It gets better, really!

[Kane Knight]

This week, Extra Punctuation is about the response to Yahtzee's review of Monster Hunter Tri for the Wii, a game he panned and people got offended over. I always thought the point of ZP was to watch him make fun of games, but apparently some people treat him as a serious reviewer.

Serious or otherwise, however, I thought his response to the "controversy" was interesting, regarding the notion that it "gets better later."

The main thrust of the argument was that Monster Hunter Tri totally gets good once you've gotten past the tutorial, which takes about ten hours of gameplay.

....

I have a simple rule when playing a game to review. I play until the game is finished, or until I can't stand any more. And if the game ever falls below that point of tolerance, that's an automatic write-off. You know when you play Guitar Hero, and you're given a fail if you play badly for long enough for the crowd reaction to sink below the red? You don't get to play the rest of the song, and you don't get any points based on how well you might, potentially, have played it. I use the same approach for reviewing games. If I'm fed up to the back teeth, out the console you go. No buts. No reprieves. No more of it for me.

Read the rest and in context

Seems to be getting more common these days, and it's mildly annoying to think that it's justifiable for the first " X hours" of a game to be a chore, and for the idea that if you suffer through five or ten hours, you'll be rewarded by finally getting to play a good game.

I've heard similar cracks about the new Final Fantasy. I don't really care about modern FF titles, and so I can't say anything about it, but a lot of people seem to think that one should completely wipe clean any negatives about the first several hours because " it gets better."

Of course, when I look at a review, I wonder if I am going to like the game. The games I have on pre-order or buy day one are ones I'm already sold on, and barring " this game will kill you and rape your loved ones," I'm probably not going back on that. I read reviews to help me decide and not to reassure me over titles I've already decided I love. Which brings me to the next part, does a ten hour "introductory" deal jive with the average consumer? Again, ignore the fact that it was Zero Punctuation, would most people even get through the ten hours?

I'd rather play a fun game that lasted five hours than play through ten hours of boredom to get to some potentially good game. Is this an offshoot of the demand for longer single-player experiences and more "replayability?"

Honestly, though, is it worth a commitment of ten hours (on top of the price) just to see if you'll like it?