-
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
No you shouldnt. "The first X hours/seasons/books are bad but it gets better" is shitty advice to give anyone. There is no shortage of media out there, you can just go and engage with something thats good from the start. I'd rather watch a series thats three good seasons than waste my time on one thats one bad and two good seasons. You're never getting the time you "invested" to get to the good stuff back and the good parts are never good enough to make up for wading through the shitty parts.
This isnt really what the OP's talking about though. "It gets better later" has the implicit context of "Its not good now." Thats different from "You will enjoy this more when youre better at it" which applies to stuff like CK2, fighting games, sports, etc. Crusader Kings 2 is never bad per se bad a lot of stuff you see defended with "It gets better later" is.
It really depends on the payoff. Some games do pay off making you go through the less interesting stuff for the sake of worldbuilding later, like FF14.
Some start bad and become good, like Metal Gear Survive, but not great or amazing.
The latter case is where I don't think the defense holds up.
Some start bad and become good, like Metal Gear Survive, but not great or amazing.
The latter case is where I don't think the defense holds up.
I don't see how it isn't valid. There's a limit on what's an acceptable amount of time, your famous FFXIII example and it's apparent increase in quality after 20 hours comes to mind as something overboard, but that's a really dramatic example you're using to try and make this point. If someone paused their game in the first thirty minutes to make a thread complaining that they're bored I think it's fair to say that they should give it another hour or two.
It's great when something can immediately hook you, but things take time to get started sometimes. I considered dropping what ended up being one of my all time favorite shows because it had a rough first few episodes.
It's great when something can immediately hook you, but things take time to get started sometimes. I considered dropping what ended up being one of my all time favorite shows because it had a rough first few episodes.
Last edited:
I already mostly knew what to expect with Monster Hunter World, so I knew going in that I would like the basics of it. What I actually did not like was how they went overboard trying to make it appealing to a Western audience with the god-awful story and non stop cutscenes. That dragged the pacing down, and just about none of it was interesting in the slightest. The actual gameplay was great to me though, even if the tutorial is a bit long.
I stopped caring about the Zelda games after that one. It was such a slog that I stopped playing it before the halfway mark. Gave Skyward Sword a chance too, but nope, and I will never play BOTW.
Last edited:
I would see games as a journey centered on the payoff for the full experience rather than instant gratification.
Time and first impressions may be a problem but they're a player's problem, not necessarily a problem with the game. There's many examples of early parts in games I didn't enjoy at the time of playing but really appreciated the significance of later on. The story section in Kalm FF7 for example or the way all older Final Fantasy games restricted exploration heavily early on so you really appreciate the airship later.
I think it's fine if someone only wants to play games for instant gratification but they should have the awareness to realise games designed towards investment with a payoff later are also perfectly fine and other player's preferred design style. The case's in the OP seem to describe people playing good games which aren't suited to their preferences which is fine for them to criticise so long as they realise it's a mismatch to their tastes rather than an inherently badly designed game.
Time and first impressions may be a problem but they're a player's problem, not necessarily a problem with the game. There's many examples of early parts in games I didn't enjoy at the time of playing but really appreciated the significance of later on. The story section in Kalm FF7 for example or the way all older Final Fantasy games restricted exploration heavily early on so you really appreciate the airship later.
I think it's fine if someone only wants to play games for instant gratification but they should have the awareness to realise games designed towards investment with a payoff later are also perfectly fine and other player's preferred design style. The case's in the OP seem to describe people playing good games which aren't suited to their preferences which is fine for them to criticise so long as they realise it's a mismatch to their tastes rather than an inherently badly designed game.
Nope. Some games just need time to get going, that's just how it is.
Just look at Persona 5. The core gameplay loop doesn't even start until a few hours in.
Also Monster Hunter. Nobody falls in love with that series after just an hour or two, it takes a little time and it's quite well received.
Just look at Persona 5. The core gameplay loop doesn't even start until a few hours in.
Also Monster Hunter. Nobody falls in love with that series after just an hour or two, it takes a little time and it's quite well received.
Sometimes it's true, doesn't mean you have to care.
I particularly don't continue to play a game if i'm not enjoying it on the first minutes.
FFXIII as an example of "gets better later" is not even true imo, i like the game but i enjoyed it since the first minutes, no way i would endure it through 20 hours not having fun like some people suggests lol
Persona 4 take like 5 hours of cutscene before it's even playable. I enjoyed the intro of the game and it's one of my favs but it's perfectly okay if you get bored 5 minutes in and want to drop it, as this kind of tolerance and enjoyment of cutscene stuff is not for everyone.
I particularly don't continue to play a game if i'm not enjoying it on the first minutes.
FFXIII as an example of "gets better later" is not even true imo, i like the game but i enjoyed it since the first minutes, no way i would endure it through 20 hours not having fun like some people suggests lol
Persona 4 take like 5 hours of cutscene before it's even playable. I enjoyed the intro of the game and it's one of my favs but it's perfectly okay if you get bored 5 minutes in and want to drop it, as this kind of tolerance and enjoyment of cutscene stuff is not for everyone.
Kalm is a section of the game that occurs immediately after you and your eco-terrorist friends blow up a reactor, storm Shinra's HQ, and escape the city on a motorcycle. It's a moment of rest after an electric opening. Final Fantasy VII is a game that starts off with 11/10 intensity, action, intrigue, and enjoyability. It's the complete opposite of a "gets good after "x" hours" game.
That's what people told me with The Sopranos. Eventually wasted time watching 4 and a half seasons of it.
After that i never listened when somebody said "it'll get better eventually"
It mostly means (talking about tv shows now) it sucks, but there's nothing better to watch
After that i never listened when somebody said "it'll get better eventually"
It mostly means (talking about tv shows now) it sucks, but there's nothing better to watch
OP
OP
This is a good example, but also why I never purchased it for myself. It did however look like the type of game my 61 year old aunt would enjoy (she's played basically every console JRPG since the Genesis), and even she was complaining to me that she had been playing it for like four hours so far and nothing was happening. She said it's like she was reading a comic, and was quickly getting bored. Not long after that she actually got to "do stuff" and greatly enjoyed it until the end. Personally, the menial task/social aspect looked ridiculously boring to me, so I skipped it. It was my least favorite part of Persona 4, and they just expanded upon it in 5.
Giving games enough time and waiting till you get to X spot really matters. Not every game is meant to be a jump in and play experience. Slow burns are a thing where you get enough time and experience with the game, mechanics, world, story, or characters where it finally clicks and goes pedal to the metal.
Too many people, and I admit to being guilty of this, give up on games because they are not instantly engaging. You have to walk before you can run, and the waiting till you get to point X is a completely valid point.
The most recent example for me was RDR2. It has a really slow opening. Slow burn. It took 5-10 hours before it all started to fall into place and start to click for me. 98 hours later, I finished an absolutely incredible story experience. One of the best I've ever experienced. And I think that slow start of just getting accustomed to everything and watching the characters and world get set up was a big factor in it.
And it's hard to give games the time they need to click. I work anywhere from 50-60 hours a week and it can sometimes suck to have limited time and spending some of that on a game you're just not sure about. But a lot of the time it ends up paying off and is worth the effort required.
Too many people, and I admit to being guilty of this, give up on games because they are not instantly engaging. You have to walk before you can run, and the waiting till you get to point X is a completely valid point.
The most recent example for me was RDR2. It has a really slow opening. Slow burn. It took 5-10 hours before it all started to fall into place and start to click for me. 98 hours later, I finished an absolutely incredible story experience. One of the best I've ever experienced. And I think that slow start of just getting accustomed to everything and watching the characters and world get set up was a big factor in it.
And it's hard to give games the time they need to click. I work anywhere from 50-60 hours a week and it can sometimes suck to have limited time and spending some of that on a game you're just not sure about. But a lot of the time it ends up paying off and is worth the effort required.
I never said it was, I used it as an example of an unpopular section often appreciated later in the game. FFXIV is a game constantly mentioned in the context of "It gets good later" which is absolutely does and is worth investing in although I understand why it's not for everyone.
Nobody is saying a game has to be exactly as fun at hour 1 as it is at hour 30, or that you can't build to something. What people are saying is that games should be fun, or at least interesting, from hour 1. It doesn't mean they can't get more fun, or more interesting later. They should.
I mostly agree with this, within a little bit of reason. Sometimes a game has to get you set up and explain systems and things like this. It's great if you can make that fun and interesting, but I'm okay with a small time investment to get there. The amount of time I'll accept is relative though to the game I'm playing. I don't mind spending 1-3 hours on a 50 hour game getting the hang of it. At the same time, 1-3 hours of this in a 5 hour game would be absurd. There's no situation where I'm sitting through 10-20 hours of monotony for any amount of fun though. My time's too valuable for that and there are too many other great games out there that don't require that.
I mostly agree with this, within a little bit of reason. Sometimes a game has to get you set up and explain systems and things like this. It's great if you can make that fun and interesting, but I'm okay with a small time investment to get there. The amount of time I'll accept is relative though to the game I'm playing. I don't mind spending 1-3 hours on a 50 hour game getting the hang of it. At the same time, 1-3 hours of this in a 5 hour game would be absurd. There's no situation where I'm sitting through 10-20 hours of monotony for any amount of fun though. My time's too valuable for that and there are too many other great games out there that don't require that.
Given how many games saddle the player with overwrought and laborious tutorial missions, I'd say this assertion of yours is demonstrably false. I'm not saying I agree with such game design but if I bailed on all those games that start slowly, I'd miss out on some of the best software available.
OP
OP
Oh, ok. I get what you're saying. The topic has largely been about whether or not players should drag their feet through the mud of a dreadful opening, especially if it is an offensively long investment of time. That's why I was confused by your example. I do agree, though, that Kalm is more enjoyable in retrospect.
Imagine trying Monster Hunter World for the first time and just base its desing on the first two hours.
If you're being forced to play a game sure, hell I bought AC Origins discounted and dropped it after 15 minutes (tried twice and dropped it at the same minute mark both times) but I can't say if the game is good or not, I'm just not interested in it.
Now, if you truly are interested in a game you're gonna play quite a lot of it before accepting it's boring but maybe it isn't and the game needed that slow start to let you in the fun.
If you're being forced to play a game sure, hell I bought AC Origins discounted and dropped it after 15 minutes (tried twice and dropped it at the same minute mark both times) but I can't say if the game is good or not, I'm just not interested in it.
Now, if you truly are interested in a game you're gonna play quite a lot of it before accepting it's boring but maybe it isn't and the game needed that slow start to let you in the fun.
I think it's all about context. FFXIII takes like 20-25 hours of boring gameplay to get significantly better. At that point, the good part isn't even all that great either so to me it's really not worth it to endure the first 20-25 hours to get there. But any game with a slow beginning that eventually pays off big time as it rewards your patience is entirely alright with me. Sometimes it takes time for a game to click but when it grabs you, it grabs you big time. I could have missed many amazing game if I thought that "getting better later, keep going" wasn't worthy of my time.
OP
OP
Well yea I've had to slog through how many minutes of trailers at this point? Not even worth it my man.
I always preface it with "Obviously it may not be worth it to you but..."
I think it's fair to still drop games after hearing that, but some games literally do get better after X hours.
The first 4 hours of Persona 3-5 universally suck, for instance, and Dark Souls 1 went from being borderline unplayable to my favorite game of all time after I forced myself to suffer through the beginning of the game over and over to actually learn how to fight things.
I think it's fair to still drop games after hearing that, but some games literally do get better after X hours.
The first 4 hours of Persona 3-5 universally suck, for instance, and Dark Souls 1 went from being borderline unplayable to my favorite game of all time after I forced myself to suffer through the beginning of the game over and over to actually learn how to fight things.
As a game, the piano does suck. Guitar Hero is much better.
It will get a pass for the first week or two purely based off of visuals. It will be the best game ever, until it's not.
Or, it might legitimately be a good game. I still have no fucking clue what you do in it besides FedEx stuff across long distances while avoiding X-Files oil aliens and sometimes fight other postpeople that are in your way.
Depends how deep we're talking. A game "getting better" at 2 hours is way different than a game getting better at 30+ hours in.
I don't disagree. A game needs to at least interest me within the first hour or I'll stop. I feel I need to be hooked by hour 3 or so or I won't continue playing it.
It doesn't matter if the end game is fun. Put the fun first if you want me continue playing
It doesn't matter if the end game is fun. Put the fun first if you want me continue playing
Not sure that's a valid criticism of either of those games - it's probably just that MMOs aren't for you. It's pretty common for games like that (and wow, Destiny etc) for the lion's share of the content to only be unlocked at endgame. For example you probably won't have anything remotely challenging dungeon wise up to the level cap, but once you hit that point all of a sudden they become much more strategy/tactics oriented. So it's not that the game is necessarily 'not fun' for the preceding levels, it's just that the game you get at the end, with a wealth of available gear and skills, is much more involved than the game you were playing whilst levelling (and usually, levelling is a more solitary experience while endgame content often requires grouping and communication). That's just my thoughts on it anyway.
I mean, you could reduce pretty much any game to a sentence like that. It doesn't mean you don't have a clue what you do in those games. That sounds like a pretty concise summary
Last edited:
By that description, the developers should stop wasting mine and others' time and just deliver the end-game portion of the game. In your words - "you probably won't have anything remotely challenging dungeon wise up to the level cap". So what's even the point of those first 40 hours? It's like slamming your head against a wall because the painkillers you'll get at the hospital later will be worth it in the end.
First reply is on the money.
Days Gone is a good example of this. The intro region feels a bit rough, and can even be a slog if you stay there too long before progressing the main story, which brings you down to where it abaolutely gets better.
I didnt mind the intro too much, but could tell the immediate change in experience ans its made me hold off on restarting the game, should i ever.
For me, the opening dungeon in Baldur's Gate 2 was a drag to get through, but after those first 1-2 hours, it became one of the greatest RPG's of all time. However, I tried the game on 3 separate occasions before actually getting through that part, due to how fast I lost interest.
Nah not at all. The levelling experience tends to introduce you to your skills slowly (by the end you might have like 50+). Learning them gradually gives a much better understanding of when a particular skill might be needed, or which would be better used against a certain enemy, or what combination skills might need to be used in. The levelling experience tends to also deliver a lot more story related content. You would still get this at endgame, but not in the quantities the levelling quest would provide. I don't personally play them anymore, but I do think both halves are pretty separate experiences, but complimentary, and you would struggle to have one without the other. If you were dropped in at the endgame, you would have 6 hotkey bars worth of skills you didn't know how to use, and a story where you had been dropped in to the last 3rd, with no context or world built around you.
Again, it either sounds like you have had the games misrepresented or they aren't for you.
I don't think I've ever enjoyed the start of an RPG. (Unless mass effect 2 counts)
I feel like for most games you should get a good opinion of the game within 10-15% of its total runtime. If the game isn't fun then there's a good chance it won't ever be fun for you.
I feel like for most games you should get a good opinion of the game within 10-15% of its total runtime. If the game isn't fun then there's a good chance it won't ever be fun for you.
How long ago was the first time you played it? The first Baldur's Gate is what had me seriously interested in getting my own gaming PC, and I loved the second. This was at launch though. Over the years, through the improvements of various gameplay mechanics the IE style games have been really hard for me to return to. Not that I can't still find enjoyment from them, but they often feel pretty weak when it comes to combat, whereas they didn't nearly two decades ago.
I wasn't exaggerating when I said that I couldn't think of a single game that I've played that "got better" after a really weak beginning. There is a game that I dismissed due to a horrible demo, only to revisit it later and have it become my game of that year, but that's not exactly the same thing.
I don't know why it needs to be viewed as a defense when oftentimes it is just advice? There a many reasons that a game might "get better" after a certain point. Maybe the story opens up. Maybe a new mechanic is introduced. Whatever the case may be, if someone is asking if they should stick with a game then it's perfectly reasonable to say that "it gets better and I really enjoyed the game after point x" if that was your experience. A person can decide for themselves if they want to stick with a game after hearing that kind of advice. Are they enjoying the game at all? Do they care more about the story or the gameplay? There are so many factors to consider. Saying that it doesn't excuse the "bad" parts of games doesn't mean much because that's entirely subjective.
I must have played it around 2004, and the presentation/systems themselves were perfectly fine to me back then. I tried going back a year ago or so, and I just couldnt get past the janky and choppy character movement, the limited screen real estate, the low bitrate sound. It felt too "MS-DOS", I couldnt get back into it. So we are in the same boat there. However, me failing to get past that first dungeon back then was because I found that it wasnt well designed as an intro to the game, whereas the rest of the game was extraordinary.
It doesn't excuse why everything is bad beforehand.
KOTOR2's intro area is boring, way too long, and deserves all the criticism it gets. It also definitively gets better after that.
I can't give it a 10/10 because of that opening slog (and an incomplete ending), despite holding the game in extremely high esteem overall.
KOTOR2's intro area is boring, way too long, and deserves all the criticism it gets. It also definitively gets better after that.
I can't give it a 10/10 because of that opening slog (and an incomplete ending), despite holding the game in extremely high esteem overall.
Most people use this to explain the appeal of something, not to excuse something. Lots of people don't "get" like Persona or Monster Hunter so fans will be quick to say "well those of us who love it, stick it out through the grind-y parts and really enjoy the other stuff"
It´s often nonsensical advice. Most of the time people don´t even give an argument as to why it suddenly transformed from garbage to GOAT. Or why this mechanic that was complete trash in the first 20 hours suddenly become a great mechanic. They just like the game and want others to like it too. I don´t think it would be such bad advice if the commenters would put in more reflection in their advice.
I´ve tried doing as people commented and pushed through, but I´ve only experienced once or twice that the game actually developed into something better. All the other times where just waste of time.
I´ve tried doing as people commented and pushed through, but I´ve only experienced once or twice that the game actually developed into something better. All the other times where just waste of time.
I know this isn't the argument OP is making, but since I've seen it made in this thread, I really disagree with the idea that games need a strong/exciting beginning to be worth trying. Especially if it's a more story-based game like the Personas. If a game wants to start things kind of slow to gradually ramp up to more exciting things I think that's totally fine.
Then again I know I'm a huge weirdo when it comes to liking slow starts in video games. I mean I actually liked the beginning of Twilight Princess lol
Then again I know I'm a huge weirdo when it comes to liking slow starts in video games. I mean I actually liked the beginning of Twilight Princess lol
I mean it also comes down to what you think is "interesting" or "fun". Some (like myself) love slow burns to really get that feel for a game's world. Some hate that and want to just jump into a game and go.
I can't tell you what to like but I can tell you when things get super good.
It's not even about content being "bad" half of the time anyways. It's just that the beginning of the game is almost always the worst part.
I can't tell you what to like but I can tell you when things get super good.
It's not even about content being "bad" half of the time anyways. It's just that the beginning of the game is almost always the worst part.
ffXIII never becomes acceptable
It's like a 60 hour chase scene
