Why Don't People Finish Games?

---

Kevin Lambert, Lead Designer
Developer: Gas Powered Games
Current Game: Dungeon Siege II

Back

Gamestar: What was the last game you finished? What kept you playing?

Kevin Lambert: Pikmin 2. It was interesting because the end was in sight from the very first time I played. I knew I wouldn't have to spend a huge time investment to finish it. And it helped that the game was fun too.

GS: What do you think are the main reasons people don't finish games? Not enough time? Too many other good games to try? Something else?

KL: I'd argue that time is NOT the main reason people don't finish games. When a game is good and worth finishing, people will often MAKE time to complete it (much to the dismay of our significant others.) I think the main reason people don't finish games is that either they become too repetitious, too difficult, or the rewards don't give enough gratification for the effort spent getting them. And there other important priorities in life like family, jobs, school, social lives, sports, and other things that can take precious time away from gaming if you're not careful.

GS: It can take as long to play through a single game through as it does to watch a dozen movies. What kind of hooks and techniques do you use in designing a game to make sure people don't lose interest?

KL: It all comes down to the challenge/reward cycle. There's definitely an art to giving out rewards often enough to keep the player interested, but not too often that the rewards become diminished. And equally important to the rewards are the challenges associated with them which shouldn't be so hard that they're frustrating, but not so easy that they make the rewards feel worthless.

GS: How important is the story or plot in a game? Has it become more or less important in the past few years?

KL: It depends on the audience. The average age of gamers has risen steadily over the past two decades and as gamers get older, they often appreciate a little more intellectual stimulation in games. I think is one reason why we're seeing games that place a greater importance on story.

GS: We often hear that games have "40 hours of gameplay". Does that term really mean anything? Do you think there's a "magic number" to target?

KL: '40 hours of gameplay' can be a blessing or a curse depending on how much time players are looking to spend on a game. It's a common misconception that, all other things being equal, if a game offers more hours of gameplay than another game, then it must be better. If that were the case, games would be shooting for 300+ hours. I don't think there's a magic number, and I personally believe it's better to have your game last as long as it stays fun and throw that on the back of the box rather than try to target a specific number of hours. Of course, if that number turns out to be 30 minutes for your game, you may not want to charge $59.99 for it.

GS: Does it bother you that a good chunk of your audience may never see the later parts of your game? Do you spend less time on the end-game as a result?

KL: Not necessarily. I like to think of games as being like races. Just like a race, most game experiences can be thought of as having a beginning, a middle, and an end. The goal of the beginning is to be strong, but to pace yourself so you still have energy left to give later on. This means a game shouldn't reveal everything right away. It's okay to keep some things until later. The middle is about keeping steady and not letting yourself fall behind. This means a game should be careful about not becoming too repetitious, but the middle doesn't necessarily have to be stellar to keep the player invested. And then the end is a bold sprint to the finish line. This is where good games pull out all the stops and throw everything at the player but the kitchen sink (unless, of course, it's a game where sink throwing makes sense). Basically, if you have to spend less time on one piece of the game in order to make the other parts stronger, I'd say do it somewhere in the middle.

GS: Some hugely popular games don't have an "ending" to reach. What makes someone eventually stop playing EverQuest, for example? The Sims?

KL: The thing that I think makes most people stop playing massively multiplayer games is when they run out of things to do. Repetition is the devil and the key to keeping players engaged is to keep the content fresh and make sure there are worthwhile goals for players to achieve, even if they're already at the maximum character level. Dark Age of Camelot's Realm vs. Realm combat is a great example of one way to keep an end-game interesting enough to keep players invested for a long time.