Just an article about a game that gets good after 117 hours.
(Note: There is some unnecessary swearing in this article.)

https://thehardtimes.net/harddrive/hour-117-rpg-reportedly-things-really-get-going/

What are your thoughts?

Do you think it's good t have an intro portion of a game before things really get going, or should the game put you right into the action right away?

After 117 hours everything becomes great, because your body releases endorphins to fight the pain.

That's a parody article making fun of the "it gets better later" argument. Hard Drive is basically The Onion for video game news.

However, looking at the core argument itself, I was never on board with that. It's perfectly fine for a game - especially RPGs - to start slow; hell, it's even welcome in my eyes, as the drive to make everything big and flashy from the very beginning to the end is one of the things ruining AAA-games.
But if someone says, "yeah, Final Fantasy XIII not very fun at the start, but 20 hours in, it becomes really good", that sounds more like a rationalization to me. That's something overly eager fans of games, movies, shows or franchises tend to do, explain away any faults.

To me, a game should at least be engaging from the start, so that I have a reason to even get to the parts where it suddenly turns "amazing".

That seems to be a satire news site. Take for instance this article:

https://thehardtimes.net/harddrive/bethesda-employee-dead-attempting-port-skyrim-onto-body/

Probably not real...

Some people seem to not like it when satire is marked as satire, for some reason. (See what someone said in my roguelike satire topic for example.)

(Yes, I do know that this is a satire news site, but there is a real target of the satire.)

It's like a job. Unless you actually are doing what you always wanted, the job is kind of a drag. And if you are committed to the point of "can't quit", then eventually you may tell yourself "I may just as well try to enjoy it".

I personally enjoy an intro part where I can get used to controls, get acquainted with core mechanics and sucked into a story. Right-in-action-start freaks me out. What is going?! How do I do things? What is this stuff? Do I shoot you in the face or do you shoot me in the face? Argh. Think about it: you play as an experienced soldier or some other hero who was not born yesterday. Yet the gameplay in the beginning is equal to that of a toddler. But then, I am also a casual player and I like to get to know my bearing beforehand in everyday life.

I think a slow and boring start is a common mistake made in storytelling, no matter the medium. It's probaby most prevalent in books (I've had a lot of books that got really good after page 500) but also found in movies and TV shows. In games there is a second aspect to it as some developers seem to think you should learn the game before playing it, as opposed to learn while playing it.

In my opinion there is really no excuse for it. If your game/book/whatever is meant to be entertainment, than please entertain your loyal customer from minute one onwards.

I don't mind if there's an intro or not but if the game is good from the start. Something's wrong if it feels like a chore and that's what it seems to me if it takes too much effort to get to the good parts, having to devote days/weeks/months before getting there wouldn't be the epitome of fun, I'd say.

Neverwinter Nights definitely suffered from a slow first chapter. I love that game to death, but that first section cleaning out the city almost kills it.

I love when I see the reverse. People with hundreds of hours in a game writing a review saying how bad it is. Sure I can understand if a game got patches that changed things or glitches were discovered that broke the game but some of these people will tell you the game was always bad. Shouldn't they have realized that after the first hundred hours?

+1

So this is an article about Final Fantasy 13, then?