The Guardian - Does it matter if people don’t finish games any more?

Jonathan Allford (the Guardian) noticed that many gamers don't finish their games anymore - some snippets:

Just 6.4% of players who have bought role-playing adventure Pillars of Eternity have actually completed it, according to the PC gaming service, Steam. This critically acclaimed throwback to genre classics like Baldur’s Gate and Icewind Dale returns us to a period in which playing games was a much more demanding experience. I finished Pillars of Eternity a few weeks ago and the experience has left me crushed.
(…)

Games spell things out for us now. Even in a title as detailed and character driven as Dragon Age: Inquisition I’ll see a villain doing villainous things as they spout villainous words because they’re a villain and that’s what villains do. I don’t have to use my imagination to see the subtext behind their actions, to gauge why what they’re doing matters to them.
(…)

If you want enjoyment out of the genre classics, you have to commit to the world that the game presents to you; it’s a leap of faith. And given the difficulty of grasping Advanced Dungeons & Dragons mechanics in a game like Baldur’s Gate, for example, you’re not always guaranteed to land in a wagon of hay.
(…)

Maybe knowing and seeing everything are less important these days; maybe we are different now. But I don’t regret chasing Pillars of Eternity to its end – even if it did take forever.

Click to expand...

More information.

I finished Baldurs Gate 1, 2 ToB and Icewind Dale 1&2 several times, D:OS twice and PoE once, but got bored of DA:I after 80 hours or something.

On the other hand, in what world is it really news that the majority of people don't finish games? I mean that's been known for eons and even more true for long games.

Gaming companies have known that for ages - it's a large part of the time why end games tend to be weaker because they know comparatively few people will make it there, and so they devote the time and funds elsewhere.

On the games you mention HiddenX - I have to say I got about 70 hours in DAI and while I beat it I did not like the game. I was originally to review it but I was so sick towards the end of it someone else did who did like it. Whats sad is that in the opening section it showed so much promise - well sized areas, enemies who outleveled you, some engaging storyline things and a world at the seams.

Then after the templar/mage choice it in the name of open world failed to do a good job narratively, bogged down in open world/mmo tropes with billions of collection quests, a lack of enemy variety and a villain who was almost never actually doing anything.


I still contend to this day Baldur's Gate 2's opening chapter is the best mixture of 'open world' and directed storytelling - it gives you a goal, a reason to go get it and lets you decide how you go get it as you discover things going on around you and get caught up. And when it seems like you might be getting too into little things the game calls you back to the main plot region with the 10k amount triggering events.

Bioware could learn a lot by looking at its past.

As has been discussed in another thread, I'll finish a 40 hour game that is chock full of depth any time, but not a 100 hour game that is just a slog. I'd rather start that game over with a different character and enjoy the first 20 hours twice or thrice than waste my time just to see those ending credits.

Older gamers are often somewhat jaded (been there, done that) and spoiled by good games of the past. And since 2014 there's an oversupply of good RPGs. I played 23(!) RPGs last year and I could not finish all of them.
I noticed that the attention span of younger gamers is noticeable shorter in all kind of games compared too my own youth. I don't know why - maybe the many possibilities of entertainment nowadays.

It directly ties into this other article about whether RPGs can be too huge.
I put a rather long post into that thread and basically the same applies here:
http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1061325679&postcount=7

But besides of that also the circumstances changed of course. Back in the 90s I played the games I got my fingers on. However:
-I didn't earn money yet, so it was harder to buy games
-PCs which could actually run all the games were more expensive than today. Today you are fine with a PC which is 5 years old. Try that in the 90s. So it's even less money left for games
-Information about Games wasn't available everywhere as it's now with the internet
-You couldn't just pirate the game from the internet, you needed to someone, who knew someone who had a cracked version
-No digital distribution. Even if you wanted to buy games, you needed to do so in a games shop or from some catalogue. Now if you live on the countryside and need to ask your parents each time you want to buy a game...

Also today lots of yesterday's gamers tend to have less time, due to family or work

But the limitations left me with games I had access to. Which again had 3 results:
-I wasn't as connected to a certain genre. I just played almost everything: Sports games, Economy Sims, Action Games, RPGs, Racing Games, Adventures, Puzzle Games, Shooters...and lots of them were actually lots of fun if you give them a chance. But today you have a huge amount of games you can pick, and basically everything is on hand via steam.
-When I didn't like a game, I put it aside, but was extremely likely to give it another try later on. And a third or fourth try, because I was bored with other stuff
-Likely you also put more time into games you have.

So I'd say, that while games have to improve certain aspects to be interesting for a longer time, there is also some demographic change in how games are consumed.

I think the real problem here is the lack of time. I have lots of time when I was in school. For example when Baldur's Gate and Arcanum came out I was in university and finished each of them in a month. All I have was time then. Now my work and my family takes much of my time. It took me six months to finish Divinity Original Sin alone. There are so many great RPGs to play but not enough time. Now I'm playing Risen 3, Lords of the Fallen and Dragon Age Inquisition at the same time. Wasteland 2, Lords of Xulima, Witcher 3 and many more wink at me from my desktop.

@Gokyabgu: And I am the complementary example: My amount of time stayed the same. And I am still finishing almost everything and play only one game at a time

To really get invested in a good RPG game, you have to endure some sort of mental hurdles - whether they be in-game puzzles or simply figuring out a way to proceed with the story. Nevertheless, the age of the Wiki has transformed any such expenditure of effort into a meaningless google search, turning what was once a personal and meaningful process into a shopping list of things to do. This has analogues in the user interface of contemporary games as well with journal, map, and PoI entries.

Furthermore, if such information isn't readily available, gamers get antsy and frustrated because they have been conditioned to want and get such information immediately.

So why do many people not finish their game? Because once you go past a certain game length threshold, all the wiki searching, quest updates, and new PoI markers becomes overly tedious. There is nothing there to break you out of your routine. What you are left with is a seemingly neverending list (quite literally) of things to do.

And that actually starts with a manual (or lack thereof when you pirated the game). You spent some amount of time to even learn how to play the game. Once you did that investment you are more likely to go on instead of learning to play another game.

I almost never finish a RPG. But in my case, this has nothing to do with time limitations. What I find interesting about a game is game mechanics, rules, innovation on game design and, at a certain degree, graphics and music. When, after 30-40 hours, you have seen all that, the only remaining thing is storyline. But I usually find extremely unatractive and boring storylines -about heroes making FedEx work and mass murder to save the world.
The exception to that rule are compulsive RPG, like Diablo-likes, rogue-likes, etc. As compulsive time killers, you never expect something really new or interesting.

Fun with architecture is more about seeing well designed houses that living in them. In the same way, for me, fun with RPG is more about seeing good game designs that playing with them.

I finish almost all games I start. If those are finishable at all - you can't finish Sims for example.

Some games that do have an end I just couldn't finish. No, those were not superchallenging where I lacked of skill. Those were so boring and annoying I just couldn't bring myself to be tortured more.

The Guardian missed to spot that finishing games depends on the quality. If a game is fun, hell who won't go right up till the end? If a game is not fun, who cares for it's end?
There is another reason I believe the question Guardian asks is nonsensical. It's the famous redgreenblue masseffect trilogy ending. It mattered.

It's a bit of an odd way to frame the question - does it MATTER that people don't finish their computer games? No, it doesn't matter at all.

Well, it does. If 100% players only played 4/5 of a game, and 0% finished the last 1/5, then would be a clear statement, that the developers either have to improve the last 1/5 or cut it.

Kordanor said:

Well, it does. If 100% players only played 4/5 of a game, and 0% finished the last 1/5, then would be a clear statement, that the developers either have to improve the last 1/5 or cut it.

Click to expand...

But if they cut the last 1/5 of the game, they'll have a new last 1/5 of the game for no-one to finish - it's an infinite regression!

Enjoy the ride while it lasts. Gaming is meant to be enjoyed, and if that means not finishing the game because it has become un-fun for you after some time, then so be it.

It's about the journey and the good times you have with the game while it lasts. Doesn't matter if you finish it or not.

Fluent said:

Enjoy the ride while it lasts. Gaming is meant to be enjoyed, and if that means not finishing the game because it has become un-fun for you after some time, then so be it.

It's about the journey and the good times you have with the game while it lasts. Doesn't matter if you finish it or not.

Click to expand...

I agree.

I feel less "fulfilled" when I do not finish a game I start, but that fulfillment is about enjoyment and if I do not continue to enjoy a game then I will stop playing it. I enjoyed Pillars of Eternity a whole lot but got tired of it after maybe 30 hours so I stopped playing it (though I may end up going back to it again later this year), while DA:I was enjoyable throughout my 120 hours so I did complete that.

As to the general question is whether consumers are eager to purchase video games that are unable to sustain an overwhelming majority of gamer's interests through game completion, I think the answer has got to be a resounding 'no'. But despite the article's title, IMO this article was primarily about something else. This was an article about PoE, or perhaps PoE verses other similar RPGs.

I did finish PoE. But I wasn't pleased with the ending experience. IMO the character of the game's ending was completely different than the game up until that point. Before the ending PoE was a game of doing and exploring. The ending became a task of reading books; studying religions; and similar academic tasks. This isn't to say that the academic tasks weren't present in the rest of the game. They were; but they weren't required to the same extent as they were in the game's ending.

It is possible that some gamers might have spent more time, or as much time, on reading books, studying religions and similar academic tasks, as compared to exploring and learning by doing, throughout the game and not just at game's end. Therefore I cannot say that the game experience changed at game's ending for all gamers.

I can say that the game experience did change for me at it's ending. I'm comfortable saying that I would never have reached the game's ending if the game structure at it's ending was consistent with the game structure before that. For me that change mattered. For me that change definitely impacted the overall value of the game. It did not ruin the game experience, but it definitely hurt my experience of playing the game; and it decreased my desire to replay the game.

__

Only two games that I've played over the years I didn't finish, they were Dragon Age Two and Mass Mess Three. Every other game I've played since the 70's I've completed, cannot imagine not finishing a game once I start. If they are really good, at the end I'm already planning what I would do differently on the next run.

Games are entertainment so once the part of being entertain are gone in the game I am not sure what the point is of finishing it is.

I personally don't play many games these days because once I start something I like to finish it. Investing the time in something I have zero interest in after a few hours just isn't a good use of my time.

Does it matter not at all, just like it doesn't matter if I walk out of a movie, don't finish a book, come home early from a vacation etc. None of these things matter even if we start them never mind finish them.