This year I picked two games (Nier Replicant and Yakuza 0) that I’d taken multi-year pauses from back up and finished them. I remember why I put Nier down, and the reason was incredibly stupid. There’s a set of side quests, entirely unnecessary to complete the game or even get achievements, that require you to go between locations in the game without jumping, diving, or getting hit by an enemy. I had done one of them, got the second, didn’t want to do it just then because I thought it would be frustrating, and put the game down to play later when I was up to gritting my teeth through the quest, even though I was otherwise enjoying it quite a bit. Again, this is a totally optional quest that is absolutely not required to progress in the game.

When I picked the game back up two years later I managed to complete the quest in about 5 minutes on my first try, showing that even though I was a bit rusty with the controls this was not at all a difficult challenge and there was no reason to stop playing the game because of it. I then completed the game in less than a week, absolutely loving it, and even did a second loop to get the second ending. I still have some endings left to get but am taking a conscious break now because I was a bit burned out, but I thoroughly enjoyed the game and while it may not be in my top 10 of all time it would probably be floating around somewhere in my top 50, if I had a list like that.

Yakuza 0 I have put down and picked up several times over the years, and I couldn’t exactly explain why. I love the characters, the story, the writing, and especially the game’s incredible sense of style. The gameplay isn’t the best but it’s serviceable enough given everything else the game has going for it. I have no specific memory why I put it down last time; I just took a break and ended up leaving it half finished for, again, years. This time, though, I picked it up a little less than halfway through and played pretty steadily through the end, including doing a fair amount of the very engaging side stuff. I even went back to Yakuza 0 for about a dozen hours just to clean up side stuff even after finishing the main story, which is very rare for me. I would also probably put it somewhere in my top 50, though I’m not sure that’s a useful metric. I don’t even know how to compare something like Yakuza 0 to a game like Lumines or NBA Street 2.

On the one hand you have two games that I took significant, multi-year, breaks from even though they are not particularly difficult. On the other hand you have two games that I have spent a lot of time with (by my standards) and went back to do more stuff in after finishing, which is rare for me. Usually when I hit the credits on a game I drop it immediately, even if I intended to mop up some side content. I might spend another 1-2 hours but I’m on to the next quickly. With Nier I did a whole second (mini) loop and intend to do the additional loops after another break (this time because I’m burned out on repeated content.) With Yakuza 0 I have been going back to polish off questlines and finish side material that most players don’t bother with, even after beating Yakuza Kiwami (which I also liked a lot but did not love quite as much as 0.)

To me this raises questions about what it means for a game to “click” with me. Does it matter if it happens late? What if I need to be in a different place in my life to really appreciate it? Do your favorite games have to pull you in immediately without letting go? How much time can they take to sink their hooks in?

I never stopped intending to go back and finish Yakuza 0 and Nier. They remained on installed on my Xbox and I even made a few attempts with Yakuza (a game I was positive I would love, and eventually did.) I never had a point where I really didn’t enjoy them. Nier’s soundtrack is permanently embedded in my brain in a way that very few games can manage. These were not games that I ever consciously abandoned, but thy also were clearly not games that compelled me to play them above all others until, eventually, they did.

There’s an old joke in the gaming community about games that take “20 hours to get good” and how that’s totally unacceptable. I agree with that; a game should be engaging from the moment it starts, and if it can’t do that for some reason (such as The Last of Us setting up its tone with its prologue, or Armored Core 6 having to teach you its complex controls) then it should get to “good” status as soon as it can. Wasting a player’s time by slow rolling mechanics or story is almost never worth the payoff. No other entertainment asks you to have a bad time for an entire full day of your life just so you can enjoy yourself after. That’s the time cost of flying away to an exotic vacation, not to play Xenoblade Chronicles.

But I do think there are games that unfurl slowly, hide their hand a little bit, and then payoff big time in the late game or the climax, and that can be an exhilarating experience. Yakuza 0 is a lot of fun for the first 20 hours when you’re learning its systems and its cities and getting introduced to its characters, soaking in that 80s style, but it doesn’t really get cooking until the back half of the game when the pace becomes frantic and you have access to so much to see and do that it really feels like a virtual playground competing with a pulse pounding plot. Som of the slower moments are used for character development, so you can come to understand Kiryu and Majima as people and then understand why they each develop in the way they do and make the choices they make. A good game becomes great because of the seeds laid early. That’s somewhat true of the mechanics too, though there I think they peak at about the halfway point and become boring before the game ends. But that’s an issue that a lot of games deal with, especially games as long as Yakuza.

Nier, on the other hand, hints at what it’s actually about during its prologue and then buries that for the vast majority of the game. In terms of storytelling it’s almost all set up to a grand payoff. The game is still fun to play during that set up period, at least the newer version with the Platinum games developed combat, and it tells a lot of interesting stories in innovative ways, so it’s mostly not a slog (though there are some sloggy, grindy, parts) but it’s much more focused on the big finale than it is on a slow consistent build. Nonetheless it also has the issue of feeding you set up material that’s not necessarily super engaging until you understand what it’s actual purpose is.

The question I think all this raises is how do you evaluate the subjective quality of a game when that quality varies over time, as it does for most games, and do you base your ultimate view on how you feel about it at the end or also how you felt while you were playing? Obviously there were points when I was playing these games where I liked them but I didn’t love them. I let a slightly annoying side quest halt my playthrough of Nier, which I wouldn’t do with a game I loved (and in my later playthrough I was willing to put up with the much more annoying fact that you have to repeat big stretches of game just to get to a small amount of new stuff.) I stopped playing Yakuza 0 because I got distracted by something else, which, again, is not how I behave when I love a game. It’s clear that for a big chunk of my time playing these games I was just not that into them. And yet when they ended I was so enchanted that I couldn’t help but play more.

My own take is that both aspects matter. You can’t judge a game just by how it leaves you feeling at the end because the experiences you have while playing are when you are most engaged with and focused on the game, and just like a great game with an ending that leaves a bad taste in your mouth doesn’t negate all the good stuff that comes before, a game that only really comes together in the last act still forced you to slog through to get to that point, and that time matters. On the other hand there are certain ideas and systems that need time to develop and breathe, and games need the room to sacrifice immediate thrills for long term payoff. A great ending can recontextualize what came before and give it more meaning and impact in retrospect.

I also think it’s important to remember that how you feel about a game can depend a lot on the context of when you played it. We think a lot about nostalgia and playing games as kids but there are other things that can influence how we feel about games as adults. Were you under tremendous stress at the time? Did you play it on staycation when you could devote hours a day to it? Did a theme of the game resonate with something you were going through like the loss of a loved one or a newly blossoming romance? Did you play it with a friend or family member? Even whether there were other games competing for your time or attention can have a big impact on whether you stick with a game and how much you enjoy it. Sometimes coming back to a game can be a very different experience depending on those factors and that’s why I don’t think having put down a game means you didn’t like it or even that it wasn’t one of your favorites. Heck some games may not be a favorite the first time you play it but might become one if you run through it again at a later date. Experiences are subjective and that’s true within a single individual’s experience, not just when reading or hearing about other people’s.

All told I had a better and more meaningful time with Nier and Yakuza 0 than I have with the vast majority of games I’ve played. Both games have music permanently embedded in my brain, numerous memorable moments that stand out as some of the highest highs I can experience in gaming, and satisfying overall narratives married to gameplay enjoyable enough that I kept coming back for more. The fact that they did not suck me in the first time I tried them just means I wasn’t in the right space to fully appreciate them at that point, but I came back and I loved my time with them and in the end that’s what matters.

I also didn't finish Yakuza 0, even though I liked the game a lot. But the main reason for me is that I've been jumping all over the place in the Yakuza series because there are so many of them. And it's an ongoing story, so spoilers from previous games are often highlighted. For example, I started Yakuza 6 some time ago, but because of the Like A Dragon series, I know the game ends with Kiryu faking his death and going into hiding, which was first highlighted in the original Like A Dragon, and now a whole game Like A Dragon Gaiden (which I'm currently playing) is based on that plot point.

Nier Automata on the other hand, I just played until I finished Route C, only to find out that a Route D and E existed and the true ending happened completing Route E with some conditions. I ended up just watching a Youtube video showing it. But I liked both games a lot, so my answer is yes, you still call a game one of your favorites, even if you take a long time to finish it. Just like you can call a game bad, even though you play it every day, just to laugh at how bad it is. Which a lot of people did recently with Redfall, and by some accounts, Starfield, even though I overall liked Starfield.

Ooo.. I felt summoned by an unknown power to comment. When anyone plays games it is as much about the game as it is their personal state in order to see if a game clicks. If I am stressed about life, work, kids, etc. I probably don't want to play a survival horror game where I need to stress about resource management, or play a game about children being endangered. Those games probably won't have staying power that they might otherwise have in a different context.

Also in years where there are a lot of good releases, people will have less desire to stick with a game because of all the other shiny things that are releasing just around the corner. The littlest dip in fun could be enough reason to drop a "good" game in pursuit of a "great" game. But play that same game during a lull in releases and it might be your game of the year.

I think part of the issue is open world pacing (I can only speak to yakuza 0 at the moment). Whenever I get in an open world, I want to do a bunch of side missions or events to level up or see all the fun content, but then I lose the story thread or drive and the game seems weaker simply because I didn't pace out my side vs main enough. I loved yakuza 0's story, and when the pieces start falling into place it was something I couldn't put down as I wanted to constantly move the story along. So I totally get the back half being more enjoyable, because the pace is more feverish and the story ramps up.

Do I think there is anything wrong putting a game down in the middle? No, you benefited from taking that break, being in a better state or mood, and not being burned out and forcing yourself to play a game you might have lost interest in. And if one was to rate these games, all of that should be taken into consideration. Games that have a big lull or only get good 20 hours in, should certainly take a hit... but sometimes the payoff is grander because of that time investment.

You can totally take breaks from a game and still call it a masterpiece, especially long-ass RPGs or open-world games. A game can be great fun, but that doesn't mean you'll want to play it for 100 hours straight. I jump between many different experiences depending on my mood, and sometimes it can months/years before I'm in the mood to grind again. Here are a few personal examples:

Mirror's Edge Catalyst and Control both took me over a year to beat even though I only clocked in about 30hrs total playtime each. I get distracted easily.

Kingdoms of Amalur. Started 2013 - finished 2021. Gets repetitive, but still an awesome game. Plus I had a kid in 2015.

2014, played most of the way through Saint's Row 4, but stopped near the end. It's on my list, I'll get to it.

Ocarina of time. Started 2005. Took a break 2006. Got back into it in 2008, but stopped close to the end. 2012 forgot I never finished the game. 2021 remembered I never finished the game. 2023 still haven't finished the game. Whatever, I say it's a masterpiece and will complete it one of these days.

It's interesting you bring up Nier Replicant because I'm also not totally sure what I think about it. I only played it because I enjoyed its sequel Automata so much. When I finally got to the original, the story was interesting enough but I wasn't having a ton of fun in the act of playing. Still, I earned all the endings and even got a good way towards all achievements (the amount of material grinding made me throw in the towel). I just have to wonder if I did all that purely because I wanted to recapture the feeling of Automata. If Replicant wasn't connected to it, would I even have finished it? I'm not sure.

On the other hand, I'm basically committed to beating every Yakuza game at this point, regardless of quality.

@av_gamer: I don't really understand this approach. There are a lot of Yakuza games but are you like playing through bits and pieces of each of them? Regardless...playing a series without finishing the earlier games?

@imunbeatable80: Okay, but...what about the greatest game? Wouldn't the GREATEST game be so great that you couldn't help but play straight through?

@judaspete: We are very simpatico in how we approach games. I too have games I have played off and on for many years and some people are very bothered by it. I think it helps to have a good memory for controls and stories. But generally these are games I like but don't love.

@bigsocrates: I'm not happy with it either. But what seems to happen now that I think about is, I start a Yakuza game. I get deep into it. Then another game comes out like a God of War or something, just to give an example. Then I focus all my attention on those games and forget I had to finish the Yakuza one, but by then, another game in the series comes out. I have been keeping up with the series since the spinoff Judgement came out. And after I finish Like a Dragon Gaiden, I will start the Like A Dragon Ishin one, which came out months earlier and is based in ancient Japan... After I take a break with Spider Man 2 or Alan Wake 2, whichever comes first.

I also ended up putting down Yakuza 0, which is actually something I very rarely do. I finish like 95% of the games I play, but I stopped playing Yakuza 0 like 40 hours in. I often succumb to completionist compulsions when I play games and that led me deep into the mire of the real estate and cabaret management grinds that just ended up burning me out.

I remember enjoying the story, if not so much the combat, but I really should get back into that game and eventually the rest of the series.

@bigsocrates: well yes, the greatest game of all time you probably don't need to stop in the middle.. but maybe game 20 it's ok to.