Why Don't People Finish Games?

Back

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

Evan Wells: The last game that I played to completion was Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. It was about the right length for how much I have time to devote to a game these days. I'm sure I don't represent the typical consumer when I say this, but about 6 to 10 hours is about the length of my attention span.

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?

EW: I don't think that there is any one reason why people don't finish games. It depends on the individual and on the game. Some games are too difficult, some are too long. Sometimes you might really enjoy a game but put it down for a while and when you pick it back up, you can't quite remember where you were or what you were doing. Bugs could also put an end to your play experience. If a bug forces you to replay a difficult section of the game, you might put it down for good.

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?

EW: In the Jak and Daxter franchise, we've been attempting to keep things fresh through sheer variety. Rather than repeating the same stale mechanics over and over again, we try to make each mission or task unique. We also try to reward players for advancing through the game with short entertaining cut-scenes that slowly reveal the overarching plot.

EW: For certain genres, story and plot are very important. I'm not sure that the level of importance has changed over the years, but the technology has certainly advanced to the point that it's allowing us to achieve a much more immersive experience with our stories.

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?

EW: I always refrain from giving a specific number of hours of gameplay for the games we make a Naughty Dog. The amount of time it takes to finish a game can vary widely from player to player. For instance, our testers can finish one of our games in a fraction of the time that it would take even the hardest core gamer. I think the "magic number" that developers have to target is actually more of a threshold; whether consumers will view your game as a rental or a purchase. That threshold can be achieved in a number of ways, only one of which is "hours of gameplay".

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?

EW: It's more bothersome that we might be disappointing those players who, for whatever reason, don't see the end of our game. If we failed to make the experience engaging enough, or we missed the mark on the tuning of the difficulty, we want to know how we can improve for our next game. We definitely try to give every section of the game equal attention so that we have a game that is polished throughout.

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

EW: With EverQuest sometimes it takes starvation, divorce or some other catastrophic event to get people to stop! MMO games bread and butter is to keep people hooked. They could give the application away for free, if they can keep a steady level of subscriptions. Once you've established a group of friends in a particular universe, you want to keep going back; there's very little incentive to leave.