That is why I only buy the games I know i'll finish. I'm still playing GTAIV...F**KING PIGEONS!!!
I'm a big combat guy, if the combat is fun and deep(read, not mashing one button till everything in the room is dead) then I'll see it through to the end, even if I have to consult a walkthrough for the puzzle parts.
A good example is God of war 2, titan mode. If you didn't pay attention and actually learn how to use your abilities, you would die, alot(which you will anyway, but it lessens it) but the puzzle parts bored me to death and I just wanted to get back to the combat, so I had someone tell me how to do them.
I do my best to finish every game I buy. The only ones I don't are terrible and get sold or given away or turned into a frisbee. Why people throw away money like that is beyond me.
GTA4 was hard.. it had some missions that were required to beat the game that would throw off any but the real gamers, the ones who've been palying their whole life. i'm not surprised only 28% of the surveyed people beat it. I did, but just barely - that last mission took me a few days to beat.
Turning the game into a series of QTEs sounds horrible to me. The problem with QTEs is that they eliminate all thinking, it might work better to reduce the amount of twitch skill needed at lower difficulties while maintaining the need for thought processes. E.g. at easy difficulty an FPS could use full autoaim to let you focus on your own movements while making combat more of a "select enemy you want to shoot" deal. I think GRAW did that at all difficulties, at least when I played the demo I definitely didn't see the enemies, I only pointed at the HUD marker for them and shot, that always scored a hit.
I usually stop playing games because I just can't be bothered to start them again.
Ive finished most of the games I own. I may not finish it as soon as it comes out, because I get bored if I play one game for weeks, but I do eventually finish the game. I can't believe not that so many people failed to finish GTA4, Ive finished it twice to get both the endings.
I don't finish most of the single-player games I play and I'm not ashamed (really, why should I be?). Those which I don't finish are either way too boring or way too hard (though I sometimes enjoy trying to pass the harder levels). In the first case, I am not willing to go through the boring levels just to get to a potentially amazing end level. Life time is limited for humans, and I don't want to waste it on doing things that are either boring or of no use to me.
Unless it's fun, why waste my time to beat a game? There are better things I can do.
The only game on my 360 I haven't finished is GTAIV. I stopped playing because it bored me. I'd sell it but it was a gift from the mother inlaw. I have lent it to my partners nephew instead.
I haven't beaten GOW2 yet but only because I'm waiting for my friend to get his arse on Live so we can do it co-op.
Having said that I've beat Mass Effect about 9 times so its a case of swings and round abouts.
Off topic, I was gob smacked to read about all of the guys struggling with the krogan battle master. I thought it was a joke. Ive not beat it on the hardest setting but none of the fights are that difficult.
I did beat COD4 on the hardest setting. I didn't with WaW, The game just wasn't as engaging. I did finish it though.
If I enjoy a game, I'll finish it. Always. The only reason why I won't is if the game is boring or stupid. I don't own any consoles, so that probably helps. If button-mashing was required, I'd probably give up a lot more.
And the mass effect krogan battlemaster sequence wasn't that hard. At least on Pc it wasn't. I lifted him, threw him and singularitied him and he never even got a shot off.
I always finish the campaign. Even on games I rent, I usually try to complete the whole main storyline. I can't believe so few people actually finish games that they buy. If you pay money for it then get the most out of it.
Mr. Tynes looks like Kenneth Branagh during his movie interpretation of "Hamlet"
There's a few games I never finished, mainly because I just couldn't be bothered, too much effort, too many side packages. I do tend to go back to the ones I like though. I'm still playing "the Thing" on the PS2 (on my PS3 now), I've played about 6 or 7 times from the start and I keep getting to this one point, and I run outta ammo. Every time. It does get frustrating, but it's like a giant black-mark on my internal copy-book. Must finish...
In general though I tend to finish most games, although I remember playing "Far Cry: Instincts" on the original X-box and being stuck at this boss fight for 2/3 months, but then I finished it and it was the final boss and I felt so cheated.
Although I feel achievements have raised the bar on "completing" a game, there was a time when the final cut-scene was the be-all and then it was completing secret package / floating globual / etc... now it's defeat everything, ten times, while pirouetting with a ham-sandwich under your toes.
On the GTA 4 note, I haven't finished it either (I lost all my saves back in Dec due to a hardware malfunction) and I'm only just back where I was then. I may not be among the 23% that finished the game, but I certainly got my moneys worth out of it. The fact I haven't finished the game is mainly due to the fact I spend a huge amount of time sniping pedestrians from cranes, racing around like a lunatic and generally seeing how long I can shoot up Liberty City. I've finished many games that I enjoyed a lot less than it and got less value from them. So maybe "completing" a game whether getting to the end sequence, through in-game percentages or achievements isn't the real way to judge the value of a game.
I'm pretty good when it comes to finishing games. I usually only leave them unfinished if i get too bored.
But I like your idea, would be useful for those annoying mid point ultra diffcult sections games sometimes have.
Also you never finished Braid?
I've finished main stories, the only games I've gotten 100% completion on were the original Spyro games. Not finishing a game doesn't mean it's a bad game, it just means that we don't have enough time on our hands. Gamers have lives too you know...
the reason I don't finish some games has nothing to do with difficulty ,
it has to do with
a) the quality of the game, if the game is pretty to look at but has poor quality gameplay I probaly won't finish it.
b) I can't find what to do/where to go, this is usaly fixed by going online and looking on walkthroughs. However in a game I should always know what im suppose to do and have some hint's of how to do it.
c) this ha sto do with a, but the variety in the game is important as well, if im doing the same thing over and over and over then the game get's boring quickly.
Neat concept, pretty sure I would use it every once in a while.
John Scott Tynes:
John Scott Tynes discusses how to make sure no game goes unfinished.
Read Full Article
The article makes awful assumptions and generalizations. Games are not books or movies. It's OK to not complete them. It's OK from the viewpoint of the developer that many players do not complete them.
There are plenty of books that get read in their entirety by only a handful of people, yet are considered brilliant and highly worthwhile by the majority of readers who did not finish. Consider a difficult book on philosophy or math, for example. So the assertion that "books that do not get finished are bad books" is false. It would be patently absurd to put in an alternate "reading mode" which simplified the content of these books so that everyone could finish them. In order to do that, you'd have to destroy everything that makes the book worthwhile.
And every game is definitely not for everybody, just as every book or movie is not for everybody. People who love books and movies are not clairvoyant; they must buy many of them, find out which ones they like and (if they value their time at all) abandon the rest. It has to be noted that almost all games eat far more time than movies and most books. Leaving games uncompleted is completely normal and not something that needs to be fought by any other way than improving the game in general.
The only games where it would make any sense to reduce the game to a series of quick time events as proposed are those where plot is the main attraction - and like I recall yourself saying, the writing in the majority of games is horrible, easily beat by bad movies, never mind books.
You can't take driving out of Sega Rally. You can't take lining up blocks out of Tetris. You can't take deliberate choice of moves out of Street Fighter. You don't get anywhere by doing so.
R-Type Dimensions belongs to this class of game as well. (Note that these four are all arcade games.) Allowing players to mix and match their run from small pieces destroys the motivation to see the next level. It destroys the excitement of actually reaching the next level. It destroys the narrative, sense of progress and purpose that rises from the different levels following one another. It destroys the difficulty curve carefully crafted to keep the player on their toes. Having infinite lives removes all the tension from the game. The appearance of the game is still there, but doing these "friendly" adjustments has butchered it just as surely as it would butcher an advanced math book to swap its contents for a repetitive assortment of high school math.
The article doesn't mention that the games used as examples have a multiplayer component, many of their players have bought them primarily for that reason and have little interest in single player. Nor does the article mention the kind of play where multiple players play a game like GTA together, taking turns on the same character and user account. In this case it's expected that only one player appears to have completed it, and the others appear to not have completed it, whereas in truth they all experienced more or less the whole game.
I think this whole idea of playing-the-game-for-you is a bit like using a band-aid to fend off a fungal infection. Or cancer.
The problem is that, as is, most games are simply poorly designed. There are two schools of thought which are rapidly coming to a head, and both are finding the other in their way.
The first produces games like God of War and Team Fortress. It says that games should be just that: games. Bad-ass, fast, intensely enjoyable games.
The other says that games should be an interactive experience, rivaling cinema and literature; it produces games like Indigo Prophecy and Metal Gear Solid.
Now that's not to say that one is better than the other, or that it is impossible for both of these aspects to work together in tandem, to produce experiences that are thoroughly enjoyable (see: Portal, Shadow of the Colossus, Beyond Good And Evil). But having the game play itself for you (Alone in the Dark) or shrugging your shoulders at the idea of integration and delivering story via cutscene (Metal Gear Solid) or making concessions which do disservice to both the amateur AND hardcore crowd (Bioshock; revive pods) are absolutely not the ways in which to do this. They're the bare minimum effort at trying to create an interesting experience, and gamers are beginning to get more discerning.
Now films have struggled with this (and continue to), in the form of, for example, trying to combine thrilling action with an intelligent plot. Too much action, you get Transformers "blowin' stuff up real good". Too much plot, you get the Matrix, "vomiting exposition". Film, however, has managed to overcome this barrier and produce truly great films, time and time again--it's come to understand that a movie can be BOTH escapist fun AND stimulating art, if only you take some time and give some real thought to how these two halves must interact and complement one another.
The answer to 'this level is too hard' is not to go "what if you could just skip it?" It's to stop, go back to the design doc, and say, "Why do we need to throw fifty waves of faceless bad-guys at the player? Couldn't we be doing something more interesting? Couldn't we be doing something more emotionally relevant to the piece of art we're trying to make?"
Put another way:
Your doctor tells you you have too much cholesterol. Need to change your diet.
Now you could take your meats and your vegetables, and eat them together in responsible portions, and try to make it work.
Or you could go home and eat fifty pounds of asparagus and call the problem solved.
Which seems like a better idea?
I would love to see more games with features like he describes in this article. It would be great if all games with an actual story to tell had a chapter selection-type feature where you could skip past the level(s) you are totally stuck on and get on with the story. I always want to finish the games I buy. Sadly, however, I have way more games I've never finished than ones I have finished. I also like the idea of having achievements, extra points, or whatever the console wants to call them for beating a level without skipping through the toughest parts. That way, those of us who lack the maddest skilz get to see how the story ends while the folks who don't find those parts of the games too hard get the kudos they are looking for. The game makers would also benefit because players would get to see all of their work and maybe be more impressed with it and more inclined to buy their next game. It's hard telling how much gaming goodness I've missed out on due to trading in unfinished games because I simply wasn't good enough to get past certain levels. It's a win-win situation.
I actually think Miyamoto's idea was better. I mean, I have played two horrible games where the character at times move by themselves and all you have to do is press a button when the icon appears on the screen (Spider-man and Spyro) and it is really lame.
I am poor, so every game I get I finish to the end and as much of it as I can, the only one I haven't was Mass Effect which came with the 360 because I just didn't like it.
On the PS2 out of all my games I never finished The Punisher, because it was shit.
Don't let Yahtzee read this article. It advocates button sequences.
I am more modivated to beat games because of achievements. Now not everyone else is, but having rewards beyond seeing the end (which Youtube will be able to give you anyways) may make people beat games more.
I think Prince of Persia does exactly what the article is talking about.
That is quiet interesting actually so basically all those people that have an opinion on a game means that it's invalid due to the percentage of the game not being completed. Thus not experiancing the full taste of a game.