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

Sacred_Path said:

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

Click to expand...

Without statistical accuracy accompanying that statement, it speaks a grand sum of zilch *shrug emoji*

I like very much to end the games I'm playing. Major problem nowadays for me is the high number of good games coming at the same time. When I was young there was not so many games around (or at least I didn't have access to them so easily).

Thanks for that link - those thoughts have been on my mind a lot of late. There seems to be a SERIOUS disconnect between what we gamers say we want (more more more!) and what we actually use when given.

HiddenX said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think the people who are gamers has changed drastically. Back in the olden days you had to really be into computers just to get games running. Knowing expanded from extended memory takes patience and better-than-average IQ, too. Many of today's gamers couldn't get those old games started and many more wouldn't want to spend the time it took to learn how to do that sort of thing.

There's also the matter of game availability. There simply weren't as many games to play back then. New games between April and August were particularly rare, giving you plenty of time to play a 120 hour game. Now you can barely get 30 hours into a game before something else shows up that looks fun!

For me personally, I feel like a kid with an unlimited budget in Willy Wonka's candy store.

I was blessed to have awesome parents growing up who gave me money to rent video games at the local store for my SNES and NES consoles. I'd scour every game in the store and always pick out the RPGs to play. Did I mention the store was about a mile's walk from my house? It was the most fun-with-anticipation walk you could imagine, though.

Anyway, back then, you got one game rental, maybe for 3 to 5 days. At that rate, you had to play the game A LOT before sending it back, and even when you sent it back, you rented it again immediately, or kept it late and paid a late fee. When I discovered Chrono Trigger, for example, I actually kept it a month late! My mom was not too happy to pay something like a $20 late fee for this game, haha. :lol:

Anyway, with the invention of the internet, apps like Steam, sites like GOG, there is just *so much* to choose from, that when the first hint of boredom strikes, I'm already on to the next one.

I don't think it's anything to really over-analyze or anything. Kids today are as sharp as tacks. My niece can handle a phone, Ipad and all that jazz better than I can, and I thought I was fast! The world is not ending and no one is getting dumber. If anything, kids are smarter than ever.

Sorry for the long rambling, I'll stop now. Good day to you all!

Humanity has risen! said:

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

Click to expand...

So, actually humanity has fallen?

Pibbur who couldn't resist the bait, but who agrees with he-who-has-risen about the distractive power of the 'net.

I tend to think playing an engaging RPG is definitely a commitment. They all need time invested to get a full enjoyment out of it, compared to lite-RPG, more action based games like Diablo.

The difference is that I lack the time to fully get into these games. I was a university student when I was playing IE games. I had plenty of time. I was looking forward to getting into story/lore/world whatever the games throws at me (providing they are interesting enough). Now, I find myself getting irritated by amount of texts/info being thrown at me. That's how I feel. Need focus. Chore. Boring. Tired. Don't care....

In saying that, I can't say I would have enjoyed PoE if I had more time. Having more time may help as I might be more patient to get to learn about world/lore etc... but I don't find any NPCs, story or world particularly interesting.

Of the 5 people I know who have this in their steam none have finished it, but that is because we are all waiting for a couple of months for the patches. Nothing to do with the quality of the game.

At least, players who have not finished a product have started it.

People buy products they never use, do not even learn the product. Zero to one hour put in the product and zooo, it is over.

Does it matter if people dont even try the product they've bought?

Matter to whom?

To me no, it never has, it isn't about the destination it's about the journey.
Although it's nice to reach that destination once in a while.

Let me check. DAI - character driven....Errr...no.

But here are some simple things: PoE, Wasteland 2 or Divinity: Original Sin are still patched or tweaked. Many people i know postponed their playthroughs until a definitve version is out. Wasteland 2 has the GOTY incoming with lots of new things, tweaks and balancing. D:OS has an Enhanced Edition, same as Wasteland 2. PoE still needs patching and has an expansion coming, plus further balancing and tweaking. Witcher 3 has free DLC's coming, plus 2 expansions (most of my friends are on hold for the Director's Cut, Enhanced Edition, or wahtever). Add to that the patches.

So, yeah people won't finish the games right away, even the good ones, because they get out incomplete, with tons of bugs and everyone waits for that definitive edition. Most of my recent RPG's palythrougs were done after a complete edition was out or they've finished releasing DLC's and patches. I wanted a complete experience, not something to go back every time when something new came out.

Many people did not finished or played DA:I because of the ridiculous requirements. they've bought the game, but they did not realized that they don't have the hardware for it. Also...DA:I makes Amalur look good...And the Steam crowd has the attention span of a kid (well, most of those peep, anyway). And how can you tell how many people finished the game when many of the modern RPG's (and not only) have a DRM free version?!

I also know a lot of people that buy their games (with DLC's, expansions, etc), but they play a pirate copy, because they don't want to deal with Steam, Origin or UPlay. How do you quantify those people?!

And to be honest, i don't have many problems with modern RPG's. I usually burn through them and manage to finish them in less time than many of my friends, but, again, RPG's are my favorites. And i play them since, well, forever...

Valkyria Chronicles
Began recently, finished recently. Very rare!

Blackguards v1.6
Began recently and binge playing it with multiple restarts, since no respec option. Will finish then begin Blackguards II v2.2, which I like even better.

Pillars of Eternity
Began couple of months ago, nice graphics, fantastic atmosphere on the 1st map, but the whole game collapses, when I build a party of six and have to endure the horribly botched mess, the PoE designers did with the combat system. Cannot bring myself to to further than Act I. Its a ruin of a game: nice entry gate, then as you step into the "shrine" you notice the futility of it all..

Confession:
I do find it mildly frustrating when players attempt to speak or write somewhat authoritatively about a game in its totality without having accrued the arguably vital experience of completing it first hand. Misconceptions about a game can easily occur either way yet ultimately in principle at least, I'm more likely to closely consider the opinion of one who has evidently completed a game than one who speaks loudly yet has not. That's just how I roll.

For me, it's a personal "gamer" principle which is laced with a certain amount of pride.
If I start an RPG, I'm going to make every effort in my commitment required to complete it. For me that is part and parcel of gaming. This completion of the circle is also arguably integral to the hero's journey to borrow a metaphor from Campbell's monomyth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces
In short - my characters never quite feel "complete" if I've left them deep inside a dungeon with the hardest two levels remaining. The over arching objectives can sometimes override mere enjoyment.

There's no reason for a long RPG experience to be streamlined into a device for pleasure or mere distraction. The concept of "gaming" itself in the traditional sense implies a set of objectives and rules by which to achieve these aims. Perhaps the "gamist" in me wants to reach these destination objectives just as much as enjoy the journey itself. Ideally wherever possible, these two ideas should exist in unison and indeed in the best games, they most certainly do.

Also, there's nothing quite like enjoying the credit sequence after a wonderful adventure comes to its conclusion (desired or not) and inwardly sighing, putting one's feet up, sipping a beverage and reflecting upon what was.

HiddenX said:

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.

Click to expand...

My theory is that this is maybe some kind of "training" by gaming companies by giving them only games which … require ? … low attention spans.

I mean, FPS games … You move to one spot, do something, move on to the next … MOBAs and Action-RPGs fill in the same thing : Sort (or not so short) battles, but then moving on to the next or repeating it …

Anyway, short attention span is the same reason (among others) why Adventure Games died out, turn-based combat games … It all take so much time …

Me, I'm currently playing the Adventure game called "Keepsake" - a nice game, by the way, apart from the a bit overly long walking paths - and it seems to take forever as well.

I sometimes wonder whether I'll finish games, too. I never finished BG because of too much combat-centric for my personal taste ... And every game has its own reasons, I guess. Maybe it has something to do with taste, too ?

Alrik Fassbauer said:

My theory is that this is maybe some kind of "training" by gaming companies by giving them only games which … require ? … low attention spans.

Click to expand...

That is not what is happening.

I mean, FPS games … You move to one spot, do something, move on to the next … MOBAs and Action-RPGs fill in the same thing : Sort (or not so short) battles, but then moving on to the next or repeating it …

Click to expand...

Will only deal with MOBAs.

First, MOBAs are PC gaming. They are games that were designed for PCs.
Second, they were designed to sustain the requirements of a professional scene.
The end term of these type of games is either making money off playing them or funding players who make money off playing them.

As a consequence, differences in level between players must be enhanced.
MOBAS are an exercize in paying attention. A player must play attention during 30 to 50 minutes, pay attention to many things. That is one way to distinguish between players.
That is also why they demand huge training as players must automate many mechanics to pay attention on what matters.

Anyway, short attention span is the same reason (among others) why Adventure Games died out, turn-based combat games … It all take so much time …

Click to expand...

UGOIGO requires a low level of attention, every action is sequenced, you only have to take into account a few moves at a time, you can back pedal to see what's happened, UGOIGO is what gold fishes might be able to play.
Nothing to do with MOBAs, FPSs etc

Comparatively to the games designed for a professional scene, they do not take that much time. The games aiming for a professional scene requires often one thousand hours in practice before starting to play them. They also can support players who train 10 hours per day, 330 days per year or more.
That is a lot of time spent on games.

I don't really know if it matters. Did people finish all their games in the past?

For me, personally, the situation has changed in a very big way.

I used to have all the time in the world to finish games - and I used to have few responsibilities to deal with on the side.

In the past, the great games came out very infrequently. Maybe a few each year? These days, it seems a potentially great game comes out almost daily. Obviously, our standards have changed, too, and that means it takes a whole lot more for us to really spend time with a game in a significant way.

I've long since given up on trying to follow all new potentially interesting releases. I used to know each and every title on the horizon that might be of interest, and I spent ages simply looking forward to them and being excited about them.

That's completely out of the question these days, because I don't have the time to follow them all - and I've been disappointed by the hype too many times. Also, I'm just a lot more picky and it takes more to get me really excited. I'm not happy about that, but that's my reality.

Even with all that said, I'm trying to remember how many games I used to finish. The more I think about it, the more I realise that there were a LOT of games that I liked, but didn't finish. I did finish MORE games, it's true, but that's easy when you're not playing 10 games at once.

The thing about having so many games isn't that I only finish a few of them, it's that I finish almost none of them - because there are constant distractions.

In the past, a great game came out - and you'd have nothing like it for months. Meaning you had no distractions, really. So, you finished it because that's what was there to finish. Sure, it was fun, but if I'd had 10 games on the same level, I'm not sure I'd ever really finish any of them.

But does it matter? I don't know. I think the amount of games getting released matters - and I do think it influences how games are made - and why we're seeing games that start out great, but lose steam along the way.

If we look at games like D:OS, WL2 and PoE - it seems all three have issues with quality during the last half of the game. Apparently, reviewers have either ignored that - or they haven't considered it important enough to seriously detract from the final score. Potentially, most reviewers might not even have completed those games with a clear mind - which is what I tend to suspect.

Kinda makes you wonder about that whole finishing games business.

As for whether it matters TO ME? - No, I really don't care.

But there's no denying that there's a unique feeling of satisfaction when you complete a really good game. Not much comes close to that.

Even when you're not enjoying a game all that much, you still get closure. For instance, I literally forced myself through Witcher 1 last year, and I'm happy that I completed it. I didn't enjoy it all the way, for sure, but I still feel like I accomplished something.

I wish I could finish more games - because I really like that feeling. But I'm way too curious about way too many games to be able to focus on just one at a time. Only once in a blue moon that happens.

Incidentally, I've played nothing but Witcher 3 these past few days Yesterday, I played it 10 hours in a row. That hasn't happened since Last of Us Remastered - which was last summer.

Wow that's … unexpected. Only 6.4% finished Pillars of Eternity? I didn't expect that. I mean, I am no retro fan at all, I don't want the hardships of the past back, but PoT wasn't so difficult. Very strange.

The idea to NOT finish a game is... weird to me. I only stop playing the really bad ones. I played probably thousand or more games in the last 30 years, but the few I stopped for the finish are so few I can probably name them all. Maybe I just have a very good sense for what sort of games I like? Just an idea.

I buy tons of games and I don't finish all of them at all. I often get bored of something or something "better" catches my eye.

For example Pillars of Eternity. I enjoyed the dialogues and the storylines. I enjoyed the bleak world and the way it was all structured, but the combat is a mess in my opinion. They could have done with less filler combat and make it turn based. That would give all of the abilities - with some of them very "original" - a much better run for the money.

So I played the game for about 20 hours and then just stopped. I couldn't get myself through another annoying fight.

I knew I might dislike the combat, but I thought I should give it a try. It turns out I won't finish the game.

On another aspect, I love Gothic 3 and I played it probably for over 200 hours in total, but I never finished it.
My longest playthrough lasted for 100 hours and I did quite a lot, but I still didn't finish the game.

Long games with a lot to do I might never finish as I enjoy the build up often more than just trudging to the end, which very often is just a super massive dungeon with tons of filler combat and some boss.

On another hand, I played though Shadowrun Returns just now and if it were any longer, I would have probably stopped, because its linearity drove me mad.