I try and finish all the games I play and I'd say my completion rate is pretty decent, like 80% or something. However one thing that makes it hard is that I feel the vast majority of games get worse in the later sections. Maybe they spam you with endless enemies, maybe the story gets over done, maybe the game just drags on too long.

I recently finished the Resident Evil 4 remake and it's amazing how the act one village section is 10 times better than the act 3 military island section. Thus the thread.

Name games where you feel the second half is better than the first. Games where the later sections made you excited to keep going, rather than push through to the finish.

Good question and I agree it seems rare, since many games tend to front-load their best content into the first 5-10 hours (to hook people in and because it is the part most gamers are going to experience).

I'd say many RPGs might fall into that category of improving in the second half. At least, they should, since your character is developing, gaining new skills and abilities, so the back half of the game should be more interesting. However, I think the challenge with RPGs is in maintaining quality of content over a long game that might last 50+ hours.

Especially D&D-based RPGs that start at level 1 are good candidates, since often in D&D the first 3-4 levels are notoriously dicey and you tend to always face the same small and predictable selection of enemies (goblins, kobolds, giant spiders ...). So, I'd put forward Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate 1, since they are low-level D&D campaigns that maintain a strong level of quality through the game.

I was going to suggest games that have an inverted difficulty curve, since they can be brutally hard at the start. Although, they are often far too easy in the late-game, which I'm not sure is necessarily better!

May of course have something to do with the fact that you are tired by that time, by the same endless enemies and the story that "drags on for too long".

I mean, if I start a game fresh, everything is new and fun (or at least: should be), right?
But 10 to 15 or even 20+ hours in...?
Previously new things tend to get old and tedious at some point.

Serious Sam 3. The first couple of levels are a bit weaker, but it becomes very Serious Sam from like the 5th level on.

Good topic.
Indeed, most of the games I've played are the exact oposite and like BreOL72 stated, it doesn't help either that the tiring factor comes to play.

The first game that comes to mind when I think about it is Hollow Knight, it took forever for me to get in the game, just looked nothing but a generic platformer on the first couple of hours. After some abilities are introduced, the game opens up and what was a generic, boring platformer was now a awsome action, fast paced (comparatively) game, even with some tactical options.
Hollow Knight does a great job introducing the player to new abilities but is somewhat slow to introduce them at the beginning.

Another game that somewhat fits the bill is X-morph, with the locked weapons on the first levels, the game is kinda boring and there's just no options on how to beat levels, you're stuck with what you got. Level design is not open enough too.

I can't think of any more games I enjoyed the later stages, either is "open ended" like Battle Brothers or the fun curve is sloping down in the end like Kings Bounty the Legend.

Problem with RPGs is that, too often, they have an inverted difficulty curve.

The way I see it, an RPG should steadily increase in difficulty (possible temporary exceptions, like after the party defeats a major boss (like one with major plot significance, if the game decides to go the plot route, or one that opens up a major part of the world to exploration), so that the player has to actually use those new abilities they've been gaining over the course of the game. The game should start easy, so the player can get past the beginning of the game where options are limited, and then increase the difficulty once the player is given the tools to overcome it.

Icewind Dale does something that Baldur's Gate doesn't; in the starting town, before you have any real combats, you can do side-quests to level your party up from 1 to 2, mitigating the issue that AD&D combat is terrible at low levels.

On the other hand, there's the occasional game that's a bit too backloaded, with many interesting abilities and/or items not appearing until rather late; in the SaGa 3 remake, something like half the weapons are all in the endgame section (once you can fly over water in the alternate dimension). (This is in contrast to SaGa 2, where you actually get most of your endgame equipment some time before the endgame.)

(Worth noting that this idea can be applied to any game where the player gets more options as the game progresses, including games like Zelda-likes or Metroidvanias (Castlevania: Symphony of the Night being one example of a game with an inverted difficulty curve here).) Or maybe the game gets so easy that it feels pointless, and isn't allowing you to really make use of what you've learned through playing through the earlier sections.

I do think Half-Life 1 got better in the second half when you got out of the research facilities and the game started introducing more open outdoor areas. The enemy resistance never gets out of hand either. Stronger enemies are gradually introduced as you get new and more powerful weapons, but it's always a balance.

Yes, the second half has the Xen levels.. but they don't bother me too much. Overall they're a very short part of the experience. They actually made these levels MUCH longer in the Black Mesa remake, which I thought dragged on for a bit too long. I still think Black Mesa is a really solid remake though.

I enjoyed The Witcher 2 much more towards the end than at the beginning. Perhaps because I had some trouble adjusting to the controls, but there are also some abilities that are unlocked mid-game that make your life easier.

The problem is that just getting access to new tools (in your example, cars) doesn't necessarily make the game better. Sometimes, a game will give you access to many new tools, but the game fails to increase the challenge level enough for the tools to actually feel meaningful. What's the point of using a fancy car if the tracks aren't designed to take that into account?

(Again, this issue can apply to any game with some sort of progression mechanic.)

Regarding Baldur´s Gate, I think it gets much better during the second half of the game because it is then when all the story is explained and the player discovers what´s going on.

The beginning is very slow. There are some mysteries to unravel, adventures, things to investigate, etc. And when the game starts to explain how everything is tied together, who the bad guy is, his plans and etc; the game changes. Everything becomes way more meaningful and interesting. I remember having a blast the first time I played the game. Something Baldur´s Gate 2 didn´t match.

I will add Daikatana to the list. I was curious about the game since I read many different opinions about it (the game´s page´s reviews are a mixed bag) and although the first levels are crappy, I found the game to be very interesting and fun once the swamp and the mosquitos (and the toads) are left behind. And specially, when I reached the second big chunk of the game (out of the four the game has). I then felt that the game was truly special.

I´m not surprised by the bad reviews, specially if we take into account the terrible first hour or so of the game. One needs to fight through that mess and I understand that not everybody has the patience to swim through that swamp. But the game really takes off after those terrible levels.

Morrowind - It can be a struggle early on due to skills failing quite often. Some skills are difficult to raise naturally without a relatively strong base to start with it. Things start to become smoother as the player character gets stronger and acquire more resources.

Persona 3 - The player is given very little control for the first couple of hours. Fatigue limits dungeon runs, low-level characters can only participate in a few battles before getting tired. Thankfully, fatigue becomes less of an issue at higher levels and having more party members to rotate helps as well.

Fallout 2 - The player is forced into a tutorial dungeon from the start. Things can be rough from the start due to low skill levels. Some weapons/ammo are acquired later than others, may make certain take longer before they shine.

Yes, it's not until the last third or so of the game that you actually reach the city of Baldur's Gate, where things start to get quite a bit more interesting.

I'd say the best parts of BG2 are probably chapters 2 and 3, where the game is very open and you have a large choice of possible quests and locations. By comparison, chapters 4-5 are quite a bit more linear (although it's still easily one of my all-time fave games).

For me, most games, to be honest. A lot of games spend hours on a glorified tutorial essentially. I'll just give some examples that come to mind.

Portal and Portal 2: A great example of what I said above. Most of the early test chambers take a while to actually complete even though the solutions are obvious, which makes the early game boring. All of the interesting puzzles (and plot developments) are in the second half of both games.

Contra III: This has 6 levels. The first two are fine, just pretty basic and easy. The third is a very tedious slog with an easy repetitive boss fight. The rest of the levels are actually very dynamic and fun though (except 5 has a few annoying ideas). Unfortunately the game also has limited continues. A lot of run and gun/shmup games are like this I think, since you end up just wanting to get past the early levels quickly so that you can try the harder ones again.

DOS Powerslave/Exhumed: It starts out too easy, but when it introduces the rest of its enemies it can get pretty threatening (though still overall an easy game IMO). The level layouts are generally good from start to finish, if occasionally confusing.

Dusk: The second half is where it really stops feeling like a Doom/Quake/Half Life clone and establishes its own identity.

System Shock 2: Deck 2 (which is where you start) is just boring and basic, while Deck 1 almost feels a little lazy, given how much time you spend in identical looking (boring) warehouses and corridors. When you get to Deck 3, the game starts to become much more sprawling, non linear and cleverly designed. (Though the last level of the game is terrible).

All I can think of right now, but it's interesting that they're all retro or indie (except the Portal games I guess). I might have used the word boring too much.

A Boy and His Blob

I found the first map to be too easy, with many trivial levels and way too much signposting (literally). The second and third maps had less hand-holding and the puzzles were a lot more interesting/satisfying. Really fun game overall, btw.