Does a game need to get your attention early on?

[mαrkαsscoρ]

Yeah I couldn't find a way to shorten this title while still getting the question's idea across.
Basically, how soon does a game need to get your attention for you to decide you want to keep playing? If it doesn't grab your interest within a certain amount of time, do you stop playing it?

This is something I've been thinking about lately. Mostly b/c some of the recent games I've played (Dark Cloud, Mega Man Legends, Xenogears) didn't exactly grab my attention in the first part of the game for one reason or the other (latter two being the controls). But despite feeling uncertain about these games, I still decided to keep playing regardless. And guess what? I actually ended up enjoying all these games quite a lot and was glad I decided to stick w/ them despite not knowing if I wanted to continue them at first. Heck even Pandora's Tower, a game I was very unsure about in the first couple hours, ended up being one of my favorite Wii games.

It's funny,b/c I then think about the beginning parts of Kingdom Hearts or Fire Emblem Awakening who's openings or first few hours just got my attention right off the bat (I adore the first hour or so of Kingdom Hearts). But then overall thinking those games were just alright, b/c the beginning parts set my expectations up so high that the rest of the game (for the most part) just kinda falls flat in comparison.
And that's when I start thinking about how long I play a game until it starts picking up for me. B/c of course some games never get better. But for the ones that potentially do, how much time do you give it?

 

[Mido]

It definitely helps a game's case when they can reel in players quickly as to guarantee a replay (in general). I find this especially the case in terms of story, since good gameplay generally keeps the crowd coming back if things run smoothly as far as my experience goes. I like how you brought up Mega Man Legends, a game whose controls have received plenty of backlash in spite of an otherwise decent experience (I personally didn't have much of an issue with it when I played it years ago). As far as story goes, Pokemon Sun and Moon had such a slog of a start to the game that I actually took a month off the game because nothing engaged me. Picking it back up again later was just what the doctor ordered, and here I am today with 80+ hours logged on it.

Ultimately, I think an early attention-grabber whether it be in story or gameplay certainly helps, but it is a hard line to define since there are experiences that entice players quickly, but in an equal amount of time grow stale. I suppose a decent example of this would be something like Destiny during its vanilla year. It's definitely a matter of taste, I'd wager.

 

[Castle]

Pretty much every good english teacher I've ever had conveyed this same bit of advice (and had this same grading policy) for essays. It goes something like this...

"If you can't interest me in your opening paragraph, it doesn't matter how good the rest of your paper is. You get a failing grade."

Long and short of it: don't waste your audiences time. Don't string them along. I've heard this about many of the most acclaimed literature in the past few years, from Harry Potter to The DaVinci Code. "It gets good once you get past the first few chapters."

No, actually it's more like "The book sucks for the first few chapters!!!" I don't read/watch/play anything just to waste my time on dull boring and/or pointless content.

So people's first impressions of video games are going to come from trailers. Once people are actually sitting down and playing, video games tend to have a learning curve. It took a while for me to get a hang of HZD's controls, and I'd expect it was the same for anyone who just picked up BotW. That's the first and arguably biggest obstacle to entry for video games. Gamers know to allow the game that time to help get them acclimated. But we all know what the dreaded extended tutorial is like. For some of the most infamous offenders the tutorial can last roughly half the game. Twilight Princess got criticized for its lengthy and linear opening. For some reason that doesn't bother me much, even though I can't play Wind Waker because it is so achingly linear for nearly half its playtime (more than half if you consider the end game is so chock full of padding). Final Fantasy XIII got criticized for its endless hallways that lasted up until the final few hours. People say Elder Scrolls: Morrowind get's good a few hours in. I personally have never been able to make it that far despite repeated attempts. I have the same problem with Oblivion.

 

[Spirit]

I want to say as soon as i see the box art, but lets say i like the look of something and am intrigued by the concept and characters.


I dont mind slow starts, sometimes games that throw you into the thick of things with a tutorial often feels forced to me. You also cant trick me with high production values to make me think its great (looking at you FF13/Horizon Zero Dawn).

I suffered through Mass Effect for 40 hours trying to like it but eventually gave up so i do give games a fair chance.

Recently though if a game hasnt engaged me afer 3 hours, despite how responsive the controls are, how gorgeous the game looks, if the characters are crap, if the story is boring then its over.

A game doesnt have to show off huge set pieces early on to try and wow me. It has to be well written with a good story most of all and im fine giving a game some time to try and pull me. But if im still bored by the 3 hour mark then i probably wont play any more....

Titanfall 2 is a good example. It felt good, it looked good, the robot was voiced by Peter Cullen but shooting never ending streams of identical NPCs just bores me. But i dont like military gun stuff to begin with. Gave it three hours and made a 'next time i die I'm done' rule.

 

[the8thark]

Yeah I couldn't find a way to shorten this title while still getting the question's idea across.
Basically, how soon does a game need to get your attention for you to decide you want to keep playing?

No. But . . .

A game has to peak my attention and interest relatively quickly for me to purchase it. If a game can't sell itself to be soemthing I might like, I will not buy it. So a game already has my attention if I've bought it. Of it does not have my attention, I do not buy it.

 

[misskitten]

Yes and no. I don't need to be instantly sucked in, but I need to see a reason to keep playing. There are many things that can deter me, like control scheme, the gameplay mechanism (Mass Effect was unbelieavably dull to me), the starting segment taking forever to get interesting (Oblivion and that never ending cave...), punishing difficulty right from the start (AoL, I didn't get a chance to learn anything before I was given a game over)

Just something that makes me want to play at least a little bit more to see where this goes. That's all.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

No. But . . .

A game has to peak my attention and interest relatively quickly for me to purchase it. If a game can't sell itself to be soemthing I might like, I will not buy it. So a game already has my attention if I've bought it. Of it does not have my attention, I do not buy it.

You mean to say you've never played a game that you stopped playing early on due to boredom or it not interesting you enough to continue playing? I'm asking about once you've already started playing the game. Obviously getting the game meant you have some sort of interest in playing it, but I'm asking if it's not engaging you in the beginning once you've actually started it, how much longer do you give it until you decide it's not for you

 

[Cartoonmaniac]

I always give games a chance, seeing as how they have to have a tutorial sequence or something that allows the player to learn the game's mechanics. But most of the time, I have some idea if I'll like a game before I buy it.

 

[the8thark]

You mean to say you've never played a game that you stopped playing early on due to boredom or it not interesting you enough to continue playing?

Not that I can remember no. Even Warcraft 3 I totally hated I stuck it through. I bought it thinking it would be good. It was terrible, but I stuck it through beat every mission in it and will never play it again. I didn't enjoy playing it but I didn't want to waste the $$ I bought.

 

[SpiteChaotic]

It does and sometimes it doesn't. I like a game to start of atleast somewhat interesting. May it be a decent story, good dialogue or fantastic gameplay. If it has one of them i'll most likely finish them if they can atleast keep my interest up. If I cant enjoy it id rather not finish a 40+ hour game. I may have time to kill but id rather do it with enjoyment.

Though sometimes if I just feel like it. I will just stick to a game through pure determination. Even without an interesting beggining.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

Absolutely. Anything otherwise is silly.

Good video games (and good books, films, comics, television shows, and every other medium of art) must grab the view early on. Why should the viewer stick with something that bores them? They're not obligated to stick around to see if something starts sucking a little less in the long run.

When I hear someone say that a book is great after the first few chapters, that tells me it's a less than stellar book overall. You can't start ****ty, get better, and expect people to stick around for the good bits. I have dropped so many games, books, and movies that started out poor.

 

[Nicolai]

It doesn't have to be a constant clamor of noise to get your attention, but it does have to be interesting. Any great novel I've read is able to make every second count.

That being said, I'll usually give new games a chance for a few hours. But I always view those first few dull hours as a negative. If it's a game I want to delay, I don't want to have to dread those first few hours.