-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"Nothing happens for like 20 hours, but then the good part starts"
- Thread starter Dio
- Start date
Basileus777
Member
I don't think there are actually many good single player games like this. This thread is pretty bereft of examples. FF13 doesn't get good after 20 hours, I'd argue that the last part of the game is the worst part.
Gotdatmoney
Member
I expect a game to be interesting from the start. If I am not enjoying playing it it has already failed imo. If the game needs story to grip you then it has to be good from the start or it's just a waste of my time. The sum of the game needs to always be enjoyable.
Have you played SC ?
The build up they did wasn't for the last chapter of FC you know. They don't make you run the entire country for nothing.
I always felt that the "but it gets good x hours in" to be a shit argument to begin with. If a game has such bad pacing it require that many hours to get better, it might be the sunk cost fallacy kicking in.
Final Fantasy XIII is infamous for exactly this. When I read the thread title I immediately thought: Oh, he's talking about FFXIII
Scrooge McDuck
Member
The OP is talking about story beats that focus on slow world-building at the beginning and thus nothing dramatic, narrative-wise, really happens for a long stretch of time. Final Fantasy XIII is totally not like that.
I've never really felt this phenomenon with any RPG i've played, but I've also played RPGs since SNES. I may just enjoy a slower pacing for everything overall.
I never understood that argument for FFXIII. I found that game enjoyable and different, and ultimately played through it three times. I even want to give it another go in the future.
I have vague memories of being bored with Shenmue, but I also never enjoyed it's gameplay.
If i think hard about it, maybe an rpg that came close would be Dragon Quest 7, but you get classes JUST as you're starting to get tired of the non-customizability, at least for me. And every area has a nice interesting story, so it never quite feels like it plods on. Definitely edges on it, though.
I never understood that argument for FFXIII. I found that game enjoyable and different, and ultimately played through it three times. I even want to give it another go in the future.
I have vague memories of being bored with Shenmue, but I also never enjoyed it's gameplay.
If i think hard about it, maybe an rpg that came close would be Dragon Quest 7, but you get classes JUST as you're starting to get tired of the non-customizability, at least for me. And every area has a nice interesting story, so it never quite feels like it plods on. Definitely edges on it, though.
bobawesome
Member
Not at all. Kid Icarus Uprising is crazy since minute zero. It just gets a lot crazier after the 8h or so, and always does in a good way.
InternHertz
Member
It took me 50 (not kidding) hours to get into FFXIII, it felt very "meh", especially since you couldn't grind as much as you wanted nor use your full arsenal.
I then stopped playing for 6 months because other stuff happened, then came back and played more than 50 more and I ended up LOVING the game during those.
It just needed to open up its combat possibilities much earlier than it did.
I then stopped playing for 6 months because other stuff happened, then came back and played more than 50 more and I ended up LOVING the game during those.
It just needed to open up its combat possibilities much earlier than it did.
CouchMaster
Member
BossDarkseid
Member
Good pacing is important. I felt interested in Persona 4 pretty quickly when I played it on Vita but still the opening hour or two is quite slow, it just presented intrigue from the off and had a weird flavor to it.
EventHorizon
Member
Nothing happening <> world building or character development
If your game or TV show is reliant on the story to be good, and the story doesn't get going for hours into it, you are doing it wrong. If need be create smaller stories that can start quicker to bootstrap the main story.
If your game or TV show is reliant on the story to be good, and the story doesn't get going for hours into it, you are doing it wrong. If need be create smaller stories that can start quicker to bootstrap the main story.
After the opening, FFXIII is primarily the cast wandering aimlessly in different directions and aacomplishing nothing of importance until the third act.
It fits the criteria on both narrative and gameplay.
A game being slow is not the same as a game being boring. You can have info dumps that are interesting and engaging. You can spread them out , you can have peaks in valleys -though not to the extent of the later parts of the game- to keep things interesting.
When people say the sentence in the OP, they mean the game is a boring slog for a long time until it gets better. If that's how they feel I really cannot justify wasting that much time for moments that probably won't hit as hard because I didn't care in the first 20 hours.
When people say the sentence in the OP, they mean the game is a boring slog for a long time until it gets better. If that's how they feel I really cannot justify wasting that much time for moments that probably won't hit as hard because I didn't care in the first 20 hours.
SmashN'Grab
Member
20 hours is a long time - I don't think I've ever played a game that long waiting for it to get good.
However, I do find that a huge number of games bog you down in the intro/tutorial section for the first 2-3 hours, and that can really feel like a slog when you're starting a game. Particularly if it's a game in a series you're already familiar with (e.g. Assassin's Creed).
I understand the need to drip feed mechanics, backstory and gameplay systems to the new players that are just entering the series. It's obviously crucial. I do wish there was a better way to please both old and new fans, though.
However, I do find that a huge number of games bog you down in the intro/tutorial section for the first 2-3 hours, and that can really feel like a slog when you're starting a game. Particularly if it's a game in a series you're already familiar with (e.g. Assassin's Creed).
I understand the need to drip feed mechanics, backstory and gameplay systems to the new players that are just entering the series. It's obviously crucial. I do wish there was a better way to please both old and new fans, though.
I liked the pace of FF XIII, even though the battle system wasn't complex, the game introduced the mechanics on the perfect time to make it feel natural while playing, also I don't minded the characters walking without a direction, I felt like it showed the bonds between characters. Another thing is that the story is badly told, and for people who was used to the more open nature of previous FF, the corridors will be terrible.
But at least for me, I liked the first 20 hours of FF, is a gorgeous game to watch, specially at the middle of the HD era, on paals the game is more of a drag since you have to grind a lot, but the game got harder, so there is that
But at least for me, I liked the first 20 hours of FF, is a gorgeous game to watch, specially at the middle of the HD era, on paals the game is more of a drag since you have to grind a lot, but the game got harder, so there is that
killatopak
Member
oh god yes.
I tried MH multiple times before I finally felt good about it. The first hours were mind numbing.
ronaldthump
Member
FFXIII never got good for me. One of the worst games SE made. hugely annoying cast adds to its problem
20 hours is extreme. 5-10 hours seems more realistic. I've played a couple of RPGs where it's decent from the start but around 10 hours in it starts getting amazing (The Witcher 3, Persona 3).
I think "nothing happens" is arguably disingenuous. Usually these games will still be decent enough to play, they probably just won't be super gripping until a certain gameplay- or plot-ball starts rolling.
I think "nothing happens" is arguably disingenuous. Usually these games will still be decent enough to play, they probably just won't be super gripping until a certain gameplay- or plot-ball starts rolling.
"You have to play until Gran Pulse" is what I heard at the time...and I did it and after that I dropped the game!
I was always amused by people who said it regarding XIII.
As someone who did mostly like XIII, I think if you didn't like XIII 4ish hours in, then you weren't going to like it 20 hours in. Unless you think having an open map suddenly makes everything better.
But yeah, the only time I'd give a game that much time is if there was some really good potential, or if I was really bored. Otherwise 20 hours is too damn much to ask.
As someone who did mostly like XIII, I think if you didn't like XIII 4ish hours in, then you weren't going to like it 20 hours in. Unless you think having an open map suddenly makes everything better.
But yeah, the only time I'd give a game that much time is if there was some really good potential, or if I was really bored. Otherwise 20 hours is too damn much to ask.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
I had a Xenogears demo I got bored of and put it down. Didn't care for the old timey village aesthetic.
But I figured I'd give it another shot days later and I was blown away by the crazy that kicks in after visiting Citan, and the music and darkness and then that trailer... hoo boy. (Edit: the game is one of my all-time favs for context)
I guess what I'm saying is I've learned to appreciate the slow start but the punch that kicked in much sooner than several hours in helped me understand that, ironically.
But I figured I'd give it another shot days later and I was blown away by the crazy that kicks in after visiting Citan, and the music and darkness and then that trailer... hoo boy. (Edit: the game is one of my all-time favs for context)
I guess what I'm saying is I've learned to appreciate the slow start but the punch that kicked in much sooner than several hours in helped me understand that, ironically.
EventHorizon
Member
I wonder if the solution for sequels to handle this problem would be to include an optional stripped down version of a level or two of prior game as the tutorial. It would be low cost content to create so there would be little pressure for developers to force experienced players to go through it. Those players could skip that part and the game could begin right where the last one left off as far as the assumption of the player's skill level.
DieNgamers
Member
Dragon's Dogma suffers from this, I think.
TDLink
Member
Nah. If something seriously takes 20 hours to get to the good stuff then it's simply not a good game and not worth my time. 20 hours is a significant time investment and unless you're a kid in school or unemployed, it's probably time you don't have to just burn through. That means if I'm playing a 20+ hr game it could take a couple months. So if I'm going to invest those weeks/months to this game, it better be gripping me faster than 20 hours.
I love RPGs. And I know when I get into one that more often than not there will be a slow couple of hours at the beginning before things really get on a roll. I can handle a couple of hours. But 20 is ridiculous.
None of the classic RPGs on SNES and PS1 had this bullshit and they continue to be some of the best RPGs ever made. Why have so many of those classics not been topped? Sure it's partially less RPGs (especially classic-style RPGs) are being made now. But it's also because as time has gone on and games have taken longer to make, to achieve those 40+ hr times of the past developers are padding their games with nonsense and bullshit. I think the two Xenoblade games are the only ones recently that felt pretty good in this regard...and I still consider each of them to have had a bit of a lengthy opener at ~3ish hours.
Let the game be how long the game should be. It shouldn't take me 20 hours to get there (Or even 7 or 8).
I love RPGs. And I know when I get into one that more often than not there will be a slow couple of hours at the beginning before things really get on a roll. I can handle a couple of hours. But 20 is ridiculous.
None of the classic RPGs on SNES and PS1 had this bullshit and they continue to be some of the best RPGs ever made. Why have so many of those classics not been topped? Sure it's partially less RPGs (especially classic-style RPGs) are being made now. But it's also because as time has gone on and games have taken longer to make, to achieve those 40+ hr times of the past developers are padding their games with nonsense and bullshit. I think the two Xenoblade games are the only ones recently that felt pretty good in this regard...and I still consider each of them to have had a bit of a lengthy opener at ~3ish hours.
Let the game be how long the game should be. It shouldn't take me 20 hours to get there (Or even 7 or 8).
DrunkShogun
Member
Games that are too long before it gets good are usually ignored by me unless I'm familiar with the franchise, have heard high praise or I've nothing else to do. 20 hours seems pretty exaggerated however, longest for a game to get good for persona 4 which was an hour or so.
Riposte
Member
I'd say FFXIII's combat system begins to be satisfying around the time you get to the Snow/Hope chapter, especially with the boss fight. The dichotomy between the two characters makes paradigm shifting feel important and IIRC you get three characters after that point. That's a few hours in, but way before Gran Pulse if that's what people mean.
TDLink
Member
Skies is a top 5 RPG of all time for me. I wish all RPGs were like that. Just throw you into the shit. Don't limit the battle system, just let you start going.
Also, FF13's problem was not the 13/20 hour thing. If you didn't like the game in the corridor portion (most of the game), it's not really like those later bits where it's open were really going to change your mind. FF13 does have an action packed intro, in theory. The problem is you're confined to extremely limited battle actions for a few hours. That "tutorial" is ridiculously too long. Yeah it's all "Cinematic" but it isn't fun to play and frankly the stuff happening in the cinematics is cool conceptually but executed poorly. Don't even start me on all the fal'cie/la'cie crap they throw at you from minute 0 and just expect you to know. It's nigh-unintelligible without a lengthy out-of-game explanation or a second playthrough.
Well i think FF XIII is a very poor example because story was very poor and never had me at no point in the game and the only story which was worse in the FF universe was from "The Spirits Wihtin"...
I think i like you.
Basileus777
Member
I don't see it, not unless you're arguing that DD is only good in the post-game which I would not agree with at all.
Riposte
Member
This seems unrelated to what I just said.
Why? I had the feeling in FF XIII until the end that it is "just about to start" because of the poor story. That makes it a bad example for me here, because even after 40 hours nothing started.
Are we talking in terms of the game systems or the world/story exposition?
In any case, 20 hours is way too long for any game to be initially boring, even an RPG, but even a few hours, like six hours, is probably stretching it. The OP seems to think people who complain about this just don't like the initial "Act 1" setup of most stories. It's a necessary thing but it has to be done right. Some games don't, that goes for both the plot and game systems.
Final Fantasy XIII fucked up both in my opinion. Literally half the game is spent not only learning the combat system but also catching up with the events that led up to the very beginning. THEN in order to really understand any of it you have to take the time to read the codex. Honestly I think Persona 4 suffers from this problem in terms of gameplay too -- when you hit "new game" it takes around two hours for you to even gain full control of the player character. The modern Shin Megami Tensei games I've played so far are all really bad at this. I haven't played it a while but I remember the prologues for both main Kingdom Hearts games being a problem. The prologue of the first one spends way too much time on mini games and shit to build the raft or whatever to leave the island, does any of that even teach you the game mechanics? I feel like Twilight Town in KHII spent way too much time without anything really happening. Again you do a lot of random tasks that don't really build up the world or the important characters while the game is stringing you along until you can find out what happened to Sora. There's some valuable plot in those beginning hours, but too much fluff in-between.
The first two Witcher games kind of have this problem too, both in terms of world/plot exposition and ramping up the combat. Personally I didn't have a problem with Chapter 1 of the first Witcher game but a lot of people hated it because it spends too much time giving you the run around doing tasks for basically every major character in the Outskirts. Witcher 2's problem is its prologue. It's unnecessarily difficult because Geralt lacks a lot of basic abilities, and the story doesn't start to get interesting until you reach Flotsam at the beginning of Chapter 1. White Orchard in Witcher 3 was like the Outskirts but handled much more efficiently.
Assassin's Creed 3 had the opposite problem for me (and a lot of other people I hear). The character you play as in the prologue is far more interesting than the real protagonist. He's probably the best part of the game. I kept playing just to find out what had happened to him.
In any case, 20 hours is way too long for any game to be initially boring, even an RPG, but even a few hours, like six hours, is probably stretching it. The OP seems to think people who complain about this just don't like the initial "Act 1" setup of most stories. It's a necessary thing but it has to be done right. Some games don't, that goes for both the plot and game systems.
Final Fantasy XIII fucked up both in my opinion. Literally half the game is spent not only learning the combat system but also catching up with the events that led up to the very beginning. THEN in order to really understand any of it you have to take the time to read the codex. Honestly I think Persona 4 suffers from this problem in terms of gameplay too -- when you hit "new game" it takes around two hours for you to even gain full control of the player character. The modern Shin Megami Tensei games I've played so far are all really bad at this. I haven't played it a while but I remember the prologues for both main Kingdom Hearts games being a problem. The prologue of the first one spends way too much time on mini games and shit to build the raft or whatever to leave the island, does any of that even teach you the game mechanics? I feel like Twilight Town in KHII spent way too much time without anything really happening. Again you do a lot of random tasks that don't really build up the world or the important characters while the game is stringing you along until you can find out what happened to Sora. There's some valuable plot in those beginning hours, but too much fluff in-between.
The first two Witcher games kind of have this problem too, both in terms of world/plot exposition and ramping up the combat. Personally I didn't have a problem with Chapter 1 of the first Witcher game but a lot of people hated it because it spends too much time giving you the run around doing tasks for basically every major character in the Outskirts. Witcher 2's problem is its prologue. It's unnecessarily difficult because Geralt lacks a lot of basic abilities, and the story doesn't start to get interesting until you reach Flotsam at the beginning of Chapter 1. White Orchard in Witcher 3 was like the Outskirts but handled much more efficiently.
Assassin's Creed 3 had the opposite problem for me (and a lot of other people I hear). The character you play as in the prologue is far more interesting than the real protagonist. He's probably the best part of the game. I kept playing just to find out what had happened to him.
shark sandwich
tenuously links anime, pedophile and incels
Yeah this is just stupid. If it takes you 20 hours of "worldbuilding" to make me care about your word/characters before the real action begins, you have failed as a storyteller..
You don't have to spend multiple hours experiencing a hero's mundane daily life in order to care about them. Look at something like Final Fantasy VII. It starts out with a bang. They save the "kid from a small town yearning for adventure" crap until you're 10 hours in, and then they just give you the highlights. I never once found myself thinking "gosh, I'd care about Cloud and Tifa so much more if I had spent 20 hours with them as aspiring adventurers!!!"
Hell, movies only get 2 hours to tell a story, and yet many of them do a far better job of telling a story than ANY video game. I just saw Arrival, and I cared more about Louise after 30 minutes than I cared about Joshua and Estelle after 30 hours.
DQ7 fit the bill for me. Back on PSX I got to Temple of Dharma. I was around 25 hours in. For some reason I stopped cause I couldn't take it any longer and didn't know that was when the game opened up so to speak. I'm playing the 3DS version now and intro seems to be slightly faster paced or could just be I don't remember how long it took just to get to my first battle. I'm at least an hour and a half in and I haven't had my first battle yet.
I belong into that weird camp where I love RPGs for play mechanics but not necessarily for the story beats yet I don't particularly enjoy action rpgs as much as I do turn based ones. I grew up playing the first three Ultima games on C64 and then cut my teeth on FF1, DQ1-3 and NES and the Saga (FFL) games on Gameboy. My first "story driven" RPG likely would have been Final Fantasy 4 when it came out for the US. When I first played it I thought it was neat that "me" the player wasn't really driving things. I was used to naming a character, being plopped in a world and then go figure things out. It was the first time I was exposed to extensive cut-scenes. Honestly I didn't mind because the gameplay was fresh and fun, ATB was new and I thought it was a pretty cool addition. It was still turn based like I was used to, but it added a sense of urgency.
Then I played 5 at a friends house, having him translate what was going on, I really loved the job system and especially the music, the cut scenes were cute but the gameplay looked awesome fun. Then he got 6 when it came out in japan and he tape recorded the intro to the game and brought it into our A/V class. He was really psyched for the mode seven intro with the walkers. What I couldn't help but notice was that the intro took a lot longer until you got to control what was going on. I didn't pay too much attention when I got the American version to how long the dialog story sections were getting because the gameplay was a blast.
Then 7 came out. I'll be honest, I was blown away at the idea of a 3 disc spanning epic final fantasy game. I thought the 3d graphics were pretty cool. I didn't have a psx at the time so I just mostly saw bits here and there from friends until I was about to borrow one from a friend and he had FF7. So I sat down to play it, the first few hours were okayish, but I kept noticing that I felt super restricted, granted that was the point of Midgar, and things did open up a bit after you left it. What really struck me however was that there was a shift between story vs gameplay.
I understand things have to change, I mean its the seventh game in the series. There is going to be an evolution on the RPG and you are either born into the new style, adapt to it, or you get left behind. Honestly in the PSX era which had a ton of RPGs I really only loved Suikoden 1 and 2, Persona and Star Ocean 2. It got worse in the PS2 era where the only RPGs I fell in love with were Shadow Hearts 2 and Metal Saga. I would have loved Suikoden 5 but the loading times were so bad, I thought it had a decent blend of story with gameplay. Last gen I tried to get into
But then there were Tactical RPGs. FF Tactics and Tactics Ogre I really enjoyed, until it got talky. Maybe I have a short attention span but when the game takes quite a while to actually go from start to me actually doing something is a big factor. Which is probably why after trying so many Tactical RPGs on psx I didn't really get settled onto one until PS2 with the Disgaea series, which I adore.
I guess I'm just not into JRPGs anymore. I've tried so much with DS, 360, PS3 and 3DS and rarely I'll get into one for more than a few hours before I figure I just don't have time for this. Bravely Default was the exception. I go back and play a lot of the older Snes RPGs and I'm still loving them. You like what you grew up with
With that said I've been happy with Roguelikes. I play Nethack and Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup all the time. It's all gameplay, no storyline that hits you over the head and you can make it up as you go along, which is pretty much how I was exposed to RPGs with Ultima 1 back in the day. I guess I'm in an extreme camp, but I don't fault people who enjoy story more than gameplay, but I can also empathize with people who feel like modern rpgs take "20 hours to get good".
sixteen-bit
Member
The battle cry of Monster Hunter apologists.
Scrooge McDuck
Member
No it doesn't. OP is talking about games that focus on slow world building. Do you think FFXIII has that, seriously? The game is just a train of dramatic revelations after dramatic revelations that feel toothless precisely because the it doesn't have that build up.
Fbh
Member
20 is just silly.
A game that takes 20 hours to get to the good part is simply not a good game. There are plenty of ways (and countless examples) of how you can do world and character building while still having a fun and engaging story with "good parts" from the start
Nah, there isn't much grinding in the game.
The biggest issue with the first 20 hours is that like 15 of those are literally "press X to win" . The game has a pretty fun combat system but for some reason Square considered it to be so complex and deep (it's not) that they don't give you fill control over it for a long time
A game that takes 20 hours to get to the good part is simply not a good game. There are plenty of ways (and countless examples) of how you can do world and character building while still having a fun and engaging story with "good parts" from the start
Nah, there isn't much grinding in the game.
The biggest issue with the first 20 hours is that like 15 of those are literally "press X to win" . The game has a pretty fun combat system but for some reason Square considered it to be so complex and deep (it's not) that they don't give you fill control over it for a long time