| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Why people don't finish video games. https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6953 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Foamy [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Why people don't finish video games. |
Link This article rung very true to me. While on the topic...I have quite a backlog of games yet to play. Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 are among them. For many of the reasons in the article, I got only a little bit into ME1 before putting it down. I would love to finish it and see all of what it has to offer, but I also want to get into ME2 so as to pave the way for ME3. Should I hang up ME1 for now and delve into ME2, or just plan on finishing the trilogy sometime in the distant future. |
|
| Author: | Numbuk [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why people don't finish video games. |
I think their example of Red Dead Redemption probably isn't the best example. There is a point in the game where it appears that you may have completed the game (a bit unsatisfyingly too). It's not until you go to a specific town (without anyone telling you to do so) and find a specific person where you realize there is just one more thing you have to do to get the credits to roll (far more satisfyingly). It would not surprise me if many players missed it. |
|
| Author: | FarSky [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is why I don't understand when people ***** about a game only being 10-20 hours long. Yes, games of yesteryear were 60+ (like JRPGs). Two things about that, though. 1. Most of that was repetitious, boring grind. 2. Who has time for that? Look, a two-hour movie will cost you $10(+) to see in a theater, or $20 to purchase. So do the math...even at 10 hours, which is giving you more entertainment for the cost? I'd rather pay for a shorter game (with better production value) that I'll finish, than drop $60 on a game of which I'll never see half. |
|
| Author: | Foamy [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why people don't finish video games. |
(Referring to console games) I would have to say that I still do prefer a game that has a hefty single player experience as I do not get much out of online play. I will likely let my XboX live subscription lapse as I rarely, if ever, play online. -I don't have the time to sit and wait for an adequate matchup. -I can't stand that the online community is overrun with little kids that curse more than I think I have in my life, feel the need to call you names and insult you for bad play because you don't have countless hours playing like they do. -To avoid this, I would like ot play with friends, but it is rare that I can find someone to play with as it seems our taste in games is different. Give me a game with equal parts single and multi and I will opt for the single player most of the time. I may not get a chance to finish it, but I like to enjoy getting there. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
FarSky wrote: This is why I don't understand when people ***** about a game only being 10-20 hours long. Yes, games of yesteryear were 60+ (like JRPGs). Two things about that, though. 1. Most of that was repetitious, boring grind. 2. Who has time for that? GOOMH. I think the 10-15 hour mark is my sweet spot, right now. A really good game with an escalating sense of tension, novelty, and difficulty that doesn't feel like a repetitive grind can keep me engaged maybe up to 30 hours these days. And I can think of maybe two games that I've *replayed* after finishing them. |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Which brings us to perhaps the biggest contributing factor in the decrease of lengthy campaign modes. It is this: Gamers may say they like playing epic single-player games. But when push comes to shove, what they really want is online multiplayer. No, that's not what I really want. I *hate* online multiplayer. I want compelling single player content. ME 1 and 2 are perfect examples. I buy games to be entertained. Kiddies that can't shave calling me a fag because I'm not as twitchy as they are is not entertaining. |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Online gaming would awesome if it weren't for the online gamers... |
|
| Author: | Mookhow [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Online gaming with friends is fun. Online gaming with strangers is not. |
|
| Author: | Noggel [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why people don't finish video games. |
I will raise the flag for long games. That's not to say that short games can't be great, too, but just being long does not mean bad or painfully drawn out. Note that I speak almost entirely of RPGs in this case... both J and umm... western? The really, really, really long games become almost like a novel to me. I read books, but it's pretty low on my priority list of things to do in my free time. Usually around 1 chapter a night on average. This turns a 1000 page book into an epic task that pushes 2 months to complete. In some ways I actually prefer this to grinding through a book in 1-2 days, since that way the book is over so soon. In the same fashion, I've enjoyed long games like Persona 4, where I have pushed over 200 hours in one playthrough. Definitely a portion of that is grindy stuff, but I think there's a place for that in certain genres. Actually that game in particular is a bit strange since it almost makes the non-fighting stuff grindy... could play for awhile without getting into a battle, for example. :p But I digress. It's likely just one of those ingrained personal preference things. I'll wager that those who like long games (and probably MMOs?) tend to be fans of RPGs... but take an average Halo or Black Ops (games with legit single player, mind you) and I'm pretty sure you won't find much support for the 50+ hour games there. They're just different experiences altogether, which brings in a lot of room for an individual's preferences. edit: I also love replaying old games! I don't know if that fits into the gamer archtype that likes long games or not... but I suspect there may be some correlation. |
|
| Author: | darksiege [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
big reason to not finish games... you find out the game is just crap. I just cannot get into little big planet, or PURE or FUEL, or CoD: Black Ops. But... I beat Assassin's Creed Brotherhood in 30 or so hours, and now am still running around. The story was that good. As were the other two. Infamous, holy christ I did not expect that ending. I have over 100+ hours into fallout 3, I keep replaying Bioshock 1 and 2. I have played God of War I, II and III over and over again. Hell I even managed to get 100+ hours into Oblivion. |
|
| Author: | Raltar [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't mind 10-15 hour games as long as they aren't RPGs. But if an RPG can't push 25 hours, it isn't worth the money I spend. I just expect much, much more from an RPG than I do other types of games. |
|
| Author: | Lonedar [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
FarSky wrote: This is why I don't understand when people ***** about a game only being 10-20 hours long. Yes, games of yesteryear were 60+ (like JRPGs). Two things about that, though. 1. Most of that was repetitious, boring grind. 2. Who has time for that? Look, a two-hour movie will cost you $10(+) to see in a theater, or $20 to purchase. So do the math...even at 10 hours, which is giving you more entertainment for the cost? I'd rather pay for a shorter game (with better production value) that I'll finish, than drop $60 on a game of which I'll never see half. ^^^ This!!! ^^^ |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why people don't finish video games. |
I think video games should be ... different. I have an idea for ... episodic open world games in established IPs. I think it would work. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why people don't finish video games. |
Khross wrote: I think video games should be ... different. I have an idea for ... episodic open world games in established IPs. I think it would work. Sign me up. |
|
| Author: | Raltar [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Open world usually means less focus on character development and story, which are the two most important parts of a video game. Also, episodic content means something can be cancelled before a story is finished...which would be pretty horrible as we see with TV shows all the time. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why people don't finish video games. |
Foamy wrote: Should I hang up ME1 for now and delve into ME2, or just plan on finishing the trilogy sometime in the distant future. Think of a game like an interactive book. In Mass Effect's example, each game probably has more content than a book. Would you read Return of the King without reading Fellowship? I read probably 200 words a minute because I hear the lines out loud in my head as I go along. For me, that makes a 20-hour epic game into the rough equivalent of a 600 page novel if my averages are correct. |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why people don't finish video games. |
Khross wrote: I think video games should be ... different. I have an idea for ... episodic open world games in established IPs. I think it would work. I think there would definitely be a market for this. I think the hard part would be finding a genre, and then a (continuing) storyline, that was popular enough to keep people coming back. It would require some really good writers (as opposed to video game programmers)... |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I did post the joint Trion/Syfy venture here back during E3, didn't I? |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|