Yeah, I don't know that the rate of people who "finished" a game is actually very significant.
There are just so many other factors that determine this, unrelated to the game's actual merit.
Cave Story is one of my favorite games ever and I never quite beat that final level. I remember trying it about 10-15 times and then just getting busy with something else in life and I never went back to it.
And I'm okay with that! It was still a wonderful experience! The fact that I only made it 99% of the way through really says nothing about the game itself.
Yeah, I could see how that would be quite frustrating and defeating. There was no satisfaction greater than fully completing a game. Can you imagine reading a book with some of the chapters missing and requiring external resources to read?
I have a hard enough time actually finishing games, I rarely if ever go back to repeat them. The only games I've ever played more than once (IIRC) are Dead Space I & II and Hollow Knight.
An unusual case where the horror game parts actually hurt the experience of the game. Perhaps in another time it would have been an adventure game instead.
tbh you don’t have to finish the Cosmic Ocean — by that point you’ve experienced the whole game. It’s your own expectation that you need to “finish” that’s causing you grief.
This seems quite far removed from the issue being discussed. Having features late in the game that you don't enjoy hardly means the game isn't fit for purpose. That's like saying a novel isn't fit for purpose unless you enjoy the ending.
I am not a completionist. I can't really put my finger on why I kept playing, possibly it was because the end goal was inevitable and the only thing separating me from it was time and tedium as opposed to any real difficulty. Possibly I just had nothing better to do at the time.
Thank you yes, fair point. the cutscenes can get quite outrageous, and I refuse to play the games that do in app purchases and the like, so I have an unrepresentative sample in my experience.
I think this is the point for me. I really love the concept of these games. The world building and lore is incredible but I don’t have the time to invest to make any progress. Instead any playtime is confusing and frustrating and then I have to stop before I’ve time to make and progress to counter those feelings.
A game like Jedi Fallen Order is a Souls like game and I make some headway with it before eventually throwing in the towel and switching to easy mode once I couldn’t defeat a particularly difficult boss.
Another issue is performance. These games have always been choppy and that doesn’t help.
> I assume the dual intent of such dead ends were to make things seem more "realistic," as real-world errors are often permanent and aren't always immediately apparent, and also to extend the playtime.
Yeah, I'd consider it a design flaw of the game, if it would reach a dead end that way. A better solution would be to turn mistakes in consequences of the story itself. I.e. not mechanically being stuck on something, but the plot taking a different turn, environment changing in different fashion and so on. I.e. reactivity of the game should reflect those choices and mistakes in more organic fashion. Even better, the game could provide alternative solutions to problems, allowing to work around previous missteps even at later stages (but may be requiring more effort and time).
I'm one of the 68.5%. I bought it on a sale, played it for like 30 mins, decided I really just hated that type of gameplay, and never touched it again.
The bigger concern for me is getting to the end of games I actually enjoy. What normally happens is something comes up in life that stops me from playing for a few weeks, and then when I try to pick it up again, I've forgotten how to play!
This article seems to ignore the fact the point of a game isn't about reaching the end, its almost by definition about the journey. Just because someone didn't tick that particular checkbox it doesn't mean that there was too much in the game, just that they didn't tick that checkbox.
Unless the game is single player only and very tightly on rails, completion is really dumb metric of game quality. Even when it is one of those games, is it a bad thing if a game contained enough content to deliver a satisfying enough experience that someone is full before then end? And still has more to go back to if they get hungry again? A game can have an unnecessarily padded length that turns a player off, but thats a separate issue. That case is an issue of level design and game quality, which are not measurable only by completion rates.
I know games are software Skinner Boxes, but if they actually care about player experience, they're optimizing towards the single goal of completion a surprising amount. On this issue they don't, it's the business side thats driving the look at length and completion rates. They care about being able to sell more titles. This article is a showing where the industry (as far as the AAA space) is going, shorter games.
Less in a single package means more sales. If completion rates are low, someone who wants more of game X can just go back to the software they have on the shelf. If the game is designed for a high level of completion, it drives DLC sales. A lower average time per title means that it will be sooner that the next title is bought.
Same on Consoles. The ratio of Players who completed the Story of "The Last of Us" on Playstation (a game praised for its outstanding storytelling), is a mere ~28%.
What's even more interesting: Almost the same stat applies for the PS3 (27,2%) and the PS4-remastered (28%) release.
--> Something caused 72% of all players to NOT complete this game, on BOTH generations of the console. That's a metric you would file as opinionated if your playtesters would tell you that...
reply