- Messages
- 3,890
This has been another hotly debated topic of late with the releases of Final Fantasy XVI and Diablo IV growing further away. Whether through gameplay or narrative, how long do you tend to give a game before you drop it?
Final Fantasy 16 is purportedly an easy game. This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. FF16 is a far cry from the series' turn-based combat roots, trying to capture the attention of a wider audience. One such audience is the Devil May Cry fanbase for which FF16's battle director, Ryota Suzuki, was a contributor. However, there does appear to be a catch: FF16 does not allow you to choose its harder difficulty setting out of the gate. To do so, and fully experience the combat system, one must complete the game at least once. Asking a fan of DMC to play through ~40 hours before they can test, in their estimation, "the real thing" is a bit of a large ask.
Similarly, Diablo 4 has captured the attention of a much larger audience than D3 did. The design choices do not seem to reflect this, however. One wrinkle that cropped up last month is that, in order to participate in Seasonal Events/Battle Passes, D4 (still) requires you to create a fresh character. After investing potentially dozens of hours into their character, some newcomers were understandably less than receptive to this idea.
Beyond newer games, Square Enix in particular is no stranger to this dilemma. FF13 was criticized for largely being a tutorial for its first ~30 hours, not allowing players to choose their party leader (and, therefore, the controlled character) or rearranging the party in any way outside of Paradigm roles (read: job class). Kingdom Hearts 2 begins with a 3-hour, unskippable tutorial with a character that isn't Sora and whom people, to that point, would have no attachment to. FF14's early content, especially A Realm Reborn, has been increasingly gutted and powercrept over time. This has left new players with hardly any attacks to use and virtually zero challenge, but ~70 hours worth of mandatory content before they can reach Heavensward, the first expansion, where the community insists "the story gets good here."
This is also a common criticism of Ubisoft's flagship series over the last decade. As their games, such as Assassin's Creed and Far Cry, have gotten larger and larger in scope, people have become fatigued. Particularly with the style, or lack thereof, of content that litters the maps. While overwhelming at first glance, a sizable portion of the gaming community insists that, if you manage to stick with the games long enough, the experience smooths out and becomes solidly good. Assassin's Creed: Odyssey and its female protagonist, Kassandra, appearing to stand out the most in recent memory.
Have you got any more examples? Are there series or genres you just won't touch to begin with because they're perceived as being too much of a time commitment to properly enjoy?
Final Fantasy 16 is purportedly an easy game. This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. FF16 is a far cry from the series' turn-based combat roots, trying to capture the attention of a wider audience. One such audience is the Devil May Cry fanbase for which FF16's battle director, Ryota Suzuki, was a contributor. However, there does appear to be a catch: FF16 does not allow you to choose its harder difficulty setting out of the gate. To do so, and fully experience the combat system, one must complete the game at least once. Asking a fan of DMC to play through ~40 hours before they can test, in their estimation, "the real thing" is a bit of a large ask.
Similarly, Diablo 4 has captured the attention of a much larger audience than D3 did. The design choices do not seem to reflect this, however. One wrinkle that cropped up last month is that, in order to participate in Seasonal Events/Battle Passes, D4 (still) requires you to create a fresh character. After investing potentially dozens of hours into their character, some newcomers were understandably less than receptive to this idea.
Beyond newer games, Square Enix in particular is no stranger to this dilemma. FF13 was criticized for largely being a tutorial for its first ~30 hours, not allowing players to choose their party leader (and, therefore, the controlled character) or rearranging the party in any way outside of Paradigm roles (read: job class). Kingdom Hearts 2 begins with a 3-hour, unskippable tutorial with a character that isn't Sora and whom people, to that point, would have no attachment to. FF14's early content, especially A Realm Reborn, has been increasingly gutted and powercrept over time. This has left new players with hardly any attacks to use and virtually zero challenge, but ~70 hours worth of mandatory content before they can reach Heavensward, the first expansion, where the community insists "the story gets good here."
This is also a common criticism of Ubisoft's flagship series over the last decade. As their games, such as Assassin's Creed and Far Cry, have gotten larger and larger in scope, people have become fatigued. Particularly with the style, or lack thereof, of content that litters the maps. While overwhelming at first glance, a sizable portion of the gaming community insists that, if you manage to stick with the games long enough, the experience smooths out and becomes solidly good. Assassin's Creed: Odyssey and its female protagonist, Kassandra, appearing to stand out the most in recent memory.
Have you got any more examples? Are there series or genres you just won't touch to begin with because they're perceived as being too much of a time commitment to properly enjoy?
and 2) the black market dealer shows up in either the main story or one of the sidequests, I don't specifically remember right now which, but the game (and main character) doesn't acknowledge that I/he knows.
So more often than not I walk away from a game with a soured experience.
