What's the best part of a game to you? Beginning, middle, or endgame?

What's the best part of a game to you? Beginning, middle, or endgame?

Attached: 1571231519948.gif (605x422, 6.66K)

Beginning.

I prefer all of it

Beggining

The middle is most important. If the core of the game isn't good, the ending won't be worth the slog no matter how good it is.

This image can only be used in games that have a linear narrative storytelling that give their players zero ability to sabotage the characters and the narrative to extend their conformed ego.

Only legit retards who even think otherwise.

DnD isn't a videogame

Typically the midgame. Early game tends to be constrained by limited number of options (you simply haven't gotten time to specialize deep into any direction) and often has a more linear tutorial-like experience while the game opens up after that. In contrast, lategame/endgame often suffers from the exact same issues (you can max out characters so they're same-y again, victory condition or final quest again pigeonholes you to relatively small set of possible actions) but also from escalation of scale and micro, and screwed up difficulty (for example, strategy game AIs tend to fall so far behind so far it's basically pointless to continue past a certain point).

For example, in this Dominions endgame half of the provinces on the map were fought over every turn. Fighting a war of attrition would have been a basically guaranteed win but the micro involved in that would have been just appalling, so I took a risk of abandoning everything and rushing to victory condition. That worked out in the end, but it's a fine example of issues you often encounter in endgame: in a lot of strategy games in particular, actually finishing the game is just painful.

Attached: caelum vs therodos.png (1143x1599, 1.55M)

The beginning just needs to surpass a certain threshold of quality so that the player is drawn in, the middle just needs to not be a slog, the end is what really matters and what will stick with the player so this needs to be done well or the player will feel disappointed and betrayed. The end is therefore the most important part to me.

When I have all the tools and can freely experiment with gear and gameplay, so generally near the end. I don’t like getting progression or power behind hours and hours of struggle through shit - give me the good stuff once I know how to use it and let me enjoy what you made.

I don't think a game needs to have a pre-determined story with clear, middle and an end to have distinct phases of a game.

For example, in Chess the opening is about developing pieces, fighting over the center of the board, and expert players may have memorized openings that in past games have demonstrated to get you to a good position. Middle game is about coordinating the pieces with each other, trading material, and transitioning to a favorable endgame. Endgame is when there's only a relatively few pieces remaining on the board, characterized by race to promote pawns, bringing King to the action, and starts relying on theoretical knowledge once again. Or in Dota there's the laning phase characterized by relatively static lanes and last-hitting in 1vs1 matchups, midgame is when team fights start and you start pushing the lanes, and if no decisive advantage is gained in midgame, late-/endgame is characterized by completed item builds, buybacks and both teams being powerful enough to immediately destroy the enemy ancient should they win a decisive fight.

Obviously all should be good, but an ending can redeem or kill a game for me easily, a sick boss fight with cool music can bump a below average game to good, redeeming any annoyance I had before

>what is the part that said "zero ability to sabotage the characters and the narratives"
Chess and Dota are not a good example in this. Both aren't supposed to have a narrative beyond the gameplay purposes.

Middle. Right in that sweet spot where you're still unlocking new units or abilities or powers or upgrades or whatever, you're right in the sweet spot for story where everything is starting to come together, you still have a solid portion to look forward to, and you've finally gotten a hang of all the games systems and feel comfortable with them.
While I can appreciate the beginning of a game, 99% of them are too slow. Your abilities or units or powers or upgrades are way to limited, the enemies are generally an absolute joke for anyone with even remote interest in the genre, and the story hasn't kicked in quite yet. And I can appreciate the end where you're at your peak in terms of strength and can just dominate everything, you've seen the story to it's end, all that.

But man, that middle portion is just the absolute best.

This question is retarded. I don’t have a favorite part of pizza, the ingredients unity is why I like it in the first place. Take them a part, and you have a bowl of tomato sauce, a piece of bread and a hunk of cheese. All shit tier when on their own.

Middle. I fucking hate starting off in a game, would rather slit my wrists than slog through the same unfun bullshit. When options finally open up in the middle and you have an understanding kd a games mechanics, that's when the fun really starts. The end is based as well but in the middle you have so much shit to look forward too

Somewhere in the middle, when the tutorial is over and the story gets going

>he wouldn't eat an entire chunk of cheese, bowl of sauce or piece of bread solo
What a fucking casual. Obvs not a true pizza lover.

I prefer the end, as most of the time it's the most difficult and you get to use all of the abilities/items/whatever you've been collecting throughout the game. In RPGs you're "peak performance", in racing games you're at the good stuff, etc etc.

Only part that sucks is that usually they give you some sort of amazing things in the last hour of gameplay, then it's over. Cockteases basically.

End of beginning, middle, start of the end.

Attached: 1588561237359.jpg (1216x1968, 214.06K)

The key is to allow that amazing ability early on but have it take a long ass time to acquire as some side quest.

Attached: 1589294024513.jpg (2404x1260, 739.5K)

... So the fucking middle.

Depends on the genre
If the game is about mastering the gameplay the beginning and early midgame is best. Just to journey from not knowing what you're doing to decent. From there on it's mostly about autisticly training your muscle memory or theorycrafting.
In other games like arpgs it's mostly the endgame because everything before is just busywork and a timesink.

Mostly.

But no, because it extends beyond the middle both ways.

I just hate that feeling of finally being a demigod, having some really good offenses with actual strategy and timing behind their use, etc (even if it's still difficult because your opponents are also Gods), then it just ends.

Not really sure how you'd fix that without just extending the game without increasing your abilities much. Games with NewGame+ accomplish this I guess.

The end of the beginning, where you start understanding what to expect, but you can still be surprised.

The transitions are the best parts proof needed wrong
>going from getting your ass kicked to getting better at understanding the game
>going from understanding and managing the game to becoming powerful and wrecking everything in your path
>those first hand experiences that happen once and only once but can impact new runs of the game to find out something you didn’t know before

Middle, the beginning is always somewhat limited, filled with tutorials and easy while at the end the game has either become a cakewalk or frustratingly hard, not to mention the reused assets, the middle is where most cool discoveries and evolution of the game and character happens.

between the middle/end when you're completely comfortable with all the controls and it feels like muscle memory.

Attached: 1-twinsnakesposter-bc9.original.jpg (1023x526, 271.7K)

beginning by far, I made a decision to play the game, I want the game to right away show me why I should keep playing. If you nail the beginning the rest becomes way easier. And if the midgame and endgame still become bad somehow, then maybe the game should be trimmed to only the beginning.

I would say that early middle > beginning > late middle > > > end is how I would rate my overall enjoyment of the games I play, I'd say mainly because of two things. The first would be the beginning and early middle being a fresh experience, with new meaningful content constantly complementing what you have already experienced, creating a nice flow. The second would be the late middle and end being kinda stale and/or lukewarm compared the earlier parts of the game, if not downright bad and/or disappointing. I guess the second reason depends mostly on the very end itself, since the late game can be tolerable if the overall experience wraps up nicely, but sometimes it just leaves a bad impression overall after the late game, I'd say especially if it doesn't have any replay value.