|
"I tend to hate games that you can't "judge by the first ____ hours". Usually what that means is "Dude. It sucks at the beginning, but if you trudge through that, you'll be so used to it you won't notice the sucking anymore, and you'll actually enjoy it"."
The quote's from another forum, a while ago, but it's something I haven't thought about much until recently. Oh, sure, it's always been on the back of my mind - of course nobody wants long, drawn-out intros that suck in games that ostensibly rock - but rarely did I actively think about how much a bad introduction or first few hours could sink an otherwise good game. Recently, I decided Hideo Kojima deserved another chance; specifically, Metal Gear Solid 3 had earned considerable critical acclaim (averaging at 92.6% on Gamerankings), and several trusted sources told me that my objections towards Kojima's last outing would not apply to this one.
I got it yesterday. I played for a little over an hour and I have yet to touch it since.
I have no way of knowing if the game does get worse or better. All I know is that if even part of the game is like those first few hours, then I can't see myself forcing my way through this. Let me elaborate: the game opens with a well-directed cutscene depicting a HALO jump - the world's first - and setting the context of the game - back in the 1960's, in the height of the Cold War. Following the jump, we're treated to a flashback of Snake receiving his mission briefing; again, this is handled well, although Snake's tendency to repeat everything said to him started to grate on the nerves (this, I let slide, under the assumption that I was looking for things to complain about). Another cutscene follows, showing Snake's landing in the jungle and opening a radio transmission with his commander. This dialogue lasts for a good ten minutes, and counting the cutscenes it was about 25 minutes since I started the game.
Finally, I gain control of Snake. First objective: find a backpack that was dropped during the jump. This takes about a minute, but I spent a few more getting used to the controls and the camera. Once I acquire the backpack - and specifically its contents - I'm treated to another radio conversation, wherein Snake is introduced to his motley crew of advisors. Things take a turn for the worse when Snake enters a conversation with a woman called the Boss. Lo and behold, before this highly important, highly secretive, highly sensitive stealth mission can even begin - a mission so important command couldn't issue me anything other than a knife and a tranquilizer gun, that they repeatedly stressed the time constraints and the necessity for secrecy - I'm thrust into one of the dullest, most forced faux-philosophical discussions on soldiers, loyalty, politics and "the battlefield" ever written by man. They chatter on and on and on about their prior relationship, the Cobra unit during the Second World War, how soldiers are loyal to ever-shifting priorities, and other highly contextual stuff that I did not need, nor did I particularly want, to know right at the start when I'm still struggling with controls. This conversation goes on for a good 20-30 minutes. It has now been close to an hour since I started the game.
Is it any wonder I stumbled into a pit of quicksand and died not five minutes after? By the end of it, I was so shell-shocked I wouldn't have noticed if my PS2 caught fire.
Now, I've done my share of homework about this, and apparently the opening mission, codenamed "Virtuous Mission", pales in comparison to the rest of the game. All the suck is there; the game gets good once you get to the next mission, the "Snake Eater" mission. So why can't we start with the Snake Eater mission and not do the first one entirely? Why can't I skip the suck here? Why is it here in the first place?
I've stated all that to ask this. Suppose I kept on plugging through the game, got used to its controls, got used to the lengthy cutscenes and radio conversations and dry philosophy that so plagued the opening hour. What if the back part of that game wasn't really good at all, but by then I was so used to the badness that I just stood there and took it? Would I be able to tell the difference?
What should always be kept in mind is that, in the process of buying a videogame, money has been paid for entertainment. The player has placed implicit faith in the developer that their money is not ill-spent. For that cash, I submit that it is reasonable for a player to expect not to be repulsed by the opening - not just bored, actively dissuaded from playing further. A game's opening can make or break that game, and it can do so not just through length - though that is a factor - but also through overall quality. Cramming subtext and deeper issues into an hour of opening dialogue is just as criminal as making the player play through a few hours of uninteresting exposition before they get to the true meat of the game.
If an opening sucks, the player shouldn't have to "get used to it" right at the start to enjoy the rest of the game.
|
RSS feed
iTunes
