176: To Do: Finish Any Game
- Thread starter tendo82
- Start date
Games seem to have gone one of two directions: Become nearly endless (with tons of sidequests, sandbox play or something like an MMO which never, ever ends), or become almost too short, but very tightly constructed and with a compelling narrative.
I think success for the game industry lies in creating games that are both. Provide a short single player storyline that enables someone to feel like they 'beat the game', while giving the option to complete a wider variety of objectives for those who want to sink more time into the game.
World of Warcraft is a pretty good example of this - there are oodles of things you can do by yourself or with a small group that don't require looking towards beating the end bosses. But at the same time, those intent on grinding towards the end can do so, giving them the satisfaction of 'finishing the game'.
I think success for the game industry lies in creating games that are both. Provide a short single player storyline that enables someone to feel like they 'beat the game', while giving the option to complete a wider variety of objectives for those who want to sink more time into the game.
World of Warcraft is a pretty good example of this - there are oodles of things you can do by yourself or with a small group that don't require looking towards beating the end bosses. But at the same time, those intent on grinding towards the end can do so, giving them the satisfaction of 'finishing the game'.
This is very much an area where episodic releases come into play. Based on the points made in the article regarding duration of storyline, it would be fair to guess that more people would complete these games due to their shorter length. As the storyline in these games would progress much faster, people may get more of a sense that they are actually progressing through the game, and thus be more motivated to carry on playing.
Additionally, if the player does not like the game and chooses not to continue, then they probably would not feel like they had wasted a large amount of money, compared to the experience of paying for a 'standard' game and only making it half-way through.
Great article.
Additionally, if the player does not like the game and chooses not to continue, then they probably would not feel like they had wasted a large amount of money, compared to the experience of paying for a 'standard' game and only making it half-way through.
Great article.
I was reading the article and thinking the exact same thing. If the developer lets me invest just as much time, money, and energy into the experience that I want, I greatly admire them.domicius said:
On another point, I can't recall how many games hooked me into the story, but I just didn't have the energy to PLAY the game to finish out the story. I suspect that the article is correct; we are going to see shorter, front-loaded, or episodic stories going forwards.
Definitely an excellent article.
The games that really drew me in were constantly giving me new gameplay challenges as well as new story elements that made me wonder.
I also have to say that the "pick up and play" element really helps. One of the great things about Diablo II was that I could play for an hour, maybe even half and hour...and be done for the day. One of the reasons I cannot finish many narrative games is that I know that if I sit down, I'm going to want to be with that game for at least two hours uninterrupted.
I agree. Many games hook me in with their story. But often I start to lose the energy to actually finish the game once the gameplay gets repetitive. Or, as the article says, I've "figured out" the game and can predict what the opponents are going to do, easily counter them, and then move on.donbueck said:
The games that really drew me in were constantly giving me new gameplay challenges as well as new story elements that made me wonder.
I also have to say that the "pick up and play" element really helps. One of the great things about Diablo II was that I could play for an hour, maybe even half and hour...and be done for the day. One of the reasons I cannot finish many narrative games is that I know that if I sit down, I'm going to want to be with that game for at least two hours uninterrupted.
I have to completely disagree with your viewpoint on video games. I usually choose games specifically because of an extended narrative and view them in the same vein you describe for movies and books. It's an expected point of pride to complete the game (and here I'm using "complete" as you have: finishing the story arc) and it's only the truly poor games that I choose not to finish.
It simply sounds to me like you're trying to play too many games (a problem I must confess to as well). We don't have enough time to read every great book or watch every great movie, what makes us think we'd have enough time to play every great game?
It simply sounds to me like you're trying to play too many games (a problem I must confess to as well). We don't have enough time to read every great book or watch every great movie, what makes us think we'd have enough time to play every great game?
Oh - the Director's Cut of Legend is pretty good - you should see it 
Personally, I think you're looking at it all wrong. When you play a game, you are being introduced to a world. You can't expect to see it all in two hours any more than you can see London in two hours. It shouldn't be just like the movies - just over in two hours - and if it's anything like television, then that's because it's a longer-term investment of time and emotions, even if you don't see every episode and even if you stop watching before the end.
I stopped playing Vampire TMB before the end just like I stopped watching Nip/Tuck after series 3. Doesn't mean I didn't love either - and nor does it preclude me from going back to finish it another time. I saw enough to know that I enjoyed it very much and would recommend it. I'm under no obligation to rush out and buy season 4 tomorrow - nor am I obliged to load up Vampire and start again, having lost all my saves.
I finish some games, some books, and watch every episode of some TV shows - but those are rare. The important thing is to have seen at least some of it - like spending a few hours in different cities. They'll still be there when you go back to them, and Rome wasn't explored in a day.
Personally, I think you're looking at it all wrong. When you play a game, you are being introduced to a world. You can't expect to see it all in two hours any more than you can see London in two hours. It shouldn't be just like the movies - just over in two hours - and if it's anything like television, then that's because it's a longer-term investment of time and emotions, even if you don't see every episode and even if you stop watching before the end.
I stopped playing Vampire TMB before the end just like I stopped watching Nip/Tuck after series 3. Doesn't mean I didn't love either - and nor does it preclude me from going back to finish it another time. I saw enough to know that I enjoyed it very much and would recommend it. I'm under no obligation to rush out and buy season 4 tomorrow - nor am I obliged to load up Vampire and start again, having lost all my saves.
I finish some games, some books, and watch every episode of some TV shows - but those are rare. The important thing is to have seen at least some of it - like spending a few hours in different cities. They'll still be there when you go back to them, and Rome wasn't explored in a day.
It was done in Assassin's Creed. Sadly people either complained that it was too short or they complained that the side quests made it too long. Apparently many of those who want to reach the end fast also want to explore all the side quests, while many of those who want tons of side quests also want to finish the game NOW. As usual, some people can't be satisfied no matter what developers do.mattaui said:
COMPLETELY agree. I play through every game I buy to the end unless it's just a crap game. some games are fun for a little while but in general just aren't all that enthralling. those may well get good reviews, but they just don't have the holding power.ashtonium said:
I find that now that I have my own job, house and income I tend to want to buy every game that looks good, but when I do so I skip out substantially more in my gaming regardless of game quality. I've had to learn to buy only the most promising games available and play through those and then save the decent games for the slow seasons.
but Assassin's Creed's side quest content was boring and tedious in an extreme. who wants to crawl around rooftops for hours killing off the same guards over and over trying to find obscure flags just to say you found them all? I played through all of the old kirby games to 100% completion because I only had to find one doorway to get to that point, and I didn't mind doing so. the same with Super Mario World. today's games pack on hours and hours of tedium for players to sift through as opposed to coming up with actually FUN extra content.Beery said:
Thank God this is getting pointed out to developers more and more. Make the blasted games shorter and more episodic and people will finish them. Three hours is a torturous length for a film, why would a video game be any different?
Another good example of this is TellTale's adventure games. They're all fairly easy and have built-in hint systems. You can usually get through an episode in one to two sittings and enjoy the content before your attention span totally kicks out. I know the new Alone in the Dark experimented with it as well.
Why not just keep running with it? Why not have a Call of Duty come out that has five different episodes involving pitched battles in totally different wars and weapons? You improve value, you improve player experience, and you improve the game's options all at once.
Another good example of this is TellTale's adventure games. They're all fairly easy and have built-in hint systems. You can usually get through an episode in one to two sittings and enjoy the content before your attention span totally kicks out. I know the new Alone in the Dark experimented with it as well.
Why not just keep running with it? Why not have a Call of Duty come out that has five different episodes involving pitched battles in totally different wars and weapons? You improve value, you improve player experience, and you improve the game's options all at once.
I find I stop playing most games because they cease being a challenge - there is no question that I could complete the game if I wanted, its just a case of sinking 20 more hours into it. And I cant be arsed. Graphics may continue to evolve, but most games still have AI from the '90s - even games that make their AI a selling point on the box, like Supreme Commander, are cringe-worthy. There is no challenge in the single player part of most games after the concepts are understood.
The other problem I run into are bugs. I played UFO: Aftershock for a long way through, then my save got corrupted and that was that. X3: Terran Conflict I started, but again, bugs and poor AI made me decide to put the game down and wait for it to be patched into a better state.
The other problem I run into are bugs. I played UFO: Aftershock for a long way through, then my save got corrupted and that was that. X3: Terran Conflict I started, but again, bugs and poor AI made me decide to put the game down and wait for it to be patched into a better state.
Deus Ex combined length and narrative in a beautiful way. The plot always had a major question that needed to be answered at every turn, and it was its engrossing, player-defined approach to the game's solutions - both plotistically and physically - that made it such a great game. I personally mourn the shortness of many new games, especially if they are very well done, otherwise. I, for one, have no trouble beating games - even as a husband and parent - as I aim to get the experience I paid for. That, and I consider completing a game a sort of badge of honor. I think the newer gamers, spurred on by the excitement in the console industry, are mostly the ones who will jump from new game to new game, like a weekend fling. To them the approach to the experience of a new title is, "What's this like?" rather than, "How will this end?" They came, they saw, and made their judgement. The narrative seems almost unnecessary (Call of Duty games are a prime example of this. Many people who sink hundreds of hours into them online never played the singleplayer campaign.)
I agree. I used to be of the "play the hell out of a game until the disc is too worn to load" mentality, but nowadays I'm more impressed with a tight 4-6 hours experience with no downtime or redundancy. In a way, this is sort of a Portal vs. BioShock debate, and I think even the latter's most ardent fans will admit that you could trim a few hours from that experience.mattaui said:
I can't relate to this article at all because i complete the vast majority of the games i play and so do most of the people i know...so i have to say i'm suprised by the amount of people who have a agreed with you because i thought completing them was the whole point! It's definately teaching me another side to gamers.
I think one disincentive to completing a game are certain kinds of unlockables--the kind with the arbitrary unlocking conditions.
When you're 2/3 of the way through a game, the FAQ finally comes up, and you find out you can only get the best weapon/class/costume/whatever by having done random shit way at the beginning of the game, well, that's a good reason to pull the disc out right there and sell the game back out of spite.
When you're 2/3 of the way through a game, the FAQ finally comes up, and you find out you can only get the best weapon/class/costume/whatever by having done random shit way at the beginning of the game, well, that's a good reason to pull the disc out right there and sell the game back out of spite.
I can't say I finish every game I'd like to, but I do acknowledge a sense of accomplishment to doing so. In fact I tend to organize my games in certain levels of priority.ashtonium said:
Those which I truly want to play at that moment, once I'm done I go on to those which I usually want to play, finish the story arc, but am not all excited about. Usually these are decent games, but not the ones that completely immerse me in their worlds and entertain me hours on end. On the other hand, there are always are those games which simply do not make the cut. We try no to to buy those, but sometimes they're just no your style, aren't the type of game that demand extreme commitment, or simply suck to the point where you don't want to play.
Nevertheless, kudos for the article Tom. It reveals much the importance and difference between games and other mediums. A topic that must be and is continually discussed.