All I want right now with games are better written endings. They always feel like "5 days to deadline, let's go!" type of deals.
Indeed, but I don't think game development is linear, so it has to be for more/other reasons beyond simply crunch time.
The later parts of a game
should be the most awesome parts, but it always/usually seems like the first half of games received more effort and attention than the final half.
The biggest, most expensive set pieces, scripted sequences and scenarios are almost always found in the first half of a game, whereas the levels leading up to the final boss of a game tend to be the most basic/simple/regular, with the most grind, least amount of setpieces/scripted sequences and so forth.
I appreciate the lack scripted sequences, and sometimes even setpieces, though. But the lack of such things clearly indicates a lack of effort spent on those parts of the game.
It might have something to do with how games are played, previewed (Tends to be somewhere in the middle section of the game for most games.), and perhaps even with how it is marketed to some degree.
If the start of the game was sloppy (Like the first hour - 2 hours, or so.), I'm pretty sure a lot of people would run onto the net to complain -- even if the game gets better as you play.
Some reviews might also be lower - I think some reviewers don't play through the entire game they are reviewing.
However, a game that gets better and better could also feel significantly different, maybe even better, since we're so used to playing games where the first half of the game (Seemingly.) received the most attention.
(It might not *exactly* be the first half -- it's more like, 50-75% of the game. Some games also have a spectacular final boss/level.)
