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

[irongamer]

"Any more?" Did people finish them in the past? It may matter to some people. I've played a lot of games over my lifetime. I often judge the quality of a game by its ability to keep me playing long enough to finish it. I tend to jump from game to game quite a bit, always seeking new gameplay mechanics. My friends which tend to play fewer games then I will often ask if I finished a specific game, if I did complete the game that often holds heavy weight on if they choose to pick up the title or not.

Studios still make a lot of money off games people never complete. Many games are setup to not really end these days and those with a story that ends often have added system to keep the game going.

Oh, and I finished Pillars of Eternity. Binge played it straight through.

 

[rjshae]

In some cases I simply haven't bothered because the final boss battle just feels like a tedious waste of time. But I did finish the large majority of games that I found myself enjoying.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

It's not even about time, it's about the staggering amount of distractions people have from the Internet which seeks them to seek new exciting news stories and YouTube videos instead of dedicating your time to a long endeavor like a game.

The Internet is making humanity worse by and large due to this.

 

[Asdraguuhl]

Generally, I always finish games and I do not like to leave them unfinished. And I also don't switch between games because I like to remain focussed on one game at a time.

But, I am also quite selective in my gaming and do not feel the need to play "everything". I do not pirate games, not even for demoing purposes, so when I buy them I try to to do my homework and read about them so that I can make an informed decision on whether I will enjoy them.

 

[CelticFrost]

The Internet is making humanity worse by and large due to this.

What is this statement even to mean?

 

[lackblogger]

My paranoia alarm is going off...

Since PoE came out we've been presented with three really bizarre 'essays' from which we're supposed to draw some kind of deep and meaningful conclusion:

1. Do RPGs have too much combat?
2. Are RPGs too long?
3. Does it matter if hardly anyone finished PoE?

Like there's some pool of people lurking in the background with reams of personal 'issues' they've been waiting to lunge upon an otherwise oblivious audience, to which PoE has somehow provided the perfect scapegoat.

PoE wasn't amazeballs therefore please listen to my hidden agendas ad-nausea until you scream Munch-style from the sheer dumbnuttery of the propositions.

The many, many different ways you could cite as to why this article is appalling (many already proposed by other contributors) would take a bigger wall of text than the article itself (and most likely contain a lot more facts) - so I shall suffice to say:

So what's the completion stat for Bloodborne?

Spoiler: spoiler

Didn't research that eh? Oh really, what a surprise...

 

[Humanity has risen!]

What is this statement even to mean?

Because it negatively affects people's ability to delay dopamine rewards, in effect, to make long and harduous tasks. Seeking an infinity of distractions on the Internet is far more "rewarding" in that sense. If you look at your family members, you will see how they go on the Internet for hours on end with no point or purpose. Or play match-3 games or other games that offer instant "rewards". You will also see how compulsive they are in that endeavor, it becomes almost a drug.

People finishing their games less is just one example of this. It will have an especially sad effect on the younger generations who were born on it. Another effect is that our attention span is greatly, greatly diminished, whereas in the beginning of the 20th century people would listen to a speech that would last for hours and not be affected.

 

[lackblogger]

^as I was saying...^

 

[Sacred_Path]

The high completion rate of people playing games 25 years ago is an indication of their low standards concerning electronic entertainment, if anything. That and the much smaller variety of available games back then.

 

[lackblogger]

Erm... how would anyone even know the completion rates of games "back then" (whenever that was...)

 

[CelticFrost]

The Internet is making humanity worse by and large due to this.

Fine don't answer the question or more like you can't because it isn't.

Originally Posted by CelticFrost View Post
What is this statement even to mean?
Because it negatively affects people's ability to delay dopamine rewards, in effect, to make long and harduous tasks. Seeking an infinity of distractions on the Internet is far more "rewarding" in that sense. If you look at your family members, you will see how they go on the Internet for hours on end with no point or purpose. Or play match-3 games or other games that offer instant "rewards". You will also see how compulsive they are in that endeavor, it becomes almost a drug.

Is not an answer on how the internet is making humanity worst. Those are your thoughts with no fact to them at all. Because Humanity has always been where it is at any given time.

The internet has nothing to do with humanity or your thoughts on how people should be or act. We will always do what we are to be doing at any give and point in time in history.

As for making it personal by using "your" instead of saying look at the family structure in general. I will answer that.

My wife doesn't have a cell phone.
I have a cell for work but not a personal one and when I am out with my family 85% of the time you will not see it with me.
My children 14 and 12 both have 32" TV's and PS4, barely use them.
They play hockey, baseball, skateboard, build ramps and what not for skateboarding I could go on.

It isn't the internet ….

 

[lackblogger]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885/

 

[Dez]

Well I usually finish what I've started. A singleplayer rpg game needs the ending. I need to know what happens to my character or world in it. i want to know if my actions changed anything. And it always puts a big smile on my face when the ending is well crafted and sums up the journey in meaninfull way.

Then again I know my taste pretty well nowdays and thus I'm a bit selective what I play. Even though games themselves have become a lot cheaper and I get to play more games now because of the ease of digital distribution and available funds, but I don't think i'm playing them more. So the lack of time kind of forces me to choose and not play any crap that is released as a videogame product

 

[TheMadGamer]

The high completion rate of people playing games 25 years ago is an indication of their low standards concerning electronic entertainment, if anything. That and the much smaller variety of available games back then.

Low standards 25 years ago makes no sense as what we might consider low standards by today's standards was cutting edge back then. At one time, pong was cutting edge. At one time space invaders was cutting edge. Standards naturally change over time.

You are closer to correct on lack of variety. Especially in the 70s and 80s new games were at a trickle compared with today.

One thing you leave out entirely from your analysis is cost. A $30 Atari 2600 cart would be about $86 today. Compare that cost to the whining on the net for premium games today at the $60 ($172 in 1980) mark along with all the free to play games that come out daily.

Between the slow availability of new games and their cost, you bet we played the hell out of pong, astrosmash, and that shitty version of donkey kong on intellivision.

 

[Arkadia7]

What a dumb topic for an article. They must have been desperate to fill space. Who gives a shit. Talk about first world "problems"...

 

[Sir_Brennus]

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 found him. My Mirror-Person. You, Sir, are the absolute opposite of my gaming philosophy. I entirly play for the story and am happy if the gameplay does not surprise me in any way.

 

[Mithter Thibbs]

It's not even about time, it's about the staggering amount of distractions people have from the Internet which seeks them to seek new exciting news stories and YouTube videos instead of dedicating your time to a long endeavor like a game.

The Internet is making humanity worse by and large due to this.

If Microsoft is to be believed, it's not solely the domain of the Internet to blame for the decreasing attention spans of technologically "wired" societies.

http://advertising.microsoft.com/en/cl/31966/how-does-digital-affect-canadian-attention-spans

Haha. Goldfish FTW.

 

[TheMadGamer]

Because it negatively affects people's ability to delay dopamine rewards, in effect, to make long and harduous tasks. Seeking an infinity of distractions on the Internet is far more "rewarding" in that sense. If you look at your family members, you will see how they go on the Internet for hours on end with no point or purpose. Or play match-3 games or other games that offer instant "rewards". You will also see how compulsive they are in that endeavor, it becomes almost a drug.

People finishing their games less is just one example of this. It will have an especially sad effect on the younger generations who were born on it. Another effect is that our attention span is greatly, greatly diminished, whereas in the beginning of the 20th century people would listen to a speech that would last for hours and not be affected.

I agree. I experience this with my two boys. They get very limited and controlled windows of free computer time. Many times when they get their free time, they want to watch random videos. It's gotten to the point where I actually have to insist that they HAVE TO play games and NOT watch videos. It seems nuts to me. And to make matters worse, seems like you tubers can't say a sentence without every other word being a profanity.

 

[Xian]

Any more? This has been around a long time. A good example is the PC version of Eye of the Beholder, circa 1991. If you made it to the end you got a one line congratulatory text and then unceremoniously dropped back to the DOS prompt. The Amiga version had a proper ending cutscene, but it would have required another floppy to be included with the PC version and since they figured that not many people would ever complete it, the added cost was not worth it.

Amiga EOB ending

 

[Sacred_Path]

Erm… how would anyone even know the completion rates of games "back then" (whenever that was…)

The fact that people were paying good money to get their hands on walkthroughs would seem to speak volumes, dontchathink?

I know that it's true for me - I didn't have a gazillion games to choose from, and I wasn't very picky about a game's flaws. Hell, the concept of balance in games rarely crossed my mind. Like some still are today, I was totally elated when I found ways to game the shit out of the system.