CNN: Why most people don't finish video games

[23skidoo]

Here's an interesting story posted today on CNN.com, looking at why many game-players rarely actually finish the games they start:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/08/17/finishing.videogames.snow/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Some food for thought there. My thoughts as to why some never finish?

- Many games just "end" with no real payoff. Portal and Portal 2, on the other hand, provide access to a couple of great songs by Jonathan Coulton if you play all the way through. But then again they're short games...

- And length is definitely an issue, I think. It took me 3 months to complete Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and even then I didn't do everything in the game. Attention span is definitely an issue.

- Some levels get too difficult. I'm all for challenge in a game, and one of my issues with the GTA games I've played is that the later levels are way too easy, especially if you obtain (without cheats, even) certain weapons. I finished Vice City Stories on the weekend, and because I was able to purchase a railgun earlier in the game as part of a mission, I mowed down the game's final big bad in 5 seconds flat, without taking any damage at all, leaving me with a "that's it?" feeling. But the opposite is also true where I've abandoned games because I hit a glass ceiling or a level that simply was impossible. If a game stops too many of its players for too long to the point where they leave the game for another, it's a failure.

- Repetition. Some games, especially ones where the point is to go all Ash on an unending stream of monsters, can get old fast. I'm playing Serious Sam right now and I'm already starting to lose interest only about 1/3 of the way in.

- Lack of interesting characters. People seem to want stronger storylines and characters with their games. Half-Life 2 and Halo set the bar in that area, with HL2 being particularly strong in creating a supporting cast that makes you want to get to the next cutscene. One reason I enjoy the GTA games is because of the characters, not so much the mayhem. Sort of like the pay-off bullet above, players need an incentive to put up with repetition and slog-work and reloading dozens of times on a hard level. If the payoff is a great character scene with Alyx Vance, Carl Johnson or Gladous, they keep going.

So what, if anything, keeps you from finishing a game?

Alex

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Repetition plus difficulty equal loss of interest, for me. Each game kind of has its own novelty factor, too, and once that wears off there'd better be something else to keep me going.

I keep going back to Civilization games, for instance, because every game is a unique experience and I never know quite what will happen. It's different every time, and at the end of each game you get to see your graphs and replays and see just how well you did. To me, that's a nice payoff.

In games where you have a more or less linear campaign to play through, it's frustrating if you keep dying in the same spot or you feel like the game isn't really going anywhere. I started playing Dragon Age: Origins recently and I like how things don't stay status quo for very long--the storyline throws new curveballs at you, and new environments and enemies to tangle with. Those keep it fresh as you progress, I think, and it's not a terribly difficult game.

I think a lot of people are like me and have a pretty low threshold for frustration with video games. Life is frustrating enough without video games adding to it. I want it to be challenging enough that I feel like it took some effort to win, but not so hard I have to play the same sequence 20 or 30 times in order to progress. To combat this, I think it's best when games do one or more of the following:

1. Allow you to buy your way past a difficult segment.
2. Automatically lower the difficulty if you're struggling (or ask if you want it lowered.)
3. Offer multiple ways to get through a particular segment, each emphasizing a different skill (e.g. strength vs. stealth vs. communication).
4. Offer hints when you're stuck and don't know what to do next.

I find games a lot more enjoyable when they do the above.

I don't find overall length to be a problem, as long as the game has logical stopping points for me to take a break. This is another strength of Dragon Age, I've noticed. The quests are just long enough that you can get through each segment in 30-60 minutes (or so.)

Honestly, I quit playing a lot of games just because I get bored or stuck and don't feel like screwing with it.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Main thing is difficulty for me. If a game becomes too difficult to the point that it's no longer fun, I tend to put it aside. There's a point in HL2 that ramps up the difficulty very quickly near the end. I couldn't get by it without using some cheats as it was too frustrating. The part in the forest where you've got to launch those bombs at striders, which is made even more difficult by the fact that there's no easy way to gauge where that sticky bomb will go in terms of throwing arc, making it a lot of guess work.

 

[Peak]

Yeah, I haven't even finished Minecraft yet...

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yeah, I haven't even finished Minecraft yet...

Ah, but one of the nice things about Minecraft is that you make your own goals. Much like real life, you never win, you just do a little better each time.

 

[Kemaiku]

I'm guessing the "Ash at the monsters" remark is aimed at the ED franchise games. I'm playing both PS2 games the last week or two and enjoying them quite a bit, the problem solving of both takes more time and effort than the shooting the Deadite stuff, if you're doing it right anyway.

 

[Kelthaz]

So, in short, most gamers don't finish games because they're casual and/or social gamers? Well, yeah, kinda already knew that.

 

[Kelthaz]

Here's a more interesting article on the same topic from a gaming site rather than a news site which still calls video games "The Nintendo". Ignore the generic title; it's a pretty interesting article.

1UP - Why People Don't Finish Games Amymore

 

[Temis the Vorta]

"Most people" never were into games to begin with. The social media games have expanded into previously non-gaming audiences because they are casual and easy. The difficulty of games have always been the factor limiting their appeal.

 

[JarodRussell]

Anyone finished Minecraft yet?

 

[Peak]

For anyone who really wants a "goal" in Minecraft, I can recommend Vech's "Super Hostile"-series (currently trying to beat "Sunburn Islands" myself):

http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/191908-ctmcollection-☠-vechs-super-hostile-series-☠-01-out/

Have you ever been playing Minecraft and said to yourself "Man, I wish this could be harder... I haven't died nearly enough today."? In the spirit of I Wanna Be the Guy and Kaizo Mario World, these game maps will be very difficult.

 

[Obiwanshinobi]

I just lose interest after awhile on single player games, which is pretty much why I just play fighting games.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I've finished more games than most people.

But I think, over my lifetime, I've played a lot less than some of the really hardcore people.

 

[Dac]

Depends on the game - last year I completed Red Dead, Mass Effect 2 and Halo Reach. This year the only game I got was LA Noire, and I've still not finished that.

 

[-Brett-]

How are we defining "finish"? I've heard people say that it means getting all of the achievements, shooting all the pigeons, completing all the challenges, collecting all the collectables, unlocking all the armor pieces, etc etc.

Most of the time, I'm content just to finish the story mode and then, depending on the game, play it again just for kicks, go on random shooting sprees, go to multiplayer, or just move on.

 

[RoJoHen]

Most of the time, I'm content just to finish the story mode and then, depending on the game, play it again just for kicks, go on random shooting sprees, go to multiplayer, or just move on.

This is me. I'll play the stories and whatever side missions there might be along the way, but I have no interest in getting 100% completion. Once the story is over, I usually don't care enough to go back.

My roommate, on the other hand, won't stop playing a game until he has beaten every last bit of it.

 

[Kemaiku]

I don't usually, but I've recently got all 180 Red Rings in Sonic Colours Wii and the 96 on the DS.

 

[darthraidr]

length and difficulty.

"back in the day" games were only a few hours long. think back on the old NES games. outside of the RPG stuff, most games could be beaten, and were planned to be beaten in one play through.

now, those games were more difficult, because there was still an arcade mentality in design. you want a player to lose lives, and have to continue (spend another quarter). most of that mentality is gone now (most games dont have a concept of "lives" any more, and if they do, it's probably strongly worth abandoning).

the market was also smaller, and there were fewer choices for gamers. gamers were more harcore and willing to put up with hard difficulties because there werent other options, it's what they were used to, and gaming was still pretty niche.

 

[Kelthaz]

Most of the time, I'm content just to finish the story mode and then, depending on the game, play it again just for kicks, go on random shooting sprees, go to multiplayer, or just move on.

This is me. I'll play the stories and whatever side missions there might be along the way, but I have no interest in getting 100% completion. Once the story is over, I usually don't care enough to go back.

Yeah, I'm the same as you. I'll usually play all the levels in a game (getting every star in Mario Galaxy), but outside of that? It's just a waste of time.

 

[Yoda]

If I'm still having fun with the gameplay I might go back and 100% stuff. For example I found Mass Effect fun enough to do just about everything you can do in a single play through, but not quite fun enough to play through AGAIN just to do some different choices and see the effect on the story. At that point it was YouTube time.