Why most people don't finish video games

The developers of Winter Voices tried episodic but I only bought the first one. As a consumer that is great as I only spent $2.50 to find I didn't want to finish. The developers arent making much from it though. Look at all of the games purchased in this thread which were probably full prce but not finished. Alas, I dont think that model is good for RPGs. Having said that I do think checkpoint and discrete zones of content are good. When you can chunk content into 30 minute or 1 hour blocks users can easily decide when to break.

I'm replaying Jagged Alliance 2 (with 1.13 mod) and really appreciate that I can plan to take a city or zone and know I can do it in reasonable time. I makes it easier to return to the next time. My most frustrating experiences have been jRPGs which had save points 1-2 hours apart as I couldn't just leave and come back.

Its not as simple as save anywhere. We need a reason to reload that save and to quickly pickup where we were at. I think a lot if modern games know this and are doing a decent job there.

I can't be certain, but I think I finish just about the same amount of games that I always did. That means, when I find a game that truly engages me - I tend to finish it, though there are times when I don't manage to get to the very end - simply because it's easier to get my attention than to hold on to it. But it was always like that.

It's a very "loose" thing, but if I were to make a reasonable estimate, I think I tend to finish one game every 3-4 months on average. So, I only get truly engaged in a game with that frequency - and I think it's been like that for, at least, 15 years or so.

That said, I "test" a LOT more games than I ever did - because I have access to a lot more games than I ever did. Frankly, I never predicted this level of exposure to games that I would probably have considered classics back in the day - because the frequency of quality games that actually work as advertised was MUCH lower years past. I mean, not only were there far fewer games released, they were also made by far smaller teams with much less experience. I'm not sure I can think of many games that I used to consider polished back then - and they all seemed to suffer from excessive balance issues and some such.

But, as we get exposed to more and more games, we also have that natural tendency to want more and more from them. I think of that as pure human nature. We always want more.

Unfortunately for me, I'm somewhat of an extreme in that way. In that, I generally only have to experience a "game design paradigm" once to actually set my bar to that level. So, if a game had certain features implemented to a certain degree of complexity/satisfaction - then that's what I'm naturally going to expect from the next game with the same set of features. So, it's an exponential curve given the pathetically low frequency of actual innovation in game design - and ironically enough - it seems to go hand in hand with the ridiculous amount of games released these days. When I say games released - I'm talking about the major platforms, all of which I have access to.

So, overall I guess I shouldn't complain. I also have this unsubstantiated pet theory that we all differ in how much we can "take" in terms of a satisfying and wholesome experience - like what it is, ideally, to play a game to completion. Just like any form of sustenance - there is only so much we can consume before we're full - and going beyond that, will never satisfy to the expected degree. So, no matter how great the games are - and no matter how many of them there are - I don't actually expect to change my ways in terms of the frequency of being fully engaged or how many games I finish. I will just add stuff to the backlog.

Now, I'm fully aware of the kind of person who completes games as a rule - and who obsessively needs to finish what he/she started. Personally, I very much doubt that results in increased satisfaction. Certainly, it would mean the opposite to my own person - but I expect that there's some level of satisfaction derived from the completion itself, rather than the experience of the actual game. I need to "savor the experience" - and I need to give each game that fully engages me a certain amount of "room to breathe". I need to immerse myself and I need to be able to think of nothing else when I play. I just can't do that over and over with every game that catches my fancy.

I have a strong reaction against the feeling of NEEDING to finish something. I feel like I'm being forced and then my enjoyment is tainted. Which is why I'll gladly stop watching a movie 10 minutes in, and I'll gladly stop playing a game if I feel it's not fully worth my time. My time is simply too precious to compulsively complete what I start.

However, quite obviously, we all play for different reasons and we all get different things from different experiences. Just as it should be.

Originally Posted by Tilean
Now, that I think more abstractly about the issue, I am quite interested psychologically why this happens. I assume that this is somehow connected to the dopamine emission occuring during multiplayer games, which probably don't occur so frequently during singleplayer games making them appear less satisfying on an instinctual level, while single player experiences are usually only satisfying on a more conscious level.

Interesting thought.

I had once made up a "theory" that action games produce lots of adrenaline, which can leasd to some sort of "addition" to it … I have read about real life hooligans saying they are beginning fights just for the "adrenaline rush" … It seems to produce some endorpines or dopamines or so in them, I suspect …

I tend to believe that there might be a connection.

Originally Posted by Tilean
Now, that I think more abstractly about the issue, I am quite interested psychologically why this happens. I assume that this is somehow connected to the dopamine emission occuring during multiplayer games, which probably don't occur so frequently during singleplayer games making them appear less satisfying on an instinctual level, while single player experiences are usually only satisfying on a more conscious level.

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
Interesting thought.

I had once made up a "theory" that action games produce lots of adrenaline, which can leasd to some sort of "addition" to it … I have read about real life hooligans saying they are beginning fights just for the "adrenaline rush" … It seems to produce some endorpines or dopamines or so in them, I suspect …

I tend to believe that there might be a connection.

Yeah it definitely makes sense - that would partially explain why FPS and other action games are so much more popular than more cerebral games like single-player RPGs. The "rewards" in these RPGs come in very different forms - and it takes more time investment to get them. Its not surprising that so many mainstream RPGs have moved more toward the hybrid action RPG / FPS format - they attract more players that way.

I'll say it again.

CRPGs are generally too long. The great works of western literature take less time to read than many of these games take to complete. CRPGs are mostly bloated with filler content that gets boring after a while. I don't care which company is making the game… after 30 hours, the story and setting get stale.

I'm not rich, but I can afford to play games. I'd happily pay 60 bucks for a short game that kept my interest for 8-20 hours. I really, really don't want a game that pads out its time with filler content for 100 hours.

Short answer to the question why I don't finish games: I get bored. Why should I slog through a long ass boring game if I'm bored by it?

Originally Posted by Myrkrel
Yeah it definitely makes sense - that would partially explain why FPS and other action games are so much more popular than more cerebral games like single-player RPGs. The "rewards" in these RPGs come in very different forms - and it takes more time investment to get them. Its not surprising that so many mainstream RPGs have moved more toward the hybrid action RPG / FPS format - they attract more players that way.

I don't think that the adrenalin rush plays a (major) part in this, but rather it is a matter of general accessibility. The common person don't want to spend hours learning the ins and outs of the system, (s)he just wants to sit down and blast some nazis. Just look at all the sitcoms out there, they are mass produced, very accessible (they require next to no effort from the viewer) and apparently very popular (as they seem to take up a large portion of the 18.00-21.00 block on TV). You won't get an adrenalin rush from those.

Of course you won't get amny adrenaline rush from Sitcoms.
They don't involve any action.
"Action" in the sense of what is done in so-called "action-games".

Originally Posted by Fnord
I don't think that the adrenalin rush plays a (major) part in this, but rather it is a matter of general accessibility. The common person don't want to spend hours learning the ins and outs of the system, (s)he just wants to sit down and blast some nazis. Just look at all the sitcoms out there, they are mass produced, very accessible (they require next to no effort from the viewer) and apparently very popular (as they seem to take up a large portion of the 18.00-21.00 block on TV). You won't get an adrenalin rush from those.

I agree, there's no doubt accessibility and simplicity are a huge factor in the popularity of action games. But I still think its interesting to examine the brain chemistry / psychological aspect Tilean and Alrik are talking about. I think it must factor into the addictive quality of these games.

I would counter that some of these very action oriented games aren't exactly grab and go either and some have kind of a steep learning curve. Mind you, I am not an action oriented game plauyer at all so I have little patience for such things. On the other hand, I like turn based where I can contemplate my move and it's not based on my twitch skills and reactions. I'm obviously not the average game player here.

For me, I find stories, when done well, addicting. I like when I get broadsided and something I completely didn't expect happens. I also want to care about the characters and the world else why should I bother? I do like exploration and finding hidden spots or just viewing some nice vistas.

I try to finish all RPGs I ve played. I just dont allow myself to play another game until I finish my current rpg. The only exception is when the game is when I am so adverse to the game that I turn them off after realising there isnt much about them I would enjoy so those dont count. Some games have been a pain to finish but I like the feeling of completing them.
Some games I havent finished I put on hold to finish later. I still have to give NWN2 and Gothic another go.

I hate it when I don't finish an RPG. I think I put 25 hours into Dragon Age before getting bored and quitting, intending to return. Now I barely remember the plot or where my character progression was. So I have to restart. It took me DECADES to finish Baldur's Gate, which as a life accomplishment I pulled off a few years back, restarting for the 5th or 6th time. BG2 I quit after 15 hours, so the cycle continues!

Originally Posted by ToddMcF2002
. It took me DECADES to finish Baldur's Gate, which as a life accomplishment I pulled off a few years back, restarting for the 5th or 6th time.

typically a good RPG takes me about 2 months. However it took about 6 years (and two tries) to finish Morrowind. I too quit Balders Gate a couple times, but now I just might have to get back into it, to beat your "Decades to Finish" record.

I tend to finish games I buy, but in some instances, I don't.

Reasons may be:

*Boreout (BG 1/2, DS, NWN, Wiz8) - games that for some reason don't manage to hold my interest for very long
*Technical problems/incompatibility (Myst IV, Uru, Syndicate) - the first two were too old for my comp when I collected them from the ground of some bargain bin, and my HDD controller died on the last one after I had reached level 48 of 50. I did not reinstall and replay the game even though I had greatly enjoyed it - it had been difficult to get to level 48.
*Too difficult (Cyberstorm 2, Tao Feng and Mr.Nutz come to mind) - entering level, getting killed, having no idea what happened
*Another, more interesting game comes along (a rare event) - those are the games I eventually finish months or years later even though I stopped playing them for a while.

NWN was the worst case of a boreout-induced game stop for me. Started it twice. Had a boreout the first time; I managed to get into chapter two but then I just couldn't play on - motivation just trickld away. Then friends tried to talk me into finishing it … it was a good game if I just could get beyond chapter two. Well, so I tried again, and still couldn't get past chapter two. My attention trickled away again, and that was that . I ignored it from then on: Yes, I know that there are tons of fan-made content for it, but I want to be able to enjoy my games OTB - that's what I buy them for.

MMO's….

Once I started playing MMOs it's been really hard for me to finish my SP games completely.

Plus I tend to purchase whatever catches my eye/interest (my pocketbook is bigger than my time allotment lol)

Though I do have better luck with ARPGs that are short on story….I enjoy story and the more true RPG games, it's just that many times I only have a small burst of time to play and I just want to be able to jump in kill some things and be done

But I do plan to continue my various SP games (in a loose rotation of current interest) till completed as the years grind on lol

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
Of course you won't get amny adrenaline rush from Sitcoms.
They don't involve any action.
"Action" in the sense of what is done in so-called "action-games".

My point of the cross medium comparison was that it is usually the more low-effort things that becomes popular, be it actionless sitcoms, a predictable book or simple shooters.

Err, well, most books aren't "predictable" … Okay, some are, I know, but some aren't.

Look at the top sellers. Most follow a rather predictable pattern. There are, of course, exceptions to this. At least over here they seem to churn out incredibly predictable police/detective stories, and they sell incredibly well.

Originally Posted by ToddMcF2002
I hate it when I don't finish an RPG. I think I put 25 hours into Dragon Age before getting bored and quitting, intending to return. Now I barely remember the plot or where my character progression was. So I have to restart. It took me DECADES to finish Baldur's Gate, which as a life accomplishment I pulled off a few years back, restarting for the 5th or 6th time. BG2 I quit after 15 hours, so the cycle continues!

I'm the same way.. especially in regards to taking too long of a break. I usually only play 1 RPG at a time, and I try to finish it before starting anything else. I remember trying to go back to a saved game in Morrowind after not playing for 3-4 months. It was impossible for me to get immersed in the same way that I was before I stopped that particular run.

One of the worst types of game to put down and try to get back to are JRPGs because they usually don't have quest logs - I went back to Chrono Trigger on the DS after a few months, and had to hit a walkthrough just to try and remember what I was supposed to be doing in that section.

I have a habit of restarting a game up to a dozen times and still not finishing it. Morrowind in particular comes to mind. I usually get sidetracked by sidequests and end up doing a ton of them, and by the time I realize there's still a main plot I'm bored of it and find something else.

Some games fail to grab me despite repeated attempts. Oddly enough, Witcher 2 is guilty of this for me. I LOVED the first, played it totally through twice, but on three separate attempts at Witcher 2 the furthest I went was the first Letho fight. It seems I either play a game a million times all the way through, or I barely tap into it at all. Games I actually finish usually end up being favorites of mine, and the ones I really like generally aren't well received by critics. One of my all-time favorites is Deadly Premonition oddly enough, along with other assorted low budget games.