TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Why most people don't finish video games

52 pointsby nickolaialmost 14 years ago

22 comments

jonnathansonalmost 14 years ago
A lot of this is probably a function of genre, and the popularity and prevalance of genres has changed substantially over the last 30-odd years.<p>This observation is based on a sample size of n=1=myself, so take it with a grain of salt. But the games I've finished have usually been the ones that had some sort of tangible or intangible progression dynamics built in. In other words, the further I got in the game, the more powerful my character became, and/or the richer the gameplay became. RPGs, adventure games, open-world games in which the player could grow more powerful or collect items, games where you built or developed something, etc.<p>Think back to the original Legend of Zelda. I bet that game had a much higher percentage of finishers than many games of its era had. Some of that had to do with novelty, sure. But a lot had to do with the progression of the character, the acquisition of phat lewtz, and the unlocking of secrets. Endgame Link was a substantially different character from n00b Link, and the progress from A to B was remarkably -- if simply and elegantly -- engrossing.<p>Interestingly enough, you didn't really think of it that way when actually playing the game. You didn't say to yourself, from the outset, "I can't wait to slay the demon and save the princess." Instead, you concentrated on the incremental step ahead of you: finding that next level; upgrading the sword; finding the boomerang, or shield, or wand, or what have you. You were very much in the moment, and not always (if at all) cognizant of the linear movement from beginning to end.<p>Contrast this with an FPS or platform game. Your character isn't remarkably different from beginning to end. The only thing that really changes is your skill level, and/or the items you collect (but which are usually expendable, or lost upon death and respawn). The gameplay is interesting, but it's self-contained in its satisfaction: you can derive the same amount of enjoyment from endlessly replaying a handful of maps in Modern Warfare that you get from actually finishing the story mode. And then there's multiplayer, which in many cases is so much more satisfactory than single-player that many players never even <i>begin</i> the story mode.
评论 #2903250 未加载
评论 #2903588 未加载
wccrawfordalmost 14 years ago
More "shorter games" propaganda, huh? -sigh-<p>Players don't finish games because they get bored, or they can't. Not because they don't have time. Because something else is more interesting.<p>Red Dead Redemption is an excellent example! I love GTA-style games. I fully expected to love RDR. I played about 10 hours and then felt I had done everything that I cared to and quit.<p>It was boring. The open world was too open, and not enough world. Travel took too long and had nothing interesting along the way. Quests were simple and boring, and didn't require any thought.<p>It might have gotten better, but I'll never know because I got bored and found something better.<p>Other games (GTA San An, Oblivion, FO3, FO:NV) held me to the end and then some. They kept me interested the whole time and I kept coming back for more, no matter how busy my schedule got.
评论 #2905353 未加载
评论 #2903344 未加载
patio11almost 14 years ago
Another reason, not covered in the story:<p>Of your production budget for games of yesteryear, ~90% went to creating art/story assets (which can be trivially stolen) and ~10% went to creating the multiplayer mode (which, if you host it on your servers, can't be trivially stolen). Multiplayer programming is more sophisticated these days than it was previously, but hasn't increased in expense by orders of magnitude. Asset budgets have gone up by over an order of magnitude.<p>Gamers influence the production of future games by voting with their wallets. They overwhelmingly vote for value locked down on servers (or consoles, I suppose) because <i>that is what they actually buy</i>.<p>Similarly, why do games with persistent characters keep doing well? Is it because gamers are completionist and we are learning how to push their buttons with regards to avatar attachment really well? Yes, true to a point. Is it because persistence is achieved via the server and this acts as DRM-by-stealth? Also yes.
评论 #2904012 未加载
评论 #2904110 未加载
tseabrooksalmost 14 years ago
Red Dead redemption is a poor example. The only reason I didn't play the "last mission" is because I didn't know it was a damned mission. Something HUGE and traumatic happens... Then the game sort've feels like it's over and there are no missions on your screen... I only found out about the mission later from a buddy after I'd sold the game that if you just kind of hang out for awhile eventually you get another mission. This is a massive failure on the developers side IMHO.
petercooperalmost 14 years ago
I don't buy this "time" argument. In my case, I know exactly why I don't finish many games. Because the novelty wears off!<p>The dopamine hit wears off after a while and unless the game is extremely varied (Minecraft, GTA IV) <i>or</i> can be easily completed within a week (Portal 2), I'm not going to finish it. After that point, it's just like all the other games on the shelf.. interesting to me once but no longer "wow, cool!" Even though I have the time, I'm onto my next "hit", as it were.
评论 #2903275 未加载
nskealmost 14 years ago
<i>"The future? Shorter games"</i><p>Then I'm glad that, being in my late 20s, I got to experience a bit of the past.<p>The 2 points I can perceive seem valid to me:<p>1) Some people were introduced to gaming in an era were 3d graphics were not much to show of, so it was popular for companies to invest in deep scenarios and gameplay -and if a company invests in such things, it makes economic sense to make fewer, longer games, as these things are less reusable than i.e. a 3d graphics engine. Those people are now older and have less time for games in general.<p>2) Today's teens are introduced to games in an era where 3d graphics have made huge progress and games are more popular to non-geeks (I think popularity always pushes things to an easy, shallow direction), so the current majority tends to value graphics and fast action more than other qualities. Also it makes sense that modern trends such as "social networking" sites might be a distraction, since they can loosely be categorized as "computer entertainment", and there is only so much time "normal" people can sit on their computer.<p>I'm sorry the game market is driven in that direction. I just hope there are enough of us to justify enough exceptions that won't be lost in the noise. So far I can compromise with games such as Dragon Age -even barely.
评论 #2903072 未加载
pragmaticalmost 14 years ago
Why I don't finish games:<p>1) Lose interest - the game mechanic seems repetitive (puzzle games), I've seen this level before, now it's a little bit tougher or it's a different color.<p>2) Sudden ramp up in difficulty - I'm enjoying a nice casual game (Terraria comes to mind) and suddenly I have to beat a boss character. As I play on a laptop on the cough, I'm not as agile on WASD keys + mouse, which didn't really matter until it suddenly went from minecraft to a platformer.<p>3) Needless frustration - either from 2 above or from dumn things. I really hate consoles b/c I can't save when I want. I have limited time so when I need to stop, I _really_ need to stop and save, not when the game designer decides I am allowed to save.<p>Also glitches.<p>4) Choice - I've been playing since the NES/Dos days. We've never had so many awesome and fun games. You can get a great game now for a few dollars on sale. If I runt into frustrations (see above) I just quit and switch.<p>5) Laptop friendly. I can't sit at my desk on Saturday morning like I used to. It's easier to play on a laptop when I have time or while my son is watching a video (after our Obama mandated exercise time). Get home from the pool in the summer slump onto the couch and nice laptop friendly game is nice.<p>Some recent examples:<p>Witcher 2:<p>Man is it tough (for me) to get started. But Normal is too hard and easy is too easy.<p>(fun game, stopped playing it, can't remember why, probably pick it up again)<p>Terraria:<p>Fun game but sudden ramps up in difficulty, plus being a platformer and a "mining" game makes it somewhat frustrating.<p>God of War (Series): Made me return my PS3. Again sudden ramp up of difficulty as I had to do some kind of triple crazy jump. I just don't have the patient to practice some stupid arbitrary move.<p>I could go on, but you get the picture.<p>I think there is a great niche for casual games (brilliant, right?) that aren't diner dash but are still fun for the "aging" game like myself.
评论 #2903474 未加载
cbsalmost 14 years ago
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
spartyfan10almost 14 years ago
I loathe online multi-player. A good, long single-player campaign is still all I want. While 10 hours of awesome is better than 20 hours of meh, why can't I get 20 hours of awesome? $60 is still a lot of money for a game and I'd appreciate a high time, high awesome ROI.
评论 #2903817 未加载
dazzawazzaalmost 14 years ago
I don't think it really matters that people don't finish games. The point is that for £40 I can get between 10 and 100 hours of entertainment (Portal to Zelda). That is a bargain and it much better value than many other forms of entertainment (cinema, DVD, Gig, Pub, Theatre). The only thing that beats it is a book.<p>Although there can be a feeling that you've paid for N levels so you should get to see N levels that just isn't going to apply to some games.
rickdalealmost 14 years ago
I was speaking to one of my students (11yrs old) about the length of video games just yesterday. He explained to me that campaign mode in video games is just for fun and to be replayed, the real game is online. We both agree that most next gen games are short.<p>Remember the original Ninja Turtles game for nintendo? 20+years later and I still find myself a few weekend nights/year trying to get to another part of the game.
kbattenalmost 14 years ago
Probably the biggest reason I will leave a game unfinished is if it takes too much effort to get back into the game. There are plenty of times I will take a break from a game, even one I really enjoy playing, and more often than not it is <i>easier</i> for me to start the game over than to try and figure out where I left off, what I have to do and even the general gameplay (key-commands, items, etc.)<p>When I was a kid I could play a game from beginning to end without stopping, and I had a lot fewer games available.<p>One thing that has helped me is game walkthroughs, I scan up to the point where I'm at and get a good idea of strategies I had previously learned, as well as the story.<p>One thing that game developers could do is actually provide this information to the player. Basically create a walkthrough based on what the player has done, up until the current point of the game.
Zarathustalmost 14 years ago
I try very hard to find original games but new, triple-A games are always very similar. I've killed a gazillion of guys with a shotgun in my gamer life, up to a point that it doesn't feel so exciting anymore. So I pick up a game, discover the environment setting (sci-fi, medieval, ancient times,...), learn the quirks of your "game changing engine" then realise I will do exactly the same things for 5 - 10 more hours. No more progression, no more new levels, no more new items, no more new KINDS of quests. Same copy/paste of the past previous 5 hours. This is usually where I quit.
panaceaalmost 14 years ago
The average age of gamers is 37? I find that a bit incredible.
评论 #2902950 未加载
评论 #2903308 未加载
评论 #2903497 未加载
评论 #2903101 未加载
int3rnautalmost 14 years ago
Selection is a big reason for this. There are so many good games popping out each and every week, and I have certainly found myself unable to keep up with the supply--I think a lot of people get that, "I've got to play this game because it's hot right now and everybody's talking about" itch, and then drop whatever they are currently playing and never actually revisit it--it's the same with a lot of things not just games.
rexfalmost 14 years ago
Try not even open/install/start most games.<p>With (great, affordable) packages like Humble Bundle &#38; constant Steam/Amazon/etc sales, my % of started:purchased games has gone way down. Instead, I focus on core games with friends like Starcraft2.
Goladusalmost 14 years ago
I don't really see that statistic as a problem. It seems to me that shipping slightly more content than most players are expected to finish is actually a good thing, especially in traditional game development where you are selling a more-or-less complete product (where the business plan doesn't involve skimping on the core product to explicitly to sell expansion packs and other add-ons). It means there's enough content for most of the audience.<p>There's very little correlation between content completion percentage and overall game enjoyment / purchase satisfaction.
bryanlarsenalmost 14 years ago
What's the percentage of games that don't even get started? I've got about 30 games in my Steam account, and I've only played about 3 of them more than 1 hour. Most of those games came in through bundles so I probably had no intention of playing some of them, but many of them I purchased with the intention of actually playing them.<p>Partly it's lack of time but the number of hours I've put into Civilization puts the lie to that. I play on my downtime and it's just easier to play something I already know than learn something new.
yeahsurealmost 14 years ago
I actually like long games. I don't think I've ever played a game without finishing it. Maybe I'm a bit obsessive, that's why I try to not play video games any more!
banealmost 14 years ago
I remember when games got low scores if they didn't offer at least 40 hours of playtime in some fashion.
yumrajalmost 14 years ago
So if the age of average gamer is rising, what are the young people doing now, Facebook/Twitter/*Ville/...(ing)?
评论 #2903513 未加载
erualmost 14 years ago
The article is almost devoid of information.<p>(But the title would make for a good article in the Onion.)