It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
The last time that I remember stopping a game near the end was 20 or so years ago: System Shock (1)
There was a very hard part that I couldn't get past, but I don't remember the details. Maybe I'll play it again, but the remake this time.

I liked StarCraft 2, and finished it. Near the end of Wings of Liberty I had to put it on hold for 2 years because my Core2 dual core couldn't handle the final mission.
avatar
dtgreene: Shiva isn't really that interesting; it's just yet another summon that does damage to all enemies (an effect that is *way* overused in FF7).
avatar
MeowCanuck: IIRC, Shiva is the first mandatory summon you get. So if by chance you missed Choco/Mog, this is a new mechanic for the player you're vouching for.

Where are the summons like Golem, Zoneseek, Kirin, Carbunkle, Unicorn, Seraphim/Starlet, Palidor? All interesting summons that *don't* do damage to the enemy. (At least FF7 has Phoenix, but even then FF7 Phoenix includes a damage effect.) Or, to go back a bit further in the series, what about Remora, Sylph (though the FF4 version was more useful than the FF5, even taking in account when the summon is first available in those games), and Asura?
avatar
MeowCanuck: Each FF game is different by design with more emphasis than others on for status effects. Plus, this is one of the few FFs where you have Hades who effectively bad breaths all your enemies. And even then, I found it useless compared to maximizing DPS. The emphasis of the game leans more towards exploiting Quadra magic, multihit limit breaks + fury + hero drinks, KOTR spamming, or the 7777 trick.

If you really want to play an FF game with huge emphasis on status effects to max DPS and mechanical theorycrafting, go play 13. It's not turn-based, however.

FF7's materia variety isn't as interesting as FF5's ability variety simply because FF5's abilities are more varied in their effects. Plus, FF5 encourages specialization more (while still allowing somewhat balanced characters, unlike many games with skill point systems), so characters actually have different combat roles at any given point (unless you use the same set-up on everyone, but that tends to only work in certain areas for any given job, and may lack important abilities like healing).
avatar
MeowCanuck: But the same can be said about 7, objectively speaking.
Thing is, if FF7 were made more difficult by increasing enemy stats, but not giving enemies status immunities they didn't currently have, status ailment spells would be significantly more useful. I remember trying Seal + All, and that materia combo appeared to work well, except that enemies would die too easily for it to be worth using.

Also, it's worth noting that Choco/Mog was probably my favorite summon in the game, mainly because it was cheap, had a reasonable length animation (unliie other summons in that game), and would randomly cast Stop. Also, it wasn't too hard to master, so I could link it with both Quadra Magic and Steal as Well to get 4x steal on all enemies.

Some of the early FF games handle status ailments better than FF7. Here is how the early games handeled it:
* FF1: Success rate is lower than one would like. You do get an item that casts instant death on all enemies for free, but it's hard to use without auto-targeting (and as such, is improved in the PSX version that has auto-targeting).
* FF2: If you know what you're doing (in particular, avoid heavy armor and weapons), status ailments become really good. With that said, there's lots of player usable instant death spells (probably too many), and any of them at a high level ends up making battles *much* faster. Also, there are only 2 bosses that can't be instantly killed this way.
* FF3: In the Famicom version, status ailments are really good in random battles, but useless in boss fights. (There's an explicit boss check; even Drain fails on bosses.) The 3D remake, unfurtunately, messed this up, and made status ailments useless. From what I understand, the Pixel Remaster is somewhere inbetween, with normal enemies sometimes being immune to some statuses and the success rate being somewhere inbetween.
* FF4: Status ailments work pretty well on normal enemies, but still do not work on bosses. Worth noting that petrify, while working well for much of the game, doesn't work well in the final dungeon. In the 3D remakes (DS version, and later versions on the harder setting), the difficulty gets to the point where you practically need to use status aliments on many enemies in the final dungeon.
* FF5: Status aliments work on bosses again! Bosses tend to have long lists of status immunities, but there are holes. (My favorite example is an early boss that uses physical attacks but is succeptible to Toad; if you turn it into a toad, it will reverse it by casting Toad on itself, but this enemy is not immunt to Silence!) They're not too important in normal encounters, though Spellblade Break is *really* good, allowing the character to instantly petrify enemies.

(Aslo, please don't post unmarked links to sites that auto-play video.)
avatar
Matewis: I can't really recall, but I think I would've remembered if it were the case for me. I do remember not finding the monastery setting that appealing for some reason, in contrast to most locations up to that point (well except the ice castle, but I always seem to be able to power through it). That might've had something to do with it.
avatar
IwubCheeze: Yeah, the monastery area wasn't much fun at all, same with the ice temples battle squares. Auril's ice temple is actually where the problems start. Your characters are powerful enough now you don't need to level up and you can end up level squatting because of it. Even if you do level up your characters right away, you're so powerful that monsters no longer give you experience so it really dampens the sense of progression. IWD2s late game is nowhere near as fun as the early game.
[Assuming you're talking about IWD2]

"level squatting" is the result of a rather serious design flaw in the game.

In particular, the game handles a new level 1 character joining mid-game rather poorly.

Sensible handling of this:
* Typically, the new character gets XP at the same rate as existing characters, and with XP requirements increasing at higher levels, the character can reach a decent level without too much work. This can lead to multiple level-ups after one battle. (In Final Fantasy 4, for example, there's one point where a character could easily grow from level 1 to level 7 or so in one battle.)
* The new character gets XP *faster* than existing ones, allowing the character to catch up. (I hear the Suikoden series does this, and some SaGa games (SaGa Frontier 1 comes to mind) behave like this (despite the lack of XP in those games).)

Bad ways of handling this:
* New character gets a small share of the XP due to being lower level, exacerbating level differences. (Dragon Quest 9 is an offender here, though at least that game gives XP to characters who end the battle dead.)
* As the main character levels up, everyone gives less experience. (I've seen this in Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne, as well as in Geneforge 1; this makes it impractical to level up late-game recruits, even those that start weaker (like if you went back and recruited a new Pixie late game).)

Worst possible way (that I've seen) of handling this:
* Icewind Date 2's approach. Everybody's XP gain is based on the average level, so adding a new character makes everyone level up faster. This means that having a character who stays at a low level means that the other characters will level up faster than if that character were absent.
Post edited August 13, 2021 by dtgreene
avatar
-Mithridates-: I usually don't drop a game at the end, since coming that far gives me a huge incentive to finish it, and the satisfaction of beating a difficult endgame is usually very satisfying. But I have often dropped games well before that.
As I've said, quite often I drop a game because it feels like the game has no challenge to offer. Beating an easy endgame, when the game had been providing a meaningful challenge earlier in the game, is not satisfying.
avatar
babark: So yeah, what would it take to get you to drop a game near the end? Or is it something you'd never do out of pride/falling for the sunk cost? Does it happen a lot? Are endings of games "special" things that not everyone should expect to experience?
Its something I sometimes do when a game is not longer fun.

It ain't work. You shouldn't stick with it if it starts feeling like it.

Maybe the game got ridiculously hard (not the fun kind of hard), maybe it got long and repetitive, maybe it got annoying (ex: your savegame got corrupted by a bug in the game and you have to start over).

Time is precious.

If you want to watch the ending cinematic, you can always go on Youtube.

I have 3 tag categories in my backlog: "Completed", "Disappointing" and "Took a break from". I should probably have a fourth category titled "Played enough" and move some games from the "Took a break from" list there, because I probably ain't coming back.
Post edited August 13, 2021 by Magnitus
Thinking back, I don't think I've ever abandoned a game near the end, I always power through. However, I abandoned multiple games, that I've played and enjoyed, but I reach the point where I realize that I've experience all the gameplay has to offer, and then I discover that I'm NOT EVEN HALFWAY through the game. That utterly kills all my interest in finishing it.

For example recently, I finished the last two missions of Spellforce, even though I was already max level and had unlocked all items and buildings. However, I tried playing "Fort Triumph", and while the gameplay is enjoyable at first, you're done finalizing your gamplay strategy in the first act of the game, and then I'm left treading water for the following TWO ACTS!
Post edited August 13, 2021 by MadalinStroe
avatar
-Mithridates-: I usually don't drop a game at the end, since coming that far gives me a huge incentive to finish it, and the satisfaction of beating a difficult endgame is usually very satisfying. But I have often dropped games well before that.
avatar
dtgreene: As I've said, quite often I drop a game because it feels like the game has no challenge to offer. Beating an easy endgame, when the game had been providing a meaningful challenge earlier in the game, is not satisfying.
Yeah I can understand that. I don't think the lack of challenge as the only factor has caused me to abandon a game I'm trying to beat too often, but it may have been a contributing factor is some cases.

My favorite genre is strategy games, and before I often played a lot of huge maps in the Civilization and Age of Wonders series. I think I actually completed less than 25% of those, due to the end-game having no challenge. It is a problem with the genre, and it is not so easy to solve, though it can be done. Heroes of Might and Magic 1-3 doesn't suffer this problem as heavily as the before mentioned games, due to the game being rather quick, and the over-powered town portal and dimension door spells, but even HoMM3 can become a bland and heavy slog on extra large random maps.

Speaking of a good endgame, I played A Link to the Past for the first time last year and enjoyed it a lot. For most of the game, the action part of the game was very easy, only increasing very slightly around the fourth dungeon. It wasn't a problem since I didn't play the game for the challenge, and besides the other old console games I played at the time had enough of that. But the 6th and 7th dungeon got a little harder and the 8th and final dungeon was a nice surprise, because it ramped up the difficulty a lot. I actually had to make some strategies for how to clear the rooms and have enough hearts left to beat the boss in the dungeon. I died several times before I completed it. The boss in that dungeon was very easy which I think was a nice decision, since the dungeon itself was quite challenging. And then I met the final boss. I think I died 10-20 times before I got him, but I loved every minute of it. Some bosses are more frustrating than fun, but this one was very enjoyable.

This is coming from the perspective of someone whose skills are below average at action/hand-eye-coordination games. I'm sure that for many players the whole game is very easy.

The puzzles in A link to the Past were fun, but quite easy, probably because they were very similar to the ones in "Link's Awakening" which I played as a kid. The only one that was frustrating was that at some point I needed a new type of bomb that I couldn't find, until I checked a shop I had been to before.

If I'm going to compare A Link to the Past to Link's Awakening, my old childhood favorite remains the best game of course, but I can absolutely understand why A Link to the Past is many people's favorite.

I see you are a fan of the Final Fantasy series. I also played the first Final Fantasy on a NES emulator last year and was pleasantly surprised by how fun it was. It was also surprising how open ended it was designed. Almost like a "Might and Magic ultralight". It's definitely a game I'm going to return to and try to beat again in a quick way. The puzzles were for the most part easy to figure out and I only got stuck for some time at a couple of places. But the endgame was a bit underwhelming compared to A Link to the Past, or Final Fantasy 4. The bosses were as fragile as porcelain, and died after a couple of hits. Still a very good game. Certainly much better than the first Dragon Warrior, which I also had fun with, but wouldn't really recommend yo anyone, since it is mostly a lot of grinding.

Also, if the monotony becomes a problem, one can just play a different game, one that does not even pretend to be an RPG. When I sit down to play an RPG, I want to play an RPG, not an action (or other genre) that's inserted in the middle of the game.
avatar
MeowCanuck: I feel like we've had this same conversation before. This game was released in 1997 on console only. Not all kids had a 100+ game library or backlog teens and adults could play like PC gaming has today...
It's just personal experience, but I never met anyone who was so starved for games that they enjoyed mini-games. And I grew up in poor and rural Appalachia. [In some cases, we didn't even own the consoles but "the family" did and we cousins would share it in turns!]

And more, companies *still* ruin games with terrible mini-games, like DQ11's casino. Or even modern indies, with SDV's two almost-universally-loathed minigames that people force them to play for achievements (which, fortunately, the GOG version does not have).

Beyond that, mini-games can exist without being tied to the progression of the game (they're not forced to be played, and there are no unique or optimal rewards behind them).

And mini-games can still be done in a way that jives with the main game. World of Final Fantasy has one that's turn-based "Battleship but things move around according to rules". While disliked still by many because it can be challenging (it's a strategy and deduction game), it is skippable for main game progress. [Unfortunately, a unique item to allow you a unique unit requires mastery of the mini-game. And sadly it has other quite terrible mini-games as well.]

And mini-games can absolutely cause someone to quit a game, or at least severely reduce their enjoyment of it. DQ11's casino and me are definitely in that pod.
Post edited August 13, 2021 by mqstout
avatar
-Mithridates-: I see you are a fan of the Final Fantasy series. I also played the first Final Fantasy on a NES emulator last year and was pleasantly surprised by how fun it was. It was also surprising how open ended it was designed. Almost like a "Might and Magic ultralight". It's definitely a game I'm going to return to and try to beat again in a quick way. The puzzles were for the most part easy to figure out and I only got stuck for some time at a couple of places. But the endgame was a bit underwhelming compared to A Link to the Past, or Final Fantasy 4. The bosses were as fragile as porcelain, and died after a couple of hits. Still a very good game. Certainly much better than the first Dragon Warrior, which I also had fun with, but wouldn't really recommend yo anyone, since it is mostly a lot of grinding.
I like the original Dragon Warrior, as it's a nice game when you just want to do some mindless wandering in circles and fighting enemies for level up. That sort of thing is low effort and can actually be quite relaxing, if you're patient. Also, there's a lot of design aspects of that game that are really different from other JRPGs, like the game's structure (open world, but travel too far and things get dangerous; sometimes it's worth the risk, however), the need for light in dungeons, and the focus on mindless XP farming.

The later remakes of Final Fantasy (starting with the GBA version) messed up the difficulty; the game is mostly way too easy, with the major exception of the final boss, who is far stronger than anything else in the game (other than the bonus dungeons). From my understanding, even the recent Pixel Remaster has this issue, only it doesn't have the bonus dungeons, which makes it arguably the worst version of the game.

I personally prefer the PSX version of Final Fantasy 1 (but not 2!) because it's decently challenging (on Easy Mode, which is fun with spellcasters who get tons of MP, but not the spell power boost that later remakes have), is close to the original, and it *does* give bosses more HP.

Final Fantasy 2 might be worth looking into, though I woudl advise avoiding the PSX version because spells level up more slowly than in the original, and even in the original it felt like spell leveling was slower than it should be.

avatar
mqstout: Or even modern indies, with SDV's two almost-universally-loathed minigames that people force them to play for achievements (which, fortunately, the GOG version does not have).
SDV?

avatar
mqstout: And more, companies *still* ruin games with terrible mini-games, like DQ11's casino.
DQ11 is not the first DQ game to have a casino. Any particular aspect of that casino that makes it worse than the ones in earlier DQ games?
Post edited August 13, 2021 by dtgreene
I've been in Elysium in Assassin's Creed Odyssey for a few months now, just can't get back into the game to beat it.
avatar
dtgreene: DQ11 is not the first DQ game to have a casino. Any particular aspect of that casino that makes it worse than the ones in earlier DQ games?
SDV = Stardew Valley.
I haven't played any DQ mainline games before DQ11. Well, the first on NES, which I never enjoyed. The casino has tons of unique-to-it gear, including the whip (multitarget attack) that doesn't reduce its damage per target.
This is my modus operandi for most UbiSoft games, but here I'll say...

Red Dead Redemption 2.

Even though I loved RDR1 (one of my absolute favorite games) and have played through it multiple times, almost everything about RDR2 has been a slog for me. I kept playing because "everyone" kept telling me how great the characters and story were... but finally at about 3/4 of the way through the game I just stopped... and haven't gone back.
avatar
kai2: This is my modus operandi for most UbiSoft games, but here I'll say...
I never finished Far Cry 2. When you get half way through and THERE'S ANOTHER WHOLE HALF ON A DIFFERENT MAP? Yeah, it's not fun enough to keep going. That was twice as long as it needed to be. The first half was good fun while it lasted. Made me try no other games in the series (though I think only 1 and 2 were ever properly released).
avatar
kai2: This is my modus operandi for most UbiSoft games, but here I'll say...
avatar
mqstout: I never finished Far Cry 2. When you get half way through and THERE'S ANOTHER WHOLE HALF ON A DIFFERENT MAP? Yeah, it's not fun enough to keep going. That was twice as long as it needed to be. The first half was good fun while it lasted. Made me try no other games in the series (though I think only 1 and 2 were ever properly released).
Far Cry 2 has some good systems and a great gameplay loop... for a few hours. For me, it's a great "casual" experience where I can play for an hour or two, drop the game for awhile, and then repeat days, weeks, or months later. Had almost the same experience with Mad Max, which I also enjoyed. Didn't get engaged enough to invest a chunk of time to finish either... but enjoy playing them.

2 games that I generally disliked -- and thought about quitting -- but played to completion instead...

... Dragon Age Inquisition

... Mafia III
Post edited August 13, 2021 by kai2
avatar
dtgreene: DQ11 is not the first DQ game to have a casino. Any particular aspect of that casino that makes it worse than the ones in earlier DQ games?
avatar
mqstout: SDV = Stardew Valley.
I haven't played any DQ mainline games before DQ11. Well, the first on NES, which I never enjoyed. The casino has tons of unique-to-it gear, including the whip (multitarget attack) that doesn't reduce its damage per target.
If it's anything like the casinos of past DQ games, you can buy tokens, and can therefore, at least in theory, buy any casino item with just money.

I would suggest maybe at least play Dragon Quest 3, which has a class system (I believe it was released in Japan around the time of Final Fantasy 1), and doesn't have a casino in the manner that later DQ games (starting with DQ4) do. There is a minigame in some versions that's basically a single-player board game, and there's a monster arena that you can bet gold on, but that's about it. (The board game has some unique rewards, but the monster arena does not.)

Also, even with unique rewards from the casino, I find that I generally never need them, and with save states the lower priced rewards are easier to get (you can easily get 10,000+ tokens with card gains and (in DQ4/5) the monster arena with save states).

(Also worth noting that none of the rewards from DQ3's board game were in the original version in the first place, so the game can certainly be cleared without them. The same is true of DQ5, which has that same board game in it (but with different boards).)
While I understand that the ongoing discussion is entertaining and hard to break, I would like to kindly ask some of you to remain on-topic. You can always create a new topic to continue the discussion or move it to a private channel. Thank you. :)