CNN: Why people don't finish games they play...

Almost always do finish the games I play. That is, unless I do another playthrough, then get bored.

I've barely finished most of the games I own.

As for filler, I enjoy random encounters, but pointless forced "side" missions is where it gets annoying. Or super long puzzles that pad out the game. I don't enjoy those at all. Ironically, Sonic The Hedgehog 2006 doesn't have that exact problem. The game's long, but not because of padding.(unless you count the last story as padding)

Quest 64 thread

I finish games most of the time. Especially RP Gs although I still need to finish Phantasy Star 1 and 2. I find older games to be harder to finish than newer ones really. These days I just think gamers(in general) are lazier, have a shorter attention span and expect things to flow rather than be worked for.

edited 20th Aug '11 8:16:15 AM by Vertigo_High

I wonder how much ending fatigue has to do with story/gameplay that doesn't draw the player farther and farther or if it's actually just people who don't want to commit the time.

"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." Twitter

I'm slowly becoming the same way too. Unless a game really manages to grab my interest and keep it, I might stop playing it after some point. That, or Real Life/Work/College gets in the way and takes my concentration elsewhere.

For instance, I've got both Amnesia: The Dark Descent, Just Cause 2, Terraria, and the Witcher 2 installed thanks to the Summer Steam Sale. Yet I've only finished Just Cause 2 and am trying to beat Terraria (LOL like that's even possible), and have completely forgotten about the other two mentioned. But what's more is that I've already pre-ordered Deus Ex 3 and Battlefield 3, and they're coming out pretty damn soon...

Just ain't enough time for all of them anymore, I guess.

I think the reason I finish games is that for the most part, I don't buy a game until I finish/give up on a the one I'm currently playing so I can spend the minimum amount of money.

Although I do have a bunch of games I bought in bundles due to Steam sales and I haven't touched them.

"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." Twitter

while my finish rate has rised in recent years...

as far as western rpgs go...i just cant bring myself to finish them

its pretty jarring, honestly. i can spend 80+ hours on a jrpg i loathe and consider to be horrible, and finish it, but i cant last more than an hour and a half while playing a wrpg, let alone get further into the game than the first quarter

Oh, another thing that makes me unwilling to finish games is CT Ds (or other Ganme Breaking Bug). I often stop playing and go to something else when one happenes.

Bug test your bloody engines Bethesda! (Un)Equiping an item should not crash the game!

Finding things got Lost Forever can also kill interest (Loved Lost Kingdoms 2, but finding out I got stuck with the bad ending very far back with no indication anything else could happen killed my intrest to finish. Only recently restarted.).

edited 20th Aug '11 2:19:22 PM by deuxhero

I'm mostly the opposite. It's been a while since I've played a Jrpg that didn't have a generic take-over-the-world plot. (not that I've played much, to be fair) If I'm going to spend 80+ hours on a game, I want atleast a plot that isn't generic.

With Western RPG's, they're much shorter, so it bothers me less. If you're going to be a long game, the story better be interesting enough for me.

Quest 64 thread

I usually play a game until either I get stuck (usually a boss fight), or a new game I want comes out. This combined with my addiction to the internet makes it so I usually just play a little of a lot of games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFmGNqji4u0

this is a bad thing.

You can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat!

I tend to find three factors affect whether or not I finish a game (leaving off games like Tetris which technically have no ending).

1) Length.
2) Difficulty.
3) Whether or Not I'm Enjoying It.

If the game is short and easy I probably finished it even if I didn't rate the experience very highly. Longer games though, tend to depend heavily on the third one. I'm not gonna B.S. here: I have plenty of time to finish a 50 hour game. But if your game is shit, then I'd rather use that time to go through Street Fighter II as Dhalsim. And I don't give a damn about critical acclaim—a lot of 50 hour games really are shit. Padded, overburdened shit.

edited 20th Aug '11 5:05:02 PM by MoeDantes

visit my blog!

The problem with this subject, especially when it comes to "length and padding" is that many of the times they exist for a reason.

In order to have a deep gameplay or story, a lot of time will need to be devoted to teaching your the mechanics and developing the moods/character respectively*

.

If you can't stand to play games that are long, it's likely you like simplified games or games with shallow stories. There are such things as short games with deep stories, but those are really rare, and often they're games that relies on the existence of other games to get anything out of their stories.

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

There's the alternative of restricting the player to the main story entirely or making the increasing amounts of side content utterly superfluous. For example, Morrowind and Oblivion can be finished in under 5 hours (extremely generous estimate) if the player sticks to the main story alone.

When people talk about padding, they're not talking about content that helps add depth to the gameplay or story. They're talking about content that has no purpose save to make the game longer by forcing you to repeat actions that you already know how to do.

I also disagree with your assumption that length and depth are directly correlated. For example, Portal was an extremely innovative but also very short game despite teaching you something new almost every level for the first half of the game, while I can think of plenty of generic shooters that were four times longer and had no depth other than 'point at bad guys, click guns, strafe to not die.' Yes, more length does inherently allow for more meaningful content, but there isn't a straight link.

How about we tone down on the 'people who don't like what I like are shallow' style condescension, alright? If games can be considered art just as much as a novel, then a short game can be considered just as potentially artistic as a well-written poem or short story.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

That's where the

came from.

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

And that statement is still biased, in the sense that you're assuming that long games are inherently deeper. They're not. Especially if you start looking at the online multiplayer ones....

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

Let's see... I feel that Team Fortress 2 has more depth than a bunch of other shooters today. Of course, this also has to do with the fact that Valve releases the Meet the Team videos and whatever.

Also, by depth, I mean the characters are all unique, which is reflected in both the gameplay and their personalities.

edited 21st Aug '11 7:23:04 PM by tvsgood

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFmGNqji4u0

I neeeeevvveeerrr count online multiplayer portions of a game since they're often a shadow of what the game is supposed to be. For example, Diablo2 practically cuts out all the cinematics in online mode, and a playthrough consists of hiring a level 99 character to blaze through the game for you while you sit in the sidelines and watch while picking up loot.

I'm always speaking strictly about the single player campaign unless I make note that I'm not.

---

Regarding this thread......Team Fortress 2 has no place here since that game is unbeatable.

edited 21st Aug '11 7:24:37 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

Portal and Portal 2 want a word with you.

As does Braid, Mirror's Edge, Gratuitous Space Battles, Passage, Zork........

"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." Twitter

What about MMORPG's where online multiplayer is the main game?

That certainly counts towards game length. Why wouldn't it?

And finishing all the current campaigns, getting every item, atleast having one character at max level...

Any game is beatable if the conditions are there.

edited 21st Aug '11 7:37:18 PM by Hydronix

Quest 64 thread

Mostly because you can't beat MMO's

"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." Twitter

^^^ I replied to Portal already. Also, while I never played the rest of the games you mentioned, Mirrors Edge is not a good example...it's short...and it further reinforced what I said about short games.

^^ But you can't finish MMO's. The very title of this thread is about games you can beat.

edited 21st Aug '11 7:40:28 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

I just explained how you could. If you go by the game's standards. Okay, not the best example.

Anyway, now for an actual thing: There are online games that have endings as is. Online Campaigns. Heck, there's multiplayer games that can be beaten as is. Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, Four Swords Adventures. Just two examples.

Quest 64 thread

Mirror's Edge is a great game with a meh story. There is a difference. And at least in my mind, games come down to play, not story.

"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." Twitter