Great Article -- Combat and Finishing Modern Games

[SoulBlazer]

I was surprised this morning to have this pop up in my e-mail. It's from a woman who's involved in the making of a Kickstarter game that I backed (and has a hard road to reach it's goal, I admit).

 

Figured this would get some debate going.

 

For the record, I agree with about 95 percent of what she said. And it really hit home also cause I just recently played and finished Dragon Age: Origin for the first and am currently playing DA 2.

 

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/aharon/ambrov-x-a-sime-gen-roleplaying-game/posts/603649?ref=email&show_token=e429e7563376a7a5

[Skarrj]

I was surprised this morning to have this pop up in my e-mail. It's from a woman who's involved in the making of a Kickstarter game that I backed (and has a hard road to reach it's goal, I admit).

 

Figured this would get some debate going.

 

For the record, I agree with about 95 percent of what she said. And it really hit home also cause I just recently played and finished Dragon Age: Origin for the first and am currently playing DA 2.

 

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/aharon/ambrov-x-a-sime-gen-roleplaying-game/posts/603649?ref=email&show_token=e429e7563376a7a5

I actually shelved dragon age for about a year before i realized wth i was doing wrong. Once i realized to tank out my character and use wynn instead during the boss battles i murdered through the game. Did the first dragon you fought completely rape you also? Edited September 19, 2013 by Skarrj

[Skarrj]

I think a big factor that effects her stats is online multiplayer. If you consider the sheer amount of players that purchase a game and completely ignore the campaign, the stats are probably right on.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Skarrj

[Christophero Sly]

I couldn't disagree more with this sentiment. Makes me ill, to tell you the truth. This mentality of dumbing-down gameplay is already too pervasive in modern game design. I want to play games, challenging games, not watch movies. Now, don't get me wrong; a good story is important, and something that I appreciate. I'm not dismissing story at all. But skipping gameplay in order to just get on with the cutscenes!? I mean, what are we even talking about here?

 

Moreover, suggesting that common ground exists between those people who don't finish their games and those people (like myself) who despise DRM is thoroughly fallacious reasoning.

 

And for a sequel-driven industry, this is crippling, since low completion rates mean you cant predict future game sales based on previous ones.

Good, I say. We don't need anymore sequels! The fact that this is a "sequel-driven" industry is what's crippling this industry. Edited September 20, 2013 by Christophero Sly

[Tickled_Pink]

Non completion isn't really a big issue for me. Today, I tend to complete many more games than I used to back on the ST for instance. But there are times when there's something 'inherently wrong' in a game that doesn't give me the compulsion to continue. I currently have that feeling with Gears of War 3. I should try to finish it but just can't be bothered with it. It suffers from that 'grind' problem.

 

There was a Lord of the Rings game on the PS2 which was a lot of fun to play but was then killed by a boss that I just couldn't figure out how to get past.

 

I always play shooters, like COD and GoW at the hardest available level just to make what tend to be short games longer. COD typically has the balance in campaigns just right. There was a point in MW2 (I think - might have been MW3) where I couldn't see a way out. Bullets were just flying everywhere and there was no cover. It was just way too friggin impossible at the hardest level so I cranked down the difficulty for it. It is annoying when they clearly don't test certain stages of a game properly and it's one reason why players get to a stage where they just get fed up, close the game and move on to the next one.

[iswitt]

I disagree with a lot of what the author says, but there are some things I can see reasoning in. I don't necessarily think non-completion percentages are so high because games are too difficult or frustrating. I think a lot of players are still romping away in the relatively new world of massive multiplayer that has become more prevalent. Sure, PC games have offered big multiplayer experiences for a while now, but it's relatively new to consoles (which is where a huge chunk of the gaming market exists). If you spent the first 15 or 16 years of your life playing alone or with a one or two friends, then having someone hand you the ability to play with anyone anywhere is enough to make you forget about the campaign for a while. I think eventually this craze will die down and there will be a healthier balance between game parts, but until then we will see a lot of games go unfinished. And as an aside, I think multiplayer is incredibly frustrating, so my personal multiplayer "completion percentage" or what have you is super low.

Having a "dumb down" option as some people call it could actually be a good thing. As long as it is completely optional, it wouldn't really bother me. I would never, ever use a built in cheat like that. But I know there are people out there who would appreciate it and I'm all about options. As long as the rest of the game doesn't suffer because of it, I don't care.

I tend to complete every game I play these days unless it is just plain terrible. However, I am a busy guy. I have a full-time job, I'm in grad school, I play in a rec soccer league, I write game reviews on the side for 6aming.com, I co-chair a local organization, I have a wife to keep happy and I also love to read. My time is valuable. While I don't necessarily think the industry should cater to me and make short games with really high budgets, I do appreciate great games that I don't have to dump 100 hours into.

[Reaperman]

I'm not even going to read that. I got to the 25% stat and decided to quit--much like I do with most of my games. If everybody can complete a game, then what's the goddamn point? So many games I've played lately don't even really need me. Might as well make a 30-hr cgi movie--it'd be easier. I hate all this hand-holding, and have started mostly buying games that have no real completion point because of it.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Reaperman

[cimerians]

I think making games which are actually good is the problem.

 

As far as that article goes and difficulty I kind of agree with some of it but make it optional. Give us the option of picking difficulty levels like the old 2600. If I want to make it nightmare hard let me, if I want to make it easy so I can play with a non gamer...let me pick it. It would be nice but it just doesn't happen enough.

 

I'm all for Dark Souls and a round of Plants vs Zombies but I don't want to waste my time on a 100+ hour game thats simply not that good or....boring.

 

Just make a good game and I'll play it!!

Edited September 20, 2013 by cimerians

[Hatta]

Yeah, if you want a 100% completion rate, write a book. A short one, with pictures, and no words with more than 4 syllables.

[Reaperman]

when there is a choice to pick difficulty levels, a broken part of my brain forces me to pick the easiest one.

Needless to say, eventually I get bored with the game and quit.

As an experiment, I wonder if that's before or after I would get frustrated and quit.