Why Don't People Finish Games?

---

Amy Hennig, Game Director
Developer: Naughty Dog
Latest Game: Jak 3

Back

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

Amy Hennig: Probably Prince of Persia -- the quality of the level layout and puzzles compelled me to keep playing until I finished. The game is also a manageable length.

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?

AH: There are so many different forms of entertainment competing for the player's attention these days, I think people just don't have the time to devote 20 or 30 hours to complete a game anymore. Culturally, I think our attention spans are shorter, too -- we tend to lose interest and move onto the next new thing.

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?

AH: With the Jak series, we change gameplay modes throughout the game, to keep the experience fresh. The game follows a mission-based structure, so one task might require the player to race a vehicle, while the next task involves platform gameplay or fighting hordes of enemies on foot. This helps to keep the player's interest as they move through the game, since they're compelled to see what the next challenge is.

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

AH: It depends what kind of game it is, but I think most games these days need some sort of narrative premise to initially hook the player into the game world. But beyond the initial premise, a lot of games are just about the experience -- Grand Theft Auto being the best example. Plot-driven games face additional challenges -- the gameplay most hold the player's interest long enough for the story to reach its conclusion, otherwise the player isn't getting the full experience.

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?

AH: I think this is real dilemma for developers these days -- we want to give players a completable, satisfying game, but if it's too short many players will consider it a rental. The key is not how many hours of gameplay, but how replayable the game is. This is another challenge plot-driven games face.

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?

AH: We do sometimes have to consider that many players may never see the later levels in the game, and tune and polish appropriately. This is more of a pragmatic "publisher" mindset, though - the developer is always going to want the entire game to shine.

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

AH: People stop playing when they lose interest, when they feel like they've gotten the whole experience and the game starts to repeat itself. That's why it's critical to keep these games fresh with upgrades and expansion packs. Inevitably players will drift toward the next big thing, but it's amazing how long these games will hold people's interest.

The irony in the game industry is that our jobs are so demanding, we have very little time to play games. So developers tend to sample other games, playing them long enough to get a taste of the experience and see what the competition is doing. We have to be very selective about which games we devote our time to.