible you may like it when it gets better.
Maybe if some people are being too aggressive and saying "no just keep playing for 40 hours, it'll get better" that can be annoying because there's no guarantee that you'll like it when it DOES get better, but people generally don't defend the slow/bad starts themselves.
When I say "it gets better X hours in" I'm saying "it may not have a great start but I thought it really picked up after X hours," I'm not saying "the game is perfect and the slow/bad start is absolutely an essential part of the quality of the game and if they had a good start to the game the game would be worse."
Maybe if some people are being too aggressive and saying "no just keep playing for 40 hours, it'll get better" that can be annoying because there's no guarantee that you'll like it when it DOES get better, but people generally don't defend the slow/bad starts themselves.
When I say "it gets better X hours in" I'm saying "it may not have a great start but I thought it really picked up after X hours," I'm not saying "the game is perfect and the slow/bad start is absolutely an essential part of the quality of the game and if they had a good start to the game the game would be worse."
I think this is pretty alright actually. I can't remember what game but someone told me a game sucked and made no sense...they skipped every cutscene and conversation!
I think a lot of people would disagree with the bolded. Myself included. And besides, if you can agree the opening hours can be tedious, then you should know that said tedium can be "deal breaking" for some people. Suggesting they give it some more time or another shot is perfectly valid.
I thought Witcher 3 and HZD were meh for their first few hours. But then I kept playing and it just clicked with me and I found myself thoroughly enjoying them. So I think games can definitely get better after a few hours but it depends on the person and game.
It's perfectly valid, especially for RPGs. Expecting an 80 hour experience to be as interesting in the first two hours as it will become later is unreasonable.
I understand that peoples' time is important but there's a difference between valuing time and being impatient.
I understand that peoples' time is important but there's a difference between valuing time and being impatient.
Agreed. Time is my single biggest constraint. I have more than enough fun games that I don't need to waste hours to get to "the good stuff"
And there's a difference between being interesting, period, and growing better as the story and characters change/get more skills.
It's always a bullshit defense.
I'm honestly struggling to think of a single game that legitimately "gets better" after a really slow, or just outright boring or bad first few hours. Most of the time I end up trying to imagine how the game could likely improve with the current systems at hand, and keep waiting for that wishful thinking to actually materialize, but it rarely ever does and I end up quitting halfway through the game (see: every Ubisoft game ever that's not the first and second FarCry or Rayman). The thing with Final Fantasy XIII too was that it didn't really become "better", it just became more open. The characters and gameplay still remained trash though.
What the fuck? It doesn't even take 50 hours to finish. The old argument was that it took 10 - 15 hours to open up.
Imagine if somebody told you that Final Fantasy VII, VIII, or IX "really opened up" after the 40-hour mark.
People say this all the time about FF13. It gets way better after about 15-20 hours.
People have brought up Monster Hunter which is a pretty apt example IMO. Many people enjoy the core loop of hunting large monsters that have really cool mechanics, but a lot of the past games have started off with loads of quests having you gather, fish, kill 10 small easy monsters, etc. That may or may not be necessary to ease new players into it, but I think that's clearly a case of the core systems being good, but the start being poorly paced and not focused enough on those core systems that are enjoyable.
Can also be prevalent in story-based games where, well, the story just isn't as compelling at the start but does get better.
I was actually gonna mention Twilight Princess in this thread: It's a game that is quite boring and slow during the first half or so, BUT, if you stick with it, you get a great Zelda game during the second half, in my opinion.
This is not "defending" or claiming that the game is not at fault. It simply means that the game does get better, and IF you want to experience that, you just have to stick with it.
But of course, there are other games in the world, so people are free to play something else instead.
Last edited:
Ugh, I feel you on that. 15-20 hours is such an obscene number to slog through to get to something good. There are so many 10/10 experiences out there that are less than 15-20 hours in total and are exponentially more fulfilling that FF13.
The same goes for the development of a game. No developer is doing this with the intention of creating a bad game and if something is "bad" can be quite subjective.
its not defense in a lot of cases though, just people sharing their experience.
I've played plenty of games where I wasn't totally hooked for the first few hours, then they suddenly clicked and I loved it.
Some games simply require bigger/longer investment to start being truly enjoyable, especially long form rpg's. It took me around 8 hours to truly get into witcher 3 and it ended up being one of my favorite games of all time.
this depends entirely on the context.
I've played plenty of games where I wasn't totally hooked for the first few hours, then they suddenly clicked and I loved it.
Some games simply require bigger/longer investment to start being truly enjoyable, especially long form rpg's. It took me around 8 hours to truly get into witcher 3 and it ended up being one of my favorite games of all time.
this depends entirely on the context.