Poll: What's a reasonable percentage to play a game till?

[Moromillas]

Maybe you should expand your poll a little. 8% is barely enough to see what the game is.

 

[putowtin]

I aim high 90%, but if I'm no longer having fun after the main story is complete, I'll drop it

 

[Pscyon]

New additional question then, does this make replayability less important in modern games?

A good story or fun playthrough does have replayability merely by being good, the replayability just might not be there until some months have passed. If I finished a game once then it is generally good enough to finish a second or third time around too, though it definitely helps having forgotten the game a bit so the story feels a bit new again.

Have finished RE5 several times due to the fact that it's freaking fun in co-op and the unlockables doesn't hurt either. Tis why I want another RE game; there might not be anything useful left in the story to justify another game, but mechanically speaking, they're finally doing the series right.

 

[Pearwood]

Until you get bored. Or until the search for that last bloody blue fragment makes you want to drop kick your tv through the window... maybe that's just the DMC binge talking.

 

[Conza]

New additional question then, does this make replayability less important in modern games?

A good story or fun playthrough does have replayability merely by being good, the replayability just might not be there until some months have passed. If I finished a game once then it is generally good enough to finish a second or third time around too, though it definitely helps having forgotten the game a bit so the story feels a bit new again.

Have finished RE5 several times due to the fact that it's freaking fun in co-op and the unlockables doesn't hurt either. Tis why I want another RE game; there might not be anything useful left in the story to justify another game, but mechanically speaking, they're finally doing the series right.

That's an interesting point, people often judge how good a game is by its 'instant' replayability (ME series for me, the first game, instantly replayable). But often games lose interest, then when people come back to them they may still have as much fun as they did originally.

Not familiar with the term RE5; Ah 'Resident Evil 5' (right?). Ok, so, well that kind of adds more questions then it answers.

Replayability of a story game doesn't seem to be based on how good a story is, from my point of view. To use the one story series I can speak confidently enough about, if ME3 was only good for 1 or 2 play throughs, I'd say it didn't do replayability that well, but if the story was just so epic, and did everything I couldn't even possibly imagine right now, I wouldn't care a bit that only the first play through was ever very good.

A Racing/fighting game, they're destined to be replayable, a story game I wouldn't think as much to be the case.

So the new question is now, would you rather have an excellent story, and not have replayability, or sacrifice the story detail, and have a game you'd play through 4 or 5 times +?

Additional: Most people are playing their games 60-89% according to my poll, which is really good, I think most games should fall within that range if they are deserving of it (worth even playing I mean).

 

[Korak the Mad]

It really depends on what the game is. I usually try to get 100% in the Metroid Prime games because you're able to unlock galleries, and you are able see a bonus scene at the end of the game.

There are some games that I've played that will unlock a difficulty mode only if you get 100%, I've this in some of the Kirby games. You unlock a mode in which you may only have half of your health, and if you beat that, you unlock a mode in which you can play as a different character.

 

[Pscyon]

So the new question is now, would you rather have an excellent story, and not have replayability, or sacrifice the story detail, and have a game you'd play through 4 or 5 times +?

That's an interesting question. I think I'd go with "good story" since that adds replay eventually when I don't remember the spesifics of the story and great story > fun mechanics. I'm not sure sacrificing replayability for fantastic story would be a sound move from a marketing point of view though, as not all people are me. Just look at all the "realistic" (*cough*, *cough*) first-person shooters out there these days. The single-player story mode is absolute rubbish (in my opinion that is) most of the time yet people keep playing them for the supposedly fun multiplayer.

Bought and played through Dead Rising 2 recently. It certainly has replay value due to the leveling mechanics, all the stuff you can craft, the various achievements you can get and the general fun mechanics of the zombie slaying, but the story just won't do it for me. The "Overtime Mode" was just a sad excuse to add an overtime mode since the first game had one, the stuff you had to do in it had absolutely nothing to do with the story yet you end up with a shit ending if you don't do it.

Small unrelated additional note: Yep, RE5 is indeed Resident Evil 5. And yes, Mass Effect is indeed an awesome series both when it comes to gameplay and story Though the dumbification ray that hit no.2 made a lot of things worse rather than better in my opinion.

 

[Conza]

So the new question is now, would you rather have an excellent story, and not have replayability, or sacrifice the story detail, and have a game you'd play through 4 or 5 times +?

That's an interesting question. I think I'd go with "good story" since that adds replay eventually

Oh, no, but you see there you cheated. You can't have your cake and eat it too, its either you have replayability, either eventually or instantly, or you have a game which was fantastic to play through, but only once, maybe twice.

A good example of the non-replayable, excellent story, would have to be, Half Life 2.

Great story, great gameplay, and I did play that game all the way through, exactly twice. There was a bit of a delay I didn't want to play it again immediately, but after I picked it up again, 6-12 months later, it was still good, but by the second play through, I knew everything that was going to happen (story wise), even if the occasionally the immediate game play mechanic had been forgotten, the end result was the same, and could never impact me the same way again.

But anyway, for the rest of your post now.

when I don't remember the spesifics of the story and great story > fun mechanics. I'm not sure sacrificing replayability for fantastic story would be a sound move from a marketing point of view though, as not all people are me. Just look at all the "realistic" (*cough*, *cough*) first-person shooters out there these days. The single-player story mode is absolute rubbish (in my opinion that is) most of the time yet people keep playing them for the supposedly fun multiplayer.

Yes, but MW/COD/WOW/EVE, ect, these don't count in terms of story, as they are MMO, even SC2, no one really cares about the story (although it was pretty well done, frankly), thats 95-99% multiplayer, so it would be devestating to have that not be replayable.

Bought and played through Dead Rising 2 recently. It certainly has replay value due to the leveling mechanics, all the stuff you can craft, the various achievements you can get and the general fun mechanics of the zombie slaying, but the story just won't do it for me. The "Overtime Mode" was just a sad excuse to add an overtime mode since the first game had one, the stuff you had to do in it had absolutely nothing to do with the story yet you end up with a shit ending if you don't do it.

Small unrelated additional note: Yep, RE5 is indeed Resident Evil 5. And yes, Mass Effect is indeed an awesome series both when it comes to gameplay and story Though the dumbification ray that hit no.2 made a lot of things worse rather than better in my opinion.

Heh, 'dumbification ray' I like it. Hate the uber fan boys who defend it to the end though, they just love it because in their mind 'newer game' is 'better game' so the sequel must outweigh the original. Or they just liked ME2 more, in which case, they obviously don't like RPGs, thus their opinion is still tainted some what (mostly).

 

[Scarim Coral]

It depends on how easy/ hard it is to fill up the percentage. If it something you missed on your first play through a second time will fit that. However if it's more complex (like you have to do it in a certain way to fill up that percentage) to fill it up then to me it is not worth it.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Depends on the game and on how you define 100%. Some people do crazy things such as get 99 of every single item but those things I don't feel should count towards even a 100% completion but others would disagree and since the TC didn't specify I really can't vote.

As for pokemon which was mentioned, to me going 100% would be catching and properly ev training every single poke, while breeding for natures and perfect IVs, which would take thousands of hours to do and indeed no sane person would attempt thus I don't expect people to go anywhere near 100&. Now, if it was a story heavy game and going 100% would unlock the true end, even if it was as hard as in FFX-2,,I'd still expect people to do it.

 

[rmb1983]

So the new question is now, would you rather have an excellent story, and not have replayability, or sacrifice the story detail, and have a game you'd play through 4 or 5 times +?

Additional: Most people are playing their games 60-89% according to my poll, which is really good, I think most games should fall within that range if they are deserving of it (worth even playing I mean).

Why do these have to be mutually exclusive? A game can have loads of replay value and an excellent story.
If I happened to think the story of Dragon Age: Origins was phenomenal -- it could be better, but that's beside the point -- given the game large variety of things to do, classes, etc., it still has a monumental amount of replay value, even barring the fact that you might enjoy the story.
There's been a few over the years that were just simple, straight-shot games, and I played them multiple times in a row, precisely because the story was that enjoyable, even if I already knew the twists. Who knows? I miss little things all the time, so I typically don't notice a couple things on a first playthrough.

Oh, no, but you see there you cheated. You can't have your cake and eat it too, its either you have replayability, either eventually or instantly, or you have a game which was fantastic to play through, but only once, maybe twice.

That's not cheating; see above. The two ideals are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, but MW/COD/WOW/EVE, ect, these don't count in terms of story, as they are MMO, even SC2, no one really cares about the story (although it was pretty well done, frankly), thats 95-99% multiplayer, so it would be devestating to have that not be replayable.

First of all, Modern Warfare/Call of Duty/Starcraft II do not qualify as MMOs. They do not maintain a "massive" number of simultaneous connections in a single game instance, and MMOs ARE, in fact, story-driven. Whether people actively pay attention to it isn't relevant; they're still taking it in, regardless of whether or not it's their primary focus.
It's also unfair to capitalize on shooters, because believe it or not, the majority of their titles have actually had pretty damned good stories. True, the majority of the game's lifespan will be spent playing multiplayer, but the quality is still there.

Heh, 'dumbification ray' I like it. Hate the uber fan boys who defend it to the end though, they just love it because in their mind 'newer game' is 'better game' so the sequel must outweigh the original. Or they just liked ME2 more, in which case, they obviously don't like RPGs, thus their opinion is still tainted some what (mostly).

People are allowed their own opinions. Many aspects of Mass Effect 2 were worse than the first, but I happened to enjoy it more simply because of the story. That doesn't allow you to state that my opinion holds less water than yours. You're welcome to think less of me for that opinion all you like, but it effectively just makes you as guilty of what you're suggesting as the fanboys who defend the glaring flaws.

In any case, the poll itself is still flawed. Assigning a percentage value to game completion needs some sort of basis, and it really becomes moot when you consider that some games may or may not stop being fun at one specific point or another, and you're bound to put it down whether the story has been told or not.

 

[Conza]

So the new question is now, would you rather have an excellent story, and not have replayability, or sacrifice the story detail, and have a game you'd play through 4 or 5 times +?

Additional: Most people are playing their games 60-89% according to my poll, which is really good, I think most games should fall within that range if they are deserving of it (worth even playing I mean).

Why do these have to be mutually exclusive? A game can have loads of replay value and an excellent story.
If I happened to think the story of Dragon Age: Origins was phenomenal -- it could be better, but that's beside the point -- given the game large variety of things to do, classes, etc., it still has a monumental amount of replay value, even barring the fact that you might enjoy the story.
There's been a few over the years that were just simple, straight-shot games, and I played them multiple times in a row, precisely because the story was that enjoyable, even if I already knew the twists. Who knows? I miss little things all the time, so I typically don't notice a couple things on a first playthrough.

Oh, no, but you see there you cheated. You can't have your cake and eat it too, its either you have replayability, either eventually or instantly, or you have a game which was fantastic to play through, but only once, maybe twice.

That's not cheating; see above. The two ideals are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, but MW/COD/WOW/EVE, ect, these don't count in terms of story, as they are MMO, even SC2, no one really cares about the story (although it was pretty well done, frankly), thats 95-99% multiplayer, so it would be devestating to have that not be replayable.

First of all, Modern Warfare/Call of Duty/Starcraft II do not qualify as MMOs. They do not maintain a "massive" number of simultaneous connections in a single game instance, and MMOs ARE, in fact, story-driven. Whether people actively pay attention to it isn't relevant; they're still taking it in, regardless of whether or not it's their primary focus.
It's also unfair to capitalize on shooters, because believe it or not, the majority of their titles have actually had pretty damned good stories. True, the majority of the game's lifespan will be spent playing multiplayer, but the quality is still there.

Heh, 'dumbification ray' I like it. Hate the uber fan boys who defend it to the end though, they just love it because in their mind 'newer game' is 'better game' so the sequel must outweigh the original. Or they just liked ME2 more, in which case, they obviously don't like RPGs, thus their opinion is still tainted some what (mostly).

People are allowed their own opinions. Many aspects of Mass Effect 2 were worse than the first, but I happened to enjoy it more simply because of the story. That doesn't allow you to state that my opinion holds less water than yours. You're welcome to think less of me for that opinion all you like, but it effectively just makes you as guilty of what you're suggesting as the fanboys who defend the glaring flaws.

In any case, the poll itself is still flawed. Assigning a percentage value to game completion needs some sort of basis, and it really becomes moot when you consider that some games may or may not stop being fun at one specific point or another, and you're bound to put it down whether the story has been told or not.

Look, I'm not going to disect it and tell you why you cannot, have your cake and eat it too, its simply the rules of the question, let me restate to reflect its boundries.

If you were making a game, would you rather have A. an excellent story, and not have replayability, or B. a sacrifice in story detail, and have a game you'd play through 4 or 5 times +?

I gave you an example of mutually exclusive, don't go on about how all games should be perfectly good at both, there are plenty out there that only do one, HL2, and my list of Online games (be them Massively Multiplayer Online or not), are the context.

There we are *then goes ahead and reads the post anyway*

I believe, when discussing DA, you mean to say, despite not liking the story? Might want to clarify that there, either this hypothetical player liked the story and replayed it, or didn't like the story, yet still replayed it. Anyway.

Very valid point, some stories are so good you want to see/play them again, I'm like that with some movies and television series I've seen 3-4 times over, again, the question went to the fact that you wouldn't see/play them that many times, but still loved them the first one or two times.

Well it is cheating frankly, because I said it was, and its my question, I don't mean to use the word maliciously, all I'm saying is you were breaking the confines of the question, which limit your choice to one, or the other and not both.

Well I'm certain all the games I listed maintain at least 8 multiple connections to either a host or server, so, whilst not MMORPGs, they have massive amounts of people, they are played online, and they are played mostly with multiplayer, so how do they not fit the definition?

I never said people aren't allowed to have opinions on the game, I simply said why many of them are overwhelmingly biased through the lens of that precursor 'newer games will always be better'. Really? Nah, thought the story couldn't hold a candle to the first, it had a definitive start and an epic finish, yet still leaving room for a sequel. The second makes you beg for the sequel, and look, its a middle game, so it'd be the hardest to story for, but I feel that game didn't live up to what it could've been, and leaves me scared to know how much story they will/not cover in the third. We'll see.

Oh no, there's nothing in there that says why my opinion is 'better' than yours or anyone elses, in fact, it is impossible for an 'opinion' of any kind to outweigh another, pure and simple (thats a fact, not an opinion), excluding when it comes to facts, eg. not believing in gravity.

Not guilty, but that statement was based on the premise I believed as such, so I'll leave that.

Well its not really flawed is it? You think its flawed, but in the sample size of *looks up and calcs* 109, 40 people only play through once or twice, another 40 play between 60-89% and the remaining 29 people play in all the other possible categories listed. So the only flaw is its lack in sample size, which is completely out of my control, if people want to post/vote here, then I hope they do, otherwise that's all I can ask for.

 

[rmb1983]

If you were making a game, would you rather have A. an excellent story, and not have replayability, or B. a sacrifice in story detail, and have a game you'd play through 4 or 5 times +?

I'd rather have A, since I apparently mis-interpreted your question.
Still doesn't change the fact that I believe the poll itself is a pretty hard sell, because so many factors can make your general idea of what a percentage signifies fluctuate distinctly. Depending on what a player thinks of a game, that view could change dramatically. I know you specified Achievements, so we're running on that, but a lot of times, that nowhere near scratches the surface of a game, and others, it will result in forcing you to play a game beyond its means for that elusive 100%...if that's the sort of thing you're interested in; I am, but to each their own.

I gave you an example of mutually exclusive, don't go on about how all games should be perfectly good at both, there are plenty out there that only do one, HL2, and my list of Online games (be them Massively Multiplayer Online or not), are the context.

I wasn't suggesting that all games should be good at both. Many companies make said sacrifices.
I was simply pointing out that games COULD be good at both, and that the two criteria are not, indeed, mutually exclusive. Either way, it's completely subjective, as my DA:O example was trying to point out. I personally thought the story was excellent, but just a couple steps away from top-notch. Others may feel it's the best or even worst story ever. It's all a matter of opinion that reflects what gaming experiences you've had in the past.

There we are *then goes ahead and reads the post anyway*

While I doubt you meant it that way, this comes across as pretty condescending.

I believe, when discussing DA, you mean to say, despite not liking the story? Might want to clarify that there, either this hypothetical player liked the story and replayed it, or didn't like the story, yet still replayed it. Anyway.

No, I did not mean to say "despite". This is why the note of what I personally thought against the example of a hypothetical me was presented as an aside.
In any case, "despite" its very minor failings, it's a game I enjoy playing quite a bit.
Hell, I enjoy playing Bionic Commando (the 3D romp, with the voice of Mike Patton [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Patton][footnote]SenseOfTumour, you sly bastard, you![/footnote] on a fairly regular basis, and by all means, the game really is not that good.

Well it is cheating frankly, because I said it was, and its my question, I don't mean to use the word maliciously, all I'm saying is you were breaking the confines of the question, which limit your choice to one, or the other and not both.

The original question didn't really specify this, hence my confusion. It felt like you were ret-conning once people interjected their opinions.

Well I'm certain all the games I listed maintain at least 8 multiple connections to either a host or server, so, whilst not MMORPGs, they have massive amounts of people, they are played online, and they are played mostly with multiplayer, so how do they not fit the definition?

Because MMOs require the stipulation that a single game world contain a rather large number of simultaneous connections. By the sort of logic you presented, pretty much every game in the past ~6-7 years would be an MMO.

I never said people aren't allowed to have opinions on the game, I simply said why many of them are overwhelmingly biased through the lens of that precursor 'newer games will always be better'. Really? Nah, thought the story couldn't hold a candle to the first, it had a definitive start and an epic finish, yet still leaving room for a sequel. The second makes you beg for the sequel, and look, its a middle game, so it'd be the hardest to story for, but I feel that game didn't live up to what it could've been, and leaves me scared to know how much story they will/not cover in the third. We'll see.

That's fair, but I also held the opinion that many held a negative bias against the second games' story because of the ret-conning that Bioware did when establishing canon. Personally, I just had a harder time getting into the first game's story than the second. It wasn't a matter of when the game came out, whether or not there was a number in the title, who made the blasted thing, or whatever someone else said about it, just personal taste. I agree it could have been much better, but that wasn't what I trying to get across; I was simply illustrating that whether or not you liked the game, it seems a bit harsh to use it as criteria for the validity of someone's opinion.

Unless, that is, they're a fawning fan(boy/girl). In which case, their opinions are completely biased, and while they're still entitled to them, should largely be ignored.

Really, Captcha? Really?
EDIT: I entered that Captcha exactly as you would have expected ("get over it"; no, not "NOO!!", but funny nonetheless), and I got an error on it. Followed by "lickety-split"? This new Captcha system is...odd, to say the least.

 

[Akihiko]

It depends on what you're doing. If you're playing it for enjoyment, then play it until you don't enjoy it anymore. If you're reviewing a game, you should atleast play 60% of the game in my opinion, and that is the bare minimum. You should really complete it, but with some genres that is nigh impossible to do when you only have a small amount of time to publish a review. If you are unable to complete it, or play the multiplayer part, or something I think you should say that in the review, so people know.

 

[rmb1983]

Maybe you should expand your poll a little. 8% is barely enough to see what the game is.

Mabey you should try reading his post before you make stupid comments like this.

It's a valid point. Anyone who honestly only gives a game 8% of its span (regardless of the criteria used; Achievements, storyline, etc.) really isn't giving it a fair shake.
Silly comment, indeed.

 

[Moromillas]

Maybe you should expand your poll a little. 8% is barely enough to see what the game is.

Mabey you should try reading his post before you make stupid comments like this.

Mbeya we need less trolls on Escapist. /sigh

 

[lacktheknack]

It kinda depends. 33% is perfectly reasonable to fully enjoy "Titan Quest" (because the other 66% is running through the game twice more with better loot and monsters), and one can fully enjoy "Just Cause 2" with less than 20% completed, because of the nature of the game. On the other hand, you have to play 100% of "Indigo Prophecy" to get the full story and enjoyment (although no one would begrudge you stopping at the 70% mark, oh you crazy scriptwriters).

Basically, it depends on the game.

 

[SuperNova221]

I don't like grinding. So I don't care about % complete. Once I'm done with the game, if I think I can find enjoyment in it through something other than story, I'll do that. If I can't. I won't.