Azint wrote:How often does a game win you over time, where it was rocky at the start? I bought Battlefront last year, because I was riding on Episode VII's hype, and the game was a mixed bag with more cons than pros. I dropped it after only a few weeks, and have not touched it in about a year. Because Rogue One was so good, I needed more big battles alongside my Star Wars, and picked up Battlefront again. The season pass was on sale for relatively cheap and I took the bait, and so I have been playing it a lot ever since.
I am impressed with how much they added since launch, and how they balanced several very broken weapons and abilities. Battlefront still has its flaws, be they many, but I admit I am having much more fun with it than I did Battlefield 3 or 1. It still needs to be on record that the game on launch deserved all of the backlash it got, and they sold us only half of the game.
I'd say it depends on the damage done with the first impression. I played Mass Effect 3 a lot, but I never touched the singleplayer until the expanded ending DLC came out. Even then, I didn't feel like playing through it again and only came back to do DLCs.
Funny how this whole thing revolves around most EA titles.
Sadly, most games that I play tend to go the opposite route of having really alluring content/concepts at the start, but rarely follows through with them or falls down the well of boring repetition because the developers probably didn't know how to improve on that initial concept.
I heard that Final Fantasy XII is supposed to get better after about 20 hours, which is just too much for me. I won't waddle through that much muck on the off-chance that it might get better at one point.