I play a lot of games that aren't designed to "end" in the traditional sense (roguelikes and strategy games), but IMO:
- Hollow Knight had a great ending that lived up to its beginning and expanded it.
- I liked Undertale's ending quite a bit and felt no drop-off in gameplay. If anything I was more interested in the end over the beginning.
- I loved the way Braid came together at the end.
- Toki Tori 2 was just as fun in the second half as the first.
- Slay the Spire had solid escalating challenges throughout
- I liked the ending and back half of The Witness as well as the expanding challenges, though I realize that's pretty polarized as a game experience and others may completely disagree.
- Sayonara Wild Hearts was super-fun and novel throughout the entire game experience. I loved replaying that game as much as I liked playing it the first time.
- Chrono Trigger never felt like it was falling off to me, even as I was going for multiple endings.
- Virtually every 4x strategy game I play (Civilization, Master of Orion, and Heroes of Might and Magic 3 being some of my favorite examples of the genre) do not feel like unsatisfying back-ends.
- Super Mario Galaxy was fun to me the whole way through; It singlehandedly proved to me the Wii was a good purchase.
I think what's interesting about the way Bigman has raised this question is it seems to presuppose that a game should entertain a player
equally and potentially
in the same way at the beginning and the end of the game. I don't know if I agree with that.
4x games, for example, are all about modifying your understanding/approach to the game as it continues and you shift the balance of power from a potentially threatening unexplored world to a fully-understood map which you've strategicallyset yourself up to conquer. All phases of the game are exciting and interesting to me, but the execution of each phase emphasizes a different type of experience that can't be compared apples-to-apples.
In story-driven games, I don't know if I feel bad that the second half of a game is more
predictable than the first half; if I'm playing well and building my power as a player in the game world, I'm intentionally building
toward predictability and trying to accomplish the goals the game has signposted for me. In a lot of cases, a predictable storyline is indicative of success in my ability to understand and manipulate the game system itself.
In something like a platformer (which, admittedly I don't play much), I'm looking for continued challenges and a feeling of satisfaction when I beat levels. If the game is delivering that, I would consider it doing its job, even if that feels repetitive at times.
Anyway I think the question for me if I want to keep playing a game is less "which half is better?" and more "Is the game still engaging me?"
EDIT: How could I forget
Hades? That had an amazing amount of gameplay and story that got deeper and better as I progressed.