-
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.
I feel "It gets better at point X" is not a valid defense.
- Thread starter Bomblord
- Start date
I assume you know that BotW is basically the opposite of Skyward Sword and Twilight Princess in every way? It was designed as a direct response to the criticisms of those games?
I think it's just something that varies from person to person. Some people have a ton of free time and/or don't play a lot of games a year and are more willing to be patient for games with slow starts, boring parts mixed in you have to power through etc.
Others have less free time, or play a ton of games a year, and have little patience for such things and will pretty quickly drop things pretty quickly and move on to something else if they aren't feeling it.
Neither side is right or wrong, it's just a combination of circumstances and preferences/how people engage with the hobby. For me, I'm not into games (or anything really) as art or even any type of meaningful experience. They're just fun, escapist entertainment. So I feel zero incentive to power through things I'm not having fun with as I have zero fear of missing out on something. If it's not fun, it's not fun and I'll move on to something else. Be it dropping something early on that didn't grab me, or dropping something like Persona 5 after 50 hours as I'm no longer having fun with it. I don't care about money put into it, I make a good salary and wasting time forcing myself to keep playing something I'm not enjoying so more of a sunk cost to me than just buying something else I'm more likely to have more fun with.
Others have less free time, or play a ton of games a year, and have little patience for such things and will pretty quickly drop things pretty quickly and move on to something else if they aren't feeling it.
Neither side is right or wrong, it's just a combination of circumstances and preferences/how people engage with the hobby. For me, I'm not into games (or anything really) as art or even any type of meaningful experience. They're just fun, escapist entertainment. So I feel zero incentive to power through things I'm not having fun with as I have zero fear of missing out on something. If it's not fun, it's not fun and I'll move on to something else. Be it dropping something early on that didn't grab me, or dropping something like Persona 5 after 50 hours as I'm no longer having fun with it. I don't care about money put into it, I make a good salary and wasting time forcing myself to keep playing something I'm not enjoying so more of a sunk cost to me than just buying something else I'm more likely to have more fun with.
It's an opinion. Opinions are not facts. Both can be stated.
Touche. It's a fact to the individual experiencing it and evaluating it
I'd say those often go hand-in-hand. People who think a game is bad because they don't really understand how to play it yet.
I think it's valid in that it's 100% true that some games and shows and books etc. are great once they get going.
That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with some people being unwilling to put in that time until it gets good. Time is precious, especially the older and busier you get and there are a ton of great games, movies, books etc. that are great from the start that can be enjoyed.
Just a to each, their own thing on whether things that have slow starts, or bad/slow sports here and there, are worth their time and effort. Games, shows etc. are some life altering/life defining experience to anyone with any semblance of a life in the real world. So people aren't missing out on anything of import IMO if they choose to spend their time only on things that are engaging from the start and consistently so throughout.
Eh I think that should be on a per game basis. If you have to play like 5+ hours until you're enjoying a game then yeah I can see your point. But some games do start off slow and get dramatically better after a few hours. Not every game is going to explode out the gate.
Oh, I complety agree. I've dropped plenty of games that I didn't feel like putting in the time to get to the good parts. I've also slogged through horrible content (FFXIV) in other games to get to stuff that's worth playing. It's a game by game choice for me and should be the same for anyone.
I disagree. There is a number of things that I feel have good parts that are actually good enough to make up for wading through the shitty parts. I assume people who give actually that advice feel similarly, which is why they give that advice to begin with.
So if you know a game or show is amazing, something you really enjoy and think your friend would enjoy, but with a flawed start, you'll purposefully keep that info from your friend because you know better than them how they should spend their time?
"Sucks that you didn't like the first 30 minutes of that awesome 60 hour game you paid $60 for, you should buy another game, maybe that will have a better first 30 minutes."
the main example used at the end of the OP is FFXIII, and i don't think people disliked the first half of that game because they didn't understand the gameplay systems
I hated Dark Souls for the first 5 hours then it became my fave game of that generation. I also thought Uncharted 2, Witcher 3 and plenty of others make terrible first impressions and they turned out to be fantastic games.
FFXIII being used as the poster child for this kind of defense of a game is not really fair in my opinion. It's infamously bad in that sense because the "good" part that people refer to is like 20 hours into the game. OP is making a blanket statement about people who make these statements but rarely are they making it in a way that's comparable to FFXIII.
I agree... Saying "it gets better" doesn't nullify the problem that it takes a long time for that particular element of a game to improve. Simultaneously, sometimes these elements DO get substantially better. So, when someone says that the combat is trash in Final Fantasy XIII, I don't tend to see that as a genuine complaint of the combat engine as it exists once it "gets good" (well over ten hours into the game), but a complaint of how slowly the combat engine develops throughout the course of the game.
The criticism is still valid, and has not been nullified, it is just that the criticism isn't really about that particular mechanic, it is a criticism of how painfully that mechanic is implemented.
The criticism is still valid, and has not been nullified, it is just that the criticism isn't really about that particular mechanic, it is a criticism of how painfully that mechanic is implemented.
I think there's a big difference between a slow start and a bad start. Also the idea of acclimating to how a game plays has no part in this discussion. I saw an earlier post talking about playing the piano and couldn't help but think how stupid an analogy that was. If this topic was about competitive e-sports, then that analogy would make sense, otherwise it has no place here.
Anyway, I am fine with games that have slow starts but are otherwise engaging, fun and interesting. What I do have a problem with is a bad start. There are countless games out there that are not fun and really suck for the first few hours or more. It's those games that I personally take issue with, and it's not because they're slow. A slow start isn't the problem.
Anyway, I am fine with games that have slow starts but are otherwise engaging, fun and interesting. What I do have a problem with is a bad start. There are countless games out there that are not fun and really suck for the first few hours or more. It's those games that I personally take issue with, and it's not because they're slow. A slow start isn't the problem.
Right, which is why we should tell people when a game they aren't enjoying the start of gets quite a bit better, so they can make that decision themselves.
I think an hour is a fair amount of time for a game to get good (assuming the first hour is just slow, not awful). Anything beyond that, and especially games that don't respect your time for multiple hours... Nah... I'm old, I don't have enough free time for it to get good eventually.
I'd say it doesn't matter whether we're talking about learning curves, less interesting content, bad tutorialization, or whatever. The end result is the same for the player. Not having a good time at the beginning vs having a good time later.
I don't agree.
Many times the tutorial is a chore on some games where you walk slowly, don't have almost any input besides movement (WASD), etc, and the game is great. That is a "it gets better at point X".
I also don't think people use it as a defence or to deflect the criticism of a game: many people agree that the first levels of Final Fantasy XIV: ARR are quite a chore. Or first levels from any MMORPG. It's a way of saying "yes, I was at your position too, and you have the choice to stop playing, which is totally fine, or keep going and maybe you will like it".
Either games get fleshed out as they go on, or games give you absolutely everything from the 1 second you open the executable/app and overwhelm you with options or disappoint you because of the lack of them.
Many times the tutorial is a chore on some games where you walk slowly, don't have almost any input besides movement (WASD), etc, and the game is great. That is a "it gets better at point X".
I also don't think people use it as a defence or to deflect the criticism of a game: many people agree that the first levels of Final Fantasy XIV: ARR are quite a chore. Or first levels from any MMORPG. It's a way of saying "yes, I was at your position too, and you have the choice to stop playing, which is totally fine, or keep going and maybe you will like it".
Either games get fleshed out as they go on, or games give you absolutely everything from the 1 second you open the executable/app and overwhelm you with options or disappoint you because of the lack of them.
Its important for games...hell any media to have something that grips its audience from jump...so if they fail at that, its a bad choice on their end. HOWEVER, with games some times things do open up after time due to simply teaching the player how to play and thus as the player improves, the game can throw new, probably more exciting things at them....which is good game design.
it hard tho. I have quit many games that are probably really good because I simply did not have the patience for the skillset to open up...so it is equally important in those cases that the game offers other carrots on a stick to keep players engaged. The Persona series is one of my favorites but from a pure factual standpoint, most of the start of those games gameplay wise is very dragged out...so its the story intrigue that keeps you going. KH2's start is infamous for its slow nature but I was hooked because I had no fucking clue wtf was going on lol so the slow nature didn't bother me at all.
Its a delicate balance. FFXIII , IMO gets too much hate, but its whole it gets better thing is waaaaay too far in.
it hard tho. I have quit many games that are probably really good because I simply did not have the patience for the skillset to open up...so it is equally important in those cases that the game offers other carrots on a stick to keep players engaged. The Persona series is one of my favorites but from a pure factual standpoint, most of the start of those games gameplay wise is very dragged out...so its the story intrigue that keeps you going. KH2's start is infamous for its slow nature but I was hooked because I had no fucking clue wtf was going on lol so the slow nature didn't bother me at all.
Its a delicate balance. FFXIII , IMO gets too much hate, but its whole it gets better thing is waaaaay too far in.
"It gets better" is generally relevant if you think the game is already OK but not grabbing you, but not really if you think it just sucks.
I do think RPGs should stop taking so long to get good. I think a lot of the reason Baldur's Gate 2 is remembered so well is simply that it got the boring part of RPG gameplay out of the way in the first game.
I do think RPGs should stop taking so long to get good. I think a lot of the reason Baldur's Gate 2 is remembered so well is simply that it got the boring part of RPG gameplay out of the way in the first game.
I never saw it as necessarily a "defense", it's more of a "I felt the same way when I was at that point in the game, but ended up enjoying it, for what it's worth".
You can feel free to ignore that opinion and just stop playing, too. That's perfectly valid.
You can feel free to ignore that opinion and just stop playing, too. That's perfectly valid.
Games shine on endgame content probably can justify this, like Diablo 3.
FF13 kinda does it too. I personally liked FF14 2.x content but can definitely see why ppl are saying 3.x onward is so much better.
FF13 kinda does it too. I personally liked FF14 2.x content but can definitely see why ppl are saying 3.x onward is so much better.
Is it? Replace level 80 with level 20, or 10, or 5. Whatever. The burden is not on me to be bored with a happy, little smile on my face for several hours (straight out of the gate) thinking "This is fine. I'm so bored I could fall asleep. I could be playing any other game in my backlog, but this is fine. Just be bored. This is normal and I will reap the rewards in 15 hours." It's on the developer to make me, the player, interested once I boot the game up. If I'm an hour or two in and not a single worthwhile thing has occurred in my experience with the game, why do I owe the game or the developer any additional time? They had their chance and they blew it. Onward to better games.
I think the point people are making is that the time investment is worth it. If that's not for you, that's fine... but your attitude about the situation is extremely off putting. Developers don't owe you anything and just because you're not having fun doesn't nullify the fun other people are having.
Agreed.
Some people get snarky and shitty toward people who don't want to push through a slow starting game they love though. That's the real issue behind this debate I think. And it's just a common one in gaming in general with people being rude or hostile to people with different tastes or preferences than their own.
Every hour that I spend being bored by a game is another hour I could be putting towards a good game. The industry is DEEP with developers & games that don't have enough players or enough love because it's impossible to either a.) spend the money required to obtain all of those games or b.) spend the hours available in your life to play all of those games. As consumers, we're in a great position because we can be picky about how we spend our time. You're right, though - the developers don't owe me a thing. However, if I can avoid wasting my money on certain developers or if I can pull the eject cord on and avoid my time with certain games, I will. And when friends and peers ask me what I think of a game I can tell them, "absolutely nothing happens in the first two hours; I wish I could tell you more, but I gave up and moved onto (good game) instead". So while they don't owe me anything, I'll think twice about where I put my time and money the next time they release a game. If you consider that to be off-putting, then I apologize.
Agreed. It just needs to go both ways.
There's nothing wrong with enjoying playing games with slow or bad starts. There's also nothing wrong with people who can't be bothered to push through and just stick with games that grab them early on.
The point of a hobby is to enjoy it. There's never any need to be negative toward people who enjoy the hobby differently than you do And the gaming community is probably the worst about feeling a need to put down people with different tastes and preferences.
Things would be much better if more people just focused on discussing things they enjoy, and less time discussing things they don't. Hobbies should be fun, and discussing them should skew toward positivity instead of the rampant negativity on most hobby forums.
40 hours in? Are you talking about when you get skells? Cause I feel like the game is good as soon as you get control of your character.
I think the argument OP makes is completely subjective, though I agree. I have a wife and a child, so I can't justify playing something unless I basically enjoy it from the get go. If a game is downright boring to begin (like how I found FFXIV), I cant justify spending hours on playing through to the "good part" because my time is so limited.
When I was a younger man I could have pushed through - but my life has changed.
When I was a younger man I could have pushed through - but my life has changed.
OP
OP
But a lot of games do get better, regardless of whether they start good or bad. Some great games that start good get amazing later on. Seems intuitive that that could happen across the board.
Whether that's is enough to convince someone to stick to them is not really the same as that other poster arguing whether the game is overall mediocre or overall good. That could be two different discussion happening at the same time.
Whether that's is enough to convince someone to stick to them is not really the same as that other poster arguing whether the game is overall mediocre or overall good. That could be two different discussion happening at the same time.
I think it is. As someone who also has stuck with books past page fifty before the plot really picked up, saying, "hey, the plot really picks up or the gameplay or level design gets more interesting later on" is as valid as any other defense in favor of a game's quality.
Now, if you reject that because you don't feel like you should have to spend X amount of hours playing to get to the good stuff, that's fine, but the argument is valid.
Especially now, there are games with openings that end up feeling like long, dull tutorials that then end up having really fun gameplay after that which I would recommend with that caveat, and if you're like, "fuck that, it needs to grab me from the jump," that's a fair counter-point in regard to your ideas of how a game could be constructed.
Now, if you reject that because you don't feel like you should have to spend X amount of hours playing to get to the good stuff, that's fine, but the argument is valid.
Especially now, there are games with openings that end up feeling like long, dull tutorials that then end up having really fun gameplay after that which I would recommend with that caveat, and if you're like, "fuck that, it needs to grab me from the jump," that's a fair counter-point in regard to your ideas of how a game could be constructed.
They may not change their foundation but games can and often do either add new mechanics or change up the pacing as you progress which can make a big difference.
Of course, if you dislike the base concept of the gameplay itself, then yeah, you can't do much about that. It's not like people are saying it becomes a different game later.
I don't think it's necessarily not a valid defense, but people should be willing to accept that everyone's situation is different. We all have different amounts of free time and levels of tolerance for slow/boring intro content.
What's a valid defense for one person may not be valid for another. The beginning of Final Fantasy XIV is slow af, but I was willing to fight through that and I'm really glad I did. I can totally understand why others might not though.
What's a valid defense for one person may not be valid for another. The beginning of Final Fantasy XIV is slow af, but I was willing to fight through that and I'm really glad I did. I can totally understand why others might not though.
A slight counterpoint to that is that the focus on the first hour experience is so important that anything that doesn't deliver right off the bat can be seen as boring after a few hours. But if it's Xenoblade level of "it gets good after 50 hours" then sure at that point you can be confident in saying it isn't for you and the argument is nonsensical.
It definitely has a slow tutorial (all the characters telling you about NLA/BLADE and getting your first missions in with Elma and Lin) so I can see that. X's pace is weird because it has linear and open progression at the same time. It'll take a long time to get your skell but you can swim over the final continent of the game a few hours in haha