Support NeoGAF

[disappeared]

Maybe Wind Waker was my favorite Zelda game after all...

It ought to be, or at least up there. I'm convinced that the only reason TP existed in its final form was because a lot of fools were vocally upset with the art style of WW and its apparent "lightheartedness" (after that initial CG render was shown), which is ridiculous because WW turns out to be pretty damned dark and depressing by the end.

Don't get me wrong, TP looked awesome at its e3 debut, but then the actual game happened.

 

[theofficefan99]

You're right, the game and story never get better.

Loved the battle system and greatly enjoyed the mythology/world/cast dynamic (minus Hope and Snow/plot (aside from the finale) *Shrugs*

 

[Pif]

A game loses my interest if in 1 hour I am not entertained.

GTA V also takes many hours to pick up pace, but it hooked my under 30 seconds.

 

[Menitta]

Skyrim.

 

[Icyflamez96]

I never related with the FFXIII example because the battle system was exciting and fun to me the whole way through. On replays, the only thing that's a drag are the first two areas. Mainly before you get paradigm shifting.

 

[Neoleo2143]

Skyrim.

Skyrim has a pretty bad intro, but its only 20 minutes long, not 2 hours.

 

[sanstesy]

Skyrim has a pretty bad intro, but its only 20 minutes long, not 2 hours.

You sure it's not 20 hours though?

 

[Sakujou]

dq takes a lot of time, and no ff13 doesnt take 20h to get in.

its 20h until the open world part starts.

iam utterly shocked at some of your responses. a good game should last at least 20h.

if its less than 20h, i wont buy it for the full price.

 

[disappeared]

You sure it's not 20 hours though?

Pro-tip: when playing a Beth RPG, once you're given access to the world, run in the opposite direction the game tells you to go. Then the game begins.

 

[data]

The HIgurashi games are like this. But it's totally justified tho (also it's more like 4 hours)

 

[Neoleo2143]

You sure it's not 20 hours though?

It could be? What if all of Skyrim was secretly the introduction?

Pro-tip: when playing a Beth RPG, once you're given access to the world, run in the opposite direction the game tells you to go. Then the game begins.

Not exactly a good idea if it's New Vegas, but then again, that's a Obsidian game.

 

[disappeared]

Not exactly a good idea if it's New Vegas, but then again, that's a Obsidian game.

Obsidian knows how to design a compelling RPG.

 

[Lemaitre]

It ought to be, or at least up there. I'm convinced that the only reason TP existed in its final form was because a lot of fools were vocally upset with the art style of WW and its apparent "lightheartedness" (after that initial CG render was shown), which is ridiculous because WW turns out to be pretty damned dark and depressing by the end.

Don't get me wrong, TP looked awesome at its e3 debut, but then the actual game happened.

I agree with this.

I played TP years after it's initial release. I made sure to play it on Gamecube too, but man was I underwhelmed....

Wind Waker is clearly the superior game/Zelda title.

 

[sphinx]

Well, I mean, the moment you get the double clawshot is the only memorable part of the game...

for me the "this is it" moment in TP was between Water Temple and Arbiter grounds, the game went from "is this getting any better?" to "ok, this is an epic adventure".

everything until the 3rd temple is way too straight forward and scripted, barely any freedom, coming straight from wind waker which has a ton of freedom that sucked ass

 

[Firemind]

for me the "this is it" moment in TP was between Water Temple and Arbiter grounds, the game went from "is this getting any better?" to "ok, this is an epic adventure".

everything until the 3rd temple is way too straight forward and scripted, barely any freedom, coming straight from wind waker which has a ton of freedom that sucked ass

I thought the water dungeon in TP was way too tedious. I mean, the water temple in OoT and MM were tedious to a degree too, but in a mind-wrecking way with the vertical level design in OoT and the time limit in MM. For some reason, I always cut it close in the Great Bay Temple. TP's was just boring. I never understood people who were in favour of TP's water dungeon.

 

[shouamabane]

I love when that happens. It's rare though.

 

[dankir]

This is a make or break for me. I dropped FF13 in about 3 hours. I want most of my games to be over in 15-20 hours let alone just get started. Any game that lasts over 20 for me is a multiplayer title or something exceptional.

2 hours here and that was the day it came out. Never touched it again and it completely turned me off of JRPGS and FF in general.

 

[Maintenance]

One of the few that I managed to endure was Trails. That thing moves so slow that watching paint dry would be faster. Payoff was amazing though.

 

[Jinkies]

Extensive game length does not bother me, but it should be engaging through its entirety. I am easy to please, so expensive setpieces are not the only answer.

 

[_Ryo_]

Not quite 20 hours but Persona 4.

 

[rochellepaws]

I love games with a lot of world building, character development and a slow ramp up to the critical plot points. Trails does it fantastically and the payoff is wonderful.
Some people are impatient and require instant gratification within the first few minutes, I do wonder why those people seek to play rpgs in the first place. Trails is definitely not a game for those people.

 

[PSqueak]

I remember the first 3 hours (as roxas) in KH 2 felt like forever, if that had been my first KH game i'd have dropped it.

The only way where "After X hours the real fun starts" is valid is when the game is already fun at the beginning but it becomes crazy fun after certain point.

 

[Weltall Zero]

I'm not saying solely world building either. in pretty much all of the games I'm bringing up you can get into gameplay pretty quickly, it's just that all the dramatic plot stuff doesn't start for a while.

You will find most people playing videogames care more about gameplay than plot, and when the "takes 20 hours to get going" complaint is levied, it's usually at gameplay, not plot. Very few people would complain that the plot isn't super dramatic if they're actually, you know, having fun playing.

The two other frequent use cases for that sentence are 1) when those 20 hours consist mostly of non-gameplay (in a game genre expected to contain a more balanced gameplay ratio), or 2) if it's a game genre with very little gameplay, like a visual novel. In the first case the complaint is still 100% justified (frankly, if you want to make an RPG or action game that is mostly custcenes or dialogue, go write a damn book); in the latter it's much more subjective and case-by-case, and there are some games that probably couldn't even work any other way (Steins;Gate is one of those cases; the world building and clue peppering is so subtle that you think nothing is happening and it all feels quite pointless, until it pulls the rug out from you...).

tl;dr: 20 hours of non-gameplay =/= 20 hours of bad gameplay =/= 20 hours of bad story =/= 20 hours of slow story.

 

[elyetis]

I don't even think FF13 is a good example of this

Because it's not. You can say that's it's a corridor for 20 hours, sure, but the idea that nothing happen or that it's too slow paced at the start is disingenuous.

 

[Brashnir]

The best example I can think of is Blue Dragon, where a lot of content / things to do open up right at the end of the game. Not to mention you have to do a lot of grinding to beat the final boss.

Having just replayed the first couple hours of Blue Dragon, I'd have to say that the game starts off pretty hot. The first scene of the game is set in the midst of a seemingly-apocalyptic event.

You do have a bit of a stretch afterwards where it ramps up systems until you get your shadows, but a slow start is not something I'd level at the game.

I don't like the notion that things "opening up" is when a game begins. Tons of great games are perfectly linear and never "open up." It's a silly point of discussion that predicates itself on a ridiculous premise to prove a non-point.

 

[Eumi]

If somebody isn't enjoying a game then why should they keep playing it?

It's really that simple. Every time this comes up I can't understand why it bothers people so much that others would stop playing something they find dull.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

How the heck does Final Fantasy XIII qualifies as "nothing happens at the start"? It starts with a train hijack and deaths, followed by manhunts with the party members punching and pointing guns at each other every other chapters.

If anything it demonstrates how the quiet build-ups are important to make the player care about the characters and the world surrounding them, else you'd just get strings of dramatic moments that pays little.

You will find most people playing videogames care more about gameplay than plot, and when the "takes 20 hours to get going" complaint is levied, it's usually at gameplay, not plot. Very few people would complain that the plot isn't super dramatic if they're actually, you know, having fun playing.

The two other frequent use cases for that sentence are 1) when those 20 hours consist mostly of non-gameplay (in a game genre expected to contain a more balanced gameplay ratio), or 2) if it's a game genre with very little gameplay, like a visual novel. In the first case the complaint is still 100% justified (frankly, if you want to make an RPG or action game that is mostly custcenes or dialogue, go write a damn book); in the latter it's much more subjective and case-by-case, and there are some games that probably couldn't even work any other way (Steins;Gate is one of those cases; the world building and clue peppering is so subtle that you think nothing is happening and it all feels quite pointless, until it pulls the rug out from you...).

tl;dr: 20 hours of non-gameplay =/= 20 hours of bad gameplay =/= 20 hours of bad story =/= 20 hours of slow story.

Regardless, you'd find that some people playing videogames care more about plot than gameplay, and the OP is specifically talking about them. "The story is slow" is still a criticism that happens regardless of a game's gameplay.

 

[True Fire]

Final Fantasy XIII, with the "good part" being the sequel

 

[BinaryBear07]

Skyrim.

Really? I thought the opening to that game was pretty cool and action packed.

 

[LotusHD]

If somebody isn't enjoying a game then why should they keep playing it?

It's really that simple. Every time this comes up I can't understand why it bothers people so much that others would stop playing something they find dull.

Case-by-case imo. Like if I heard a game is really amazing, typically I'd play it for a bit longer, to see if it clicks. (Within reason) But yea, sometimes you just know early on that a game just isn't for you.

 

[Silvawuff]

I think Xenogears did this in reverse. The first part of the game was like super thrilling amazing JRPG, then nothing happens for 20 hours leading up to the finale.

 

[Mawnster]

I think Xenogears did this in reverse. The first part of the game was like super thrilling amazing JRPG, then nothing happens for 20 hours leading up to the finale.

This happened to me with Skyrim. I was super into it during the intro with all of the action and whatnot. Then when I was actually able to explore, I got incredibly bored.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

Far too many games with compelling gameplay and/or setting right from the get go for me to play those types of games.

Not really a knock on them, just not my cup of tea. I'll leave them for those with far more interest in, and time for, games than me.

 

[Corpekata]

I think Xenogears did this in reverse. The first part of the game was like super thrilling amazing JRPG, then nothing happens for 20 hours leading up to the finale.

It's a lot of filler. Like you go off to recruit a bunch of party members who have mostly self contained, almost episodic stories that vary wildly in genre and tone. Like you were channel hopping on a TV. And then often those characters, after their initial intro, barely end up mattering over the rest of the game.

 

[Mr. Nice_Guy]

As much as I dislike FFXIII, I wouldn't put it in this category. The game literally opens up from being completely linear around 20+ hours, but it starts its story from the get go. What it does is even worse by being muddled and poorly written to the point of needing an ingame encyclopedia updated after most cutscenes from moment 1.

Some games do the slow burn well, like DQVII, but it does that by having lots of vignettes before it gets to the "main" story. I completely understanding people not enjoying that style of storytelling though.

 

[rottendevice]

EDIT: nvm

 

[Durrzerker]

I don't really care if a story in a game needs a bit of time to get going but if the gameplay is taking 20 or even 10 hours to really come into its own especially in something like an RPG then I think that is ridiculous. Even the most complex strategy and 4x games can generally establish all of their important mechanics in half that time. Final Fantasy XIII isn't that because it's story is slow it's because it takes 20 hours to go beyond incredibly simplistic and boring gameplay

 

[MillionStabs]

Nier is like a so-so RPG for the first playthrough, then it becomes Oh my god this is the best game ever on playthroughs 2-4.

Some people may see that as bad, though. Which is understandable.

 

[Anticol]

Not exactly a good idea if it's New Vegas, but then again, that's a Obsidian game.

Well, that's because Obsidian do know what they are doing.

 

[Arizato]

A lot of people are talking about Persona 4, but even though I love Persona 3 so much more than P4 I do believe P3 has more of a problem with this than P4.

4 at least starts you off by introducing characters and slowly brings the story to you. Which is good in some aspects. The story doesn't really stop or loses focus, it's just a slow start.

P3 however starts off very simple by introducing you to the school and some of the characters. Then you are off facing bosses for a couple of months without much story or context. It's not bad per se, but not much happens for the first 15-20 hours (save for a few moments). Then it drops like 3 major plot twists in just a couple of hours and the game starts getting really fucking awesome.

Edit: Though I eventually got through it and found it awesome I think the First Trails in The Sky has a really slow start as well. Mostly because you are getting familiar with the world.

 

[friskykillface]

Wasn't Mario and Luigi dream team like that? Not 20 hours but 7/8 hours until it starts getting good

I remember reading posts like that ages ago

 

[Brashnir]

Wasn't Mario and Luigi dream team like that? Not 20 hours but 7/8 hours until it starts getting good

I remember reading posts like that ages ago

It never got good. Game is trash.

 

[Gunstar Ikari]

I remember Tears to Tiara 2 taking like 8 hours to get a map that was more substantial than slaughtering three or four random enemies. Completely killed any sort of interest I had despite the pacing seemingly improving afterwards.

And Steins;Gate is absolutely another case of this. I actually dropped it right when stuff began to happen, though I luckily picked it back up and enjoyed it from there.

 

[Verus]

This is why I love Chrono Trigger so much. "Hey there's a festival, ooh a hot mysterious girl, WHAT THE FUCK WHERE'D SHE GO." Boom, gets right into it within the first 20 minutes.

this is gold ahahah because thats a perfect opening no details necessary.

 

[DarkConfidant]

It's why I haven't touched Dragon Quest VII.

I don't have time to play one game for that long, only for it to really start 20+ hours in. :/

That's why I Am Setsuna was great. JRPGs don't have to be really long, and just because they historically have, doesn't make it crucial to the genre's design.

 

[Neoleo2143]

Well, that's because Obsidian do know what they are doing.

Well, my point was not really to shit on Obsidian, I love their games. Tyranny is probably going on my GOTY list.

I was just being a bit tongue and cheek about how ridiculous some of the monsters just outside the Starting Zone are in that game.

 

[Kindekuma]

Persona 4 takes a real good long while until things pick up. Not only in a story sense but gameplay as well once more party members join.

Still love that game though.

 

[Alebrije]

Happened with Tetris

 

[golem]

Not that it takes 20 hours to get through the intro, but Forza Horizon's slow progression starts always annoyed the shit out of me. This one they even locked up the radio stations wth.

 

[Megawarrior]

Dragon Quest VIII 3ds to be honest. I gave up 25 hrs in at a casino. Going to different

Spoiler

islands (past and present)

was doing nothing for me and the stories weren't that interesting.