Half Life
Black Mesa

On the other hand, there is a tendency of game developers to create the first level first, which is not a good idea because the level designer is less familiar with how the game plays, and that can result in the first level being dull or not being of an appropriate difficulty. In fact, it's common advice among game developers to not make the first level you make the first one in the game.

The centre cannot hold. Or so I heard.

I was actually about to start a similar thread, about games that overstay their welcome and Just. Won't. End. Not exactly the same, but close enough.

I was prompted by Bard's Tale 4, which never really "falls apart", but it's a long game, and it feels like it's building up to a climax multiple times. I now reached what I hope is the final dungeon, and I felt ready to have the final boss fight like four times. But it just goes on and on, long past when the finale would have felt right. In fact, twice already I was absolutely convinced I'm solving the game's final puzzle. But no, there's always another one, and another, and to be honest, while I enjoyed most of the numerous puzzles throughout, I'm just sick of them now to death. It's just killing dead the momentum of the final, climactic push when I have to stop and push blocks or switch cogs around every five steps. Thankfully the Director's Cut provides a way to just skip the puzzles, but I don't feel good about that either, essentially cheating my way through the final stretch. But it's either that or reaching the end after wasting hours of my life on being pissed off. One way or another, not a great way to cap off an otherwise very enjoyable game.

I like Mass Effect 2 & 3 more than the first game.

And I like Mass Effect 1 the most.

In my opinion Mass Effect 2 was not bad, but they removed some features from the first game, mainly the ammo free clips | out of thin air bullets - no one would ever change that for some generic ammo clips, and even if it's the case, anyone would at least carry some *old tech* pistol just in case there is no ammo left for convential weapons - plain stupid!
Oh yes, in Mass Effect 1 I haven't killed one particular pirate woman and alllowed her to do the pirate stuff in moderation (Renegade option) only to find out that she is the saint person now and I helped to change her life for the better (out of nowhere Paragon stuff) - crazy stupid and broken save transition based on Paragon points but not on real decisions!

And Mass Effect 3 is the weakest of them all, it lost everything good from previous games. And it was crazy to look how I almost romanced one companion to fall in with another the very next cutscene (definitely not rushed, and not crazy). That little boy hallucinations were not meaningful even. My previous decision to save one species from extinc felt like just a few points in excel spreadsheet. At least they haven't forgotten whom I sacrificed in Mass Effect 1. The so called *extended* and better ending is a joke, all 3 of them, not a joke but disaster. Even I could have write a better ending.

Some say Half-life (due to Xen levels)... but I found them quite ok, and in a way refreshing from the earlier levels. And I enjoyed the last boss battle.

Far Cry is also sometimes mentioned, fighting the mutants... but again, I didn't really mind those mutant levels, except the ones that were indoors as the outdoors levels were so magnificent in the game.

Both Realms of the Haunting and Undying felt a bit underwhelming after the strong start as they first felt like proper horror games... but when you got better weapons, they were mainly just generic shooters where you shoot at demons and other supernatural beings.

A limited time and budget usually means developers need to cut back in certain areas. The developers may not realize they accomplish everything they intended until later on. It doesn't help that crunch time is a reality in the video game industry.

But the publisher is demanding you make a game once a year, and they're demanding it now!

Same reason many movies start out "great" and then devolve...

... ideas can be very interesting...

... but fleshing out those ideas over multiple acts of an entertainment -- with a satisfying conclusion -- is hard.

Some is lack of skill... some is a loss of focus... some is lack of funds (or running out of funds)... and some is disinterest after descending from the highs of a "great idea" into the "bone breaking" trenches of creating a complete whole.

ATM I find it hard to remember a game where I felt this (I can only seem to remember games I either loved or hated from beginning to end), but when I do remember one, will add it.

I don't know about Far Cry 1, but Far Cry 2 should have ended at its half way point. The whole second map was appurtenant. It should have been condensed a lot more. Map 1: Enjoy game, explore, clear. Map 2: Oh shit it keeps going? speeds through.

I was thinking more Talking Heads, but Yeats is good too.

I was looking back over the games I've beaten this year, and the only one that really fizzles out is Fallout 4. When you start to get toward the endgame, there is very little writing at all, just arbitrary slaughter. I don't think it's so much a case of the money running out as it is Bethsoft being more concerned with systems than content.

The issue with Act 3 is that it's very obvious that content was cut. Everyone talks about the upper city, promises to meet you in the upper city, etc. And the upper city does not exist. Oh well...

Many reviews of Fahrenheit: Indigo Prophecy also say that the game is really good and interesting for most of the game, but then it goes all Jar Jar Binks on itself right at the end. I'm perfectly happy with the "extended cut" endings myself.
#Control

No doubt it is all down to the spark of an idea, and how you approach that, when it comes to maintaining enthusiasm and inventiveness as a developer.

It would be the same for writing a book or creating a movie etc etc.

Do you start at the top and work down or at the bottom and work up or start in the middle and work out. Some no doubt are very linear in how they work, which to my mind is not the best approach.

The best approach, is where you do things to keep yourself interested, and avoid burnout or eventual disinterest, which often comes from being too mechanical.

As an example, when I create a program, I get it all down in a quick manner in a fairly basic state, and then I flesh things out.

I can only imagine how tough it must be to start at the beginning and then work in a forward progression to the end. Especially where you fully flesh out things as you go and rely on feedback, and then have to deal with the bugs. That approach could be quite tiresome and eat away at enthusiasm, and then you factor in the pressure of a deadline, and perhaps lack of funding, any joy in the proceedings can dwindle away over time. Good creativity and inspiration relies on the correct approach.

Of course, we have competing factors ... creators who want to create and publishers who want to make money, and usually do that in the quickest manner.

So it isn't easy, and developers no doubt have real fears. Fears for instance, that if they do the fleshing out afterwards, then that might suffer culling, due to time and financial constraints. There are of course other factors like continuity, where some of those developing might be called away to other projects, etc.

Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader is always my go-to example for this.

The game starts out really strong with a style that's very reminiscent of Baldur's Gate in terms of narrative, gameplay, character development and background lore. The game is set in an alternate-history Earth during the 16th Century where magic and fantastical creates are real. It has a very broad character development system with different classes, skills and abilities.

The game starts out really strong, presenting numerous options for progressing through many encounters using either direct combat or non-combat abilities -- and there are numerous (purely optional) dialog opportunities to learn more about the world and its politics and to interact with various factions, along with many optional side quests. Then, when you leave the first main city the game quickly drops into a one-dimensional Diablo-like hack-and-slash where any abilities that aren't focused on being a direct-combat fighter-type character are rendered almost completely irrelevant.

And for those who say, "But I prefer a Diablo-like game...", Lionheart even falls flat there after the first act because magic-based characters start to feel really underpowered as the game goes on. The majority of the game's combat after the first act seems to be balanced around being a physical fighter-type character. And if you picked a magic-user or someone who doesn't focus on direct combat, well... sucks to be you, because you're pretty much going to be playing on hard-mode for the majority of the game.

From what I recall, the game had its funding and schedule slashed when it was only about a third of the way through its initial plan, and the team was basically told "We'll give you a few months to wrap it up, then we're shipping the game in whatever state its in."