We all have games that we've bought but never finished. Looking at my own habits, I'd say I only ever get to the end of the story mode of one out of ten big release games.
Would I like to finish all games that I start? Definitely. I've not once started a game thinking, "I'm only going to play this up to halfway through". I'm there for the full experience. If I abandon a game before its finish, I feel as though I've somehow missed the grand finale, the highlight on which the developer focussed much of its attention. I also feel like a failure, blaming myself for either not having the dedication or ability to complete. Depending on what mood I'm in, I may then blame the developer. How dare they promise so much, but deliver so little? But why don't we finish the games we buy?
Yawn
Let's start with the rather obvious reason. If the game is not consistently engaging, then it's easy for players to stop playing. Many factors can lead to a lack of engagement, with repetitive gameplay perhaps being top of the list. However repetition does not have to be boring. Some game mechanics repeat often and are consistently satisfying, so it's only when repetition is in partner with lack of satisfaction that it becomes a grind.
Making a game engaging is perhaps easy at the early stages - after all, everything is still new, but consistently keeping the player's interest is another challenge entirely. The best games communicate to players that new experiences are just around the corner, informing them that they really shouldn't give up now. Of course, it could just be a case that the game only offers one or two basic mechanics, and these are quickly exhausted in the early phase of the game.
Naturally, engagement is subjective; one player's bland experience may be another player's way of unwinding in an unchallenging environment. Difficulty however, may stop all players.
Grr
Speaking of which, the spectrum of player profiles is wide, so it's fair to say that some players like tough games. Although games like VVVVVV and Super Meat Boy clearly demonstrate that a game can be insanely tough, but the corresponding emotions that result from beating them are hugely rewarding. However, these games are not intended for the majority of players, and not understanding your core audience's ability is likely to lead to frustration, then abandonment.
But what factors affect a player's ability? The most obvious is dexterity - can the player actually make the physical moves required by the game? More subtle is cognition - does the player understand the strategy or puzzle solving required to get through the game? To make matters worse, players' ability is often misjudged by punishing difficulty curves and the problem further compounded by poor usability issues.
It's also possible that the player may experience cognitive overload - the degree of information bombarding them coupled with the movement required can be too great for them to process. This lack of understanding is much more frustrating than lack of dexterity, as not knowing what to do leaves the player feeling not only out of their depth, but no idea on how to progress. Boss fights are often guilty of this issue. Not only are they dextrously demanding, but the player also has to figure out the necessary tactics, which is some cases can be too abstract. Result: a show stopper.
Take a break
Let's imagine that a player has put down the controller and switched off their console. What do they do next? They may return to the game, but a key question is, when? If the time between sessions is more than a few days or weeks, they may have lost the muscle memory for the controller and forgotten key plot points and motivations for playing the game. The result is that they may feel intimidated by the idea of trying to pick up where they left off, that they're effectively starting the game over again. They may need to take the tutorial, if it's easily available, and if not, they may feel the effort required to regain what they once had is simply not be worth it, that it's easier to move on. Why repeat an experience when you can seek out a new one? It's not as if there's a shortage of new games. If a game can't keep a player engaged, then they'll move on.
Engage
Some games do get it right, however. David Cage says that 72 per cent of Heavy Rain players finished the game, with key reasons cited including accessible gameplay and a story in which players care about what happens next. For other games, it can be regular content updates and a vibrant player community which bring them back.
Developers want players to finish their games. And most players would like to finish games, too, so with both developers are players wanting the same thing, what is going wrong? Are developers in touch with what today's gamers actually want?
Comments
11Interesting article. I found myself having this issue with the dlc game called "Outland". Great game but really challenging.
I got to the part where I'm fighting that dragon and I just can't stop dying and I'm stuck because once you commit to a boss fight you have to finish it. That was in May. Basically, I put the controller down and haven't gone back to game. I will finish the game but as the author pointed out I do have that feeling of dread.
Some games get it right so much that one can't stop getting back. I'm talking about Plants vs Zombies, or Luigi's Mansion, or Yoshi's Island. And some don't plan to have a real ending (Gran Turismo, Tiny Tower, Animal Crossing).
Hey, just like that, a list of 5 great games!
Let's not forget that Heavy Rain's developers where whining about the fact that it is apparently clogging the secondhand market. So players get to the end of the game, but don't love it enough to keep it.
I generally finish my games if I liked them enough to buy them. The key (for me) is once you start playing a game, never start playing a different one and think you'll get back to the first or can split your time between them. It's 'oh tomorrow I'll start exercising' type wishful thinking.
Unless, as you say, the game is so defective or non-compelling that I just give up on it. But that's rare one of those slips by my wallet. Unless it's on a Steam year-end sale.
Games that I can easily beat are called movies and an overpriced one at that.
Sometimes a break away from a game is a good thing. If it's winding you up then you're probably not playing in top form. I find going away and coming back makes something that was impossible dead easy when I come back to it.
Interesting article indeed. For me the main reason clearly is the fact that as you get older, your playing sessions are shorter and more spaced in time.
Problem that creates is that either you can't replay the tutorial, or games don't display which button to push for what action anymore after the first hour or so (even if you haven't played the games in weeks). Because of that, I just don't want to invest the time needed to get up to speed again.
Always wondered why no more games just notice that you haven't played for a while and offer you some options to remind you of the gameplay and controls. That's why I do pick up something like Forza every now and then over a long period: no complex controls or combos to learn again.
@famousfornothing good point.
This is why I probably won't finish Rage, Dungeon Siege 3 or Dragon Age. Shame as they all look pretty good.
GTA 3 and beyond got it right for me. There was a cool blend of arcade if you want it or story mode if you have longer to sit down and concentrate. I can't tell you how many times I thrashed around Liberty City on Vigilante missions whilst my youngest was a baby having a lunchtime nap :)
I wonder whether the publisher's demands on the developer aren't a little out of sync with the requirements of a key section of the gaming public. The notion that you release what is essentially a glorified arcade experience with little or no story for 35 quid might seem dreadful to most but for me it's actually pretty relevant. Too much emphasis is placed on game time being too long or too short. I'd rather just be able to pick it up, have a crack at it and put it down again.
That said the last game I finished was Prince of Persia:Sands of time. A wonderful game which got it right for me because it was just so nice to play. Controls, on-screen animations, feedback, puzzles, battles etc all felt beautiful. Add to that a non-intrusive story set against an intriguing backdrop that left enough room for the player's imagination. Few games get that balance right.
Cool article.
@famousfornothing I completely agree, I often wonder why games don't detect that you haven't played in a while so present you with useful reminders.
I was browsing through forums and readers' comments on Heavy Rain and players often said that it was easy to come back to, I definitely think that was a main factor in its 72% completion rate.
Do devs really think that players sit through the game in several sessions played back-to-back? As you say, the average gamer is now 37, their time is precious, are games really in-line with their lifestyle?
Comparing this with TV series like 24, you get a reminder at the start of every episode as it's a weekly, they know the viewer will forget detail.
@oldtaku
I agree, that's usually my problem during the holiday season: too many games all at once are distracting. I am already thinking about Mario Land 3D and Zelda Skyward Sword.
It's kinda unfair, though: when you grow up (and become ld enough to decide when you play) you realize you haven't got that much spare time to play...
Time does seem to be the biggest reason for not continuing a game. Completing a game in bit parts does feel a slightly hollow, when I look back at my favourite games of the year, I completed them in the space of 2 weeks. I've never bought a game I didn't intend to finish, but some slip by because I have played it with too much time between goes (GTA IV, I will get round to it!)
For me, the time in which a game is completed speaks volumes for how you've felt about it. With almost a dozen games on my shelf that are half played, waiting for completion, the only games I have fully completed from this years releases (Deus Ex, Dead Space 2, LA Noire) were all completed in 2 weeks.
I have literally hundreds of games that I have never beaten...heck I probably have over a hundred I've never played. But there ARE a lot of games that I couldn't finish. I call it...bad game design.
Games that I DID finish have a very special place in my heart. Recent ones include Batman:Arkham Asylum, Enslaved:Odyssey to the West, Prince of Persia (360 Version "Elika!!!!"), Mass Effect (the first one). Why? These are all great games that really make it hard to not finish (as did Kingdom Hearts II, Knights of the Old Republic, and {going way back Chrono Trigger}).
Games I did NOT finish and prob never will include Mirror's Edge (way too hard) Sands of Time (too frustrating), and Gun Valkyrie (difficulty deathwish) and countless others that either got boring, got impossible, or lost my interest.
I think it's about grabbing you and not letting go. Games I have finished include the Halo series - although Halo 2 tested me to the extreme, the modern warfare series, got MW3 today and working at home with deadline to meet while MW3 box is throbbing saying "play me, play me".
Time is always a problem but games that get it right for me are paced correctly and draw you into the storyline...