They entertained us in the first half, not gonna lie. Why does nearly every video game get worse after the second half or final third?

[MetManMas]

Third-gen Pokemon games trade the varied forest/mountains-volcano/desert in the beginning of the game for open ocean. They're going for a balance between land environments and water environments to reflect the Groudon/Kyogre conflict, but man, all that water is pretty tiresome to surf over.

Even pre-Gen 3 any route that's primarily water was pretty bad. Just a big wide expanse of mostly nothing. Maybe you'll find a cave if you don't get annoyed by all the Tentacools and battles with Water Pokémon trainers first.

That said, I did like how the Hoenn generation had underwater maps. I'm sad the later generations didn't expand on the underwater exploration.

 

[Rosewood]

I am somebody who doesn't typically finish games unless they're very short (<35 hours), so, hi! I'm part of the problem!

The example that immediately comes to mind is BG&E whose last zone feels very underbaked compared to the city sections. Last boss fight was pretty good, though frustrating enough that I have no intention of going through the game to get to it again.

 

[karzac]

I mean, in your defense Rosewood, I would set the bar for a "very short" game waaaaay below 35 hours. Any game past 20 is a long game in my mind (or run-based game like a roguelike or strategy game). Very short would have to be under 10 hours, and probably under 5 if I'm being honest.

 

[SabreCat]

Unfortunately a lot of people watch Ending A, or even B, and think that's it just because they saw the first regular credits roll.

I even knew that Ending A wasn't the end, but didn't make it to further endings because I found the retread of the previous storyline so tedious. The alternative perspective didn't add quite enough to hold my interest through it, alas.

 

[Rosewood]

I mean, in your defense Rosewood, I would set the bar for a "very short" game waaaaay below 35 hours. Any game past 20 is a long game in my mind (or run-based game like a roguelike or strategy game). Very short would have to be under 10 hours, and probably under 5 if I'm being honest.

I'm primarily a RPG player, and 35 hours is modest by modern bloat-a-thon standards. (At 20-something hours even if you're slow as eff like me, DQ4 is pretty much the perfect RPG.)

I very much enjoy roguelites that can be finished in at most 90 minutes.

 

[ShakeWell]

I am somebody who doesn't typically finish games unless they're very short (<35 hours), so, hi! I'm part of the problem!

The example that immediately comes to mind is BG&E whose last zone feels very underbaked compared to the city sections. Last boss fight was pretty good, though frustrating enough that I have no intention of going through the game to get to it again.

As a person who plays more old games than new ones (and most of the new ones are indie games or remakes of old ones), 35 hours is long as hell.

 

[Torzelbaum]

At 20-something hours even if you're slow as eff like me, DQ4 is pretty much the perfect RPG.

I feel like it took me longer than that to play 4 but I played it ages ago so who knows if I even remember that correctly.