Why Don't People Finish Games?
Dene Carter, Lead DesignerDeveloper: Big Blue Box
Latest Game: Fable
Gamestar: What was the last game you finished? What kept you playing?
Dene Carter: The last game I finished was probably Fable, unsurprisingly.
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?
DC: In my own case, I tend to find that a lot of games have a diminishing 'fun curve' -- by the time you've gone past the first 3 hours or so, you feel you've seen most of what the game has to offer and you are faced with what seems like an eternity of the same thing, but harder.
In addition, I usually find that the difficulty curve on a game is usually the final nail -- a couple of points where the difficulty level has been badly judged can make you give up on something very quickly. I first noticed this in Sonic, where I played that first level over and over again, but came to loathe a lot of the later levels simply because they were too hard. There's no fun in repeatedly dying.
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?
In Fable, we tried changing the pace or the general activities, ensuring that the players always had a question in their mind which *needed* an answer ("I wonder who the murderer really was? I need to know!"). However, the most powerful pull was simply ensuring that the next set of rewards was really very obvious, and attractive, to players -- effectively dangling carrots in front of their faces ("Oh, you think that spell is cool now? Wait until you get up to the next level!"). Players effectively swing from 'mini-draw' to 'mini-draw,' hopefully until they finish the game.
GS: How important is the story or plot in a game? Has it become more or less important in the past few years?
DC: I don't think that game stories have so much 'become more important', as 'shown their comparatively primitive nature in games.' As game cinematics have improved in quality, and visualization of characters has moved closer to something non-core players can relate to, our industry's general inability (with notable exceptions) to write a really good story has become more obvious than ever before. We're all playing catch-up now.
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?
DC: From a personal point of view (and I play a lot of games with 40+ hours of gameplay), I hate linear games that play for too long. I can't imagine watching a 40 hour film (those peaks and troughs of drama become very tedious after a while) and I think it's a very hard thing to do well. I prefer shorter games with the potential for prolonged play. One of my favorites, Nethack, has kept me playing for decades, yet a play-through may take no more than a couple of sittings.
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?
However, I don't think we pay less attention to the end game for any other reason than we pay a lot of attention to the beginning stages of the game, where players may feel confused, overwhelmed or bored quickly. Once they've gone past that initial learning curve, they've usually decided whether they're into it or not. After that, it's usually boredom, frustration or distraction that stops them playing.
GS: Some hugely popular games don't have an "ending" to reach. What makes someone eventually stop playing EverQuest, for example? The Sims?
Once someone feels they've 'done and seen everything' the world ceases to be a challenge. It's similar to the phenomenon of the super-rich rock-star driven to perform ever more bizarre sexual acts. "Been there, seen it, done it, awww hell. Hey! I'll stick budgies up my nose."
With Fable, we tried to combine creating a 'finishable' game, and one that can be enjoyed as a toy: I enjoy doing nothing but messing about with the world for a ridiculously long period of time.
GS: GS: I'm going to list off some critically-acclaimed games. If you played any of them, did you finish them? If not, do you remember where and why you stopped?
DC: Halo (Xbox): Finished.
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (Xbox): Crawling my way through... slooooowly. Inclined to give up soon, merely due to the pace not being fast enough to keep my attention.
The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay (Xbox): Very enjoyable, but gets extremely hard half way through. Giving up.
Final Fantasy X (PS2): I reached the last boss but got my rear kicked too often to finish it. I feel very frustrated by this particular game. In fact, don't bring it up again. I'm too upset.
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (PS2): Finished. Asked "What the hell?" a lot. My brother says he gave up after 2 hours, because he claims he 'got bored after 119 minutes of cutscenes'.
Grand Theft Auto III / Vice City (PS2): Hugely enjoyed the original GTA 3, and played it for many, many hours, not really caring if I was getting any closer to 'completing' it. Really is a benchmark game when it comes to combining linearity in a 'toy box' world. I was less keen on Vice City, merely because I disliked "Virtual Miami" when compared to Liberty City.
Doom 3 (PC): Just starting it now. Most FPS's seem to have a fairly well judged difficulty level, probably partly because you can save anywhere you like.
Metroid Prime (GC): See Final Fantasy X and Riddick. Grrrr.... mumble... Ridley... bastard.
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (GC): Finished it and enjoyed it thoroughly.
Pikmin (GC): The inclusion of time limits killed this game for me. I began playing it thinking it was going to be a fun, relaxing game, and then it developed into an ulcer inducing challenge. I never finished it.
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time: I played it for the first 3 hours, and thoroughly enjoyed the fluidity of the character's movement. However, I started feeling that nothing new was going to happen - I could be wrong, but I became too distracted to bother finding out.
Splinter Cell: For some reason I never really got into this. I played it for about 3 hours, thought it looked lovely, then found I had no idea what I was meant to be doing, then gave up. I think the linearity put me off as well - I remember running around for about an hour, looking for what I was meant to be doing next.
Black and White: I played with B&W for ages, and very much enjoyed the 'toy box' aspect of it. For me, it didn't matter whether I 'completed' it or not, that wasn't the point.
As I've said in many instances before, I often feel that the difficulty curves on games act much like a psychotic usher in a cinema. One hour and 35 minutes into, say, The Lord of the Rings, she comes over, shines the torch in your face:
Usher : "Excuse me, sir. I believe you're too stupid to watch the remainder of this
film."
Me: "Huh?"
Usher: "Please, sir. Would you exit the cinema quietly so as not to disturb more
intelligent patrons?"
Me: "But I paid ?9 for this seat..."
Usher: "Can you name Thorin's entire family tree? No. I thought not. That's why you
have to leave."
Videogames are an entertainment. Each time we smack someone in the face and punish them by disallowing them from experiencing more of the game, we are giving them an opportunity to turn off, and that's never good.
Moreover, games have the unique ability to be truly interactive, and allow people to express themselves, something few other entertainment mediums can do. The more we can capitalize on that, the more people will be drawn to such a unique experience.
