Do You Finish Games?

You play a game intently for about a few days, then something dawns on you. A light bulb goes on(or fizzles off) and you exit the game never to return to it again. I'm notorious for not finishing games. I don't consider it a bad thing, but it is indeed a perplexing phenomena as you don't really experience it with movies or reading a book(unless of course, the movie or book was really bad). It's not always the case that the game is bad.

Why do we do this anyway? I've often wondered what motivated players to continue until they 'beat' a game. Perhaps some of you might say the game was exciting enough to hold your attention till the final level, boss encounter, ......enter video game clichéd ending. Or maybe you are just that 'hardcore' enough to beat the game. To be fair, there's a lot of difference between the different genre of games that might make a particular genre(such as an FPS) seem like a better vehicle for story telling, hence making the story the motivating factor for a player to play through the entire game. Below are a couple of reason why I think we stop playing a game. DISCLAIMER, I don't think any of these factors don't necessarily make a game bad. They might be flawed though:

Men of War was down right brutal in single player. The only reason I still play it is because of

co-op

Game too bloody hard

I've got this excuse plenty of times. The poster child for hard games is Megaman and I don't think I know anyone who has completed them(not to say there aren't any). My issue isn't with hardcore 2D platformers(somehow people understand that the challenge is the main quality of these games) but games of other genres, take for instance Dragon Age Origins. I've heard many a times, people just quitting when they were faced with a challenging fight. Dragon Age is a game that has plenty of content that is meant to be played from start to finish. You miss out quite a lot if you didn't finish games like this. So my question is this; are gamers being weened on easy games by mainstream developers so much so that the slightest challenge throws them off of a game? The mainstream tend to have a lower tolerance for frustration. An interesting predicament for developers to chew on.

Dark Void had some interesting ideas that it never pulled of well. Mostly generic third person cover based shooter.

Game too generic

This is something I've seen in a lot of first person and third person shooters. You take a well known convention used in another game and try to fit them in a new theme or setting. Whats new about them is the theme or setting, the game doesn't offer anything new besides that. After playing the game a few times, you get bored with it as it doesn't bring anything new to the plate. Sure, not all games need to be original and 100% unique, but there is certainly a threshold where even the most prettiest graphics can't hide the lack of 'game design'(the art of actually designing gameplay) in a game. Soren Johnson(of Civ 4 and Spore fame) spoke about how theme is not a meaning and should never be the only consideration to meaningful gameplay.

Grind, grind, rinse and repeat. Aion may have looked pretty, but it was a repetitive grindfest for many people

Repetition

Level 1, do a then b then c. Level 2, do A then B then C. Rinse and repeat. Just how much repetition of the same formula does it take before you get turned off from a game? A lack of variety in a game can be a killer to player enthusiasm. I think part of the problem with repetition these days(relates a little to another part of this article) stems a lot from poor creativity and a lack of depth in game systems built. Game pacing could also be a major influence in giving out the perception that a game is repetitive(player never plays past this long and grinding section to see new mechanics).

Fahrenheit was the game with the most pronounced WTF! moment.

Story is rubbish

If your game depended on a story, well it pays to have a good storyline as opposed to one that is utter rubbish. You'd expect RPG's and adventure games to have interesting stories in them. But it just kills me to see most of them have extremely lame and immature story lines. Case in point, the adventure game, Fahrenheit(Indigo Propechy for you Americans). Well known for its excellent first half of intriguing detective work(although those simon says mini games were annoying) and ruined by an off the wall batshit insane Matrix inspired rubbish plot line that only ellicited this reaction from me....WTF? A note to writers....keep it simple. Don't ruin your game with crazy ridiculous plot twists.

I was able to miraculously take a screenshot of S.T.A.L.K.E.R without blue screening

The bugs

Small bugs that are merely annoying really don't stop me from completing games. But major bugs that crash your machine frighten me. S.T.A.L.K.E.R Shadow of Chernobyl didn't frighten me with its atmosphere(I thought it had excellent atmosphere), but it was the blue screen lock ups that was the most frightening experience in ANY game EVAR! I've heard similar complaints for Empire: Total War too. I can understand how frustrating it can be to invest hours into a game only to have it crash at a vital point or worse have your save game corrupted. The only thing anyone can really do is to shelve the game until things get patched. Normally most people would have given up and wouldn't bother waiting for a fix.

I thought Far Cry 2 was amazing, but a lot of people perceived it to be repetitive after playing it for a bit. The devs should have done a better job at making it clearer to the player there are other ways to play this game.

Seen all the tricks in the book the game can throw at you

Related to the repetition bit I wrote in this article, it sucks when you feel you have seen all that the game can offer you(or perceive that you have seen it all). It kills your motivation to play the game. For instance in Far Cry 2, most people thought the entire game is about getting quests driving to the objective location and fighting of patrol guards on the way and repeating it ad infinitum. RTS games introduce you to new units or tech tree as you progress in a campaign. Don't blow all your load before you ramp up for the climactic ending(no puns intended). It does goes beyond just plain repetition though. And a lot of times it's the perception the game promotes to players. That's why focus testing is great for game developers.

I have no time!

Families, friend, studies, wife, a career, all the other things vying for my attention...I HAVE NO TIME FOR A 100 HOUR GAME! Sheesh, but seriously if all that makes you feel like your head is going to explode, maybe you shouldn't be taking too many responsibilities in the first place. Learn to breathe in...breathe out. It's all about balance, be smart. If work requires more of your time, evolve your gaming into games that allow for quicker shorter games.

I completed Dragon Age Origins only after one year since buying the game. Despite the pressure from others

to complete the game, I took my time

The zerg rush mentality!

No one these days take their time with games. Why rush through a game? There are no rules saying you NEED to finish a game within a certain period(no there isn't, I checked the entire EULA). There are people that stop playing a game they perceive is taking them too long to complete(not in relation to the other factors I have stated). Have some patience. Chill dude.

There are other games to play!

Yes, there are. There are a lot of new games being released, all the time. Pick your game, prioritise, take your time. Don't be pressured into buying a game because the internet is all abuzz about it due to hype of release. Stay sane.

I know there are probably a hundred more reasons why anyone would stop playing a game. Some reasons directly related to the game itself, mostly probably due to the player themselves. So what makes you stop playing games?