Fact #1--Only 10-20% of gamers actually finish games.
Is it just me or does this number seem really low? Are they only counting games with a single player campaign? Think about games like Call of Duty which typically include a single player campaign but which many people play for the multiplayer experience. What counts as "finishing?" I mostly play single player and try to make it a point to finish the games I buy (except Spelunky--my forever regret). I am also a staunch completionist and feel a strong need to complete as much as I can. I know plenty of people who don't finish games, so maybe I'm totally wrong.
Is it just me or does this number seem really low? Are they only counting games with a single player campaign? Think about games like Call of Duty which typically include a single player campaign but which many people play for the multiplayer experience. What counts as "finishing?" I mostly play single player and try to make it a point to finish the games I buy (except Spelunky--my forever regret). I am also a staunch completionist and feel a strong need to complete as much as I can. I know plenty of people who don't finish games, so maybe I'm totally wrong.
Fact #2--Gaming is a waste of time and you could be doing something more constructive like learning to play the oboe or how to speak Spanish.
This is a hard one for me because I partially agree. I have had my crushing moments of guilt. Before I quit World of Warcraft it was every time the playtime (/played) popped up on my screen. Especially since it calculates your time played as days. (Why do they even have this in the game? Is it Blizzard's way of making you realize it's time to quit?). Soul crushing.
This is a hard one for me because I partially agree. I have had my crushing moments of guilt. Before I quit World of Warcraft it was every time the playtime (/played) popped up on my screen. Especially since it calculates your time played as days. (Why do they even have this in the game? Is it Blizzard's way of making you realize it's time to quit?). Soul crushing.
On the other hand I want to compare gaming to other hobbies. Is fly fishing or collecting antique lamps a waste of time? Sure, you might catch a fish that you're going to eat or find a nice lamp to light your house, but what's the point? In the end I think it comes down to what value you place on your chosen leisure activities. To me gaming has so many fun aspects--getting to experience interesting stories and characters in a visual and interactable medium, feeling a sense of achievement (literally through achievements or just through doing something silly like being able to complete all the "Hunger Games" challenges in Cook, Serve, Delicious), socializing with others who have similar interests, or a feeling of superiority in a multiplayer game. Why should I feel guilty about something that I enjoy?
Fact #3--Developers should try to make games that are more in-tune with how someone wants to play.
I agree with this but think it would be extremely complicated. Don't some games already offer this option? It seems like when you first start Mass Effect and select the difficulty for the game you get to select what type of experience you want to have. You can opt for a more story-based game where the amount of combat is reduced or choose to include combat scenarios. Seems like a good choice for people who would rather focus on the story. But even something like this is at least partially possible in the game it seems like everyone is loving/hating Dragon Age: Inquisition. It would be possible to complete the main storyline in probably 40-50 hours (that is my guesstimate) if you focused on reaching the level threshold that is required to pursue them. You would get a more story-based experience and the length of the game is significantly reduced. Same thing with more open world games like Skyrim. Rather than exploring every cave on the map players can opt to just follow the story quests. I'm sure the amount of time to finish it would be greatly reduced.
I don't think a game like Mountain is for everyone. If you're looking for a more artistic or philosophical type of game...sure, but to me it sounds dull as dishwater.
So what is the ideal length of a game? I feel like if a game is entertaining and you don't feel yourself getting bored it can really vary and that it depends on the type of experience you are looking for. I've played games that are relatively short and really enjoyed them--the Shadowrun games spring to mind (10-20 hours). I've also played games of epic length and felt very mixed about them. Another aspect I consider is cost. I want to know that I'm going to get what I'm paying for and don't want to feel like I'm getting ripped off. Games are expensive. However, I like to lean towards quality over quantity. A game can be short if it has a great replayability factor but I don't want to spend $60 on something I'm going to play once and then shelf.
I agree with this but think it would be extremely complicated. Don't some games already offer this option? It seems like when you first start Mass Effect and select the difficulty for the game you get to select what type of experience you want to have. You can opt for a more story-based game where the amount of combat is reduced or choose to include combat scenarios. Seems like a good choice for people who would rather focus on the story. But even something like this is at least partially possible in the game it seems like everyone is loving/hating Dragon Age: Inquisition. It would be possible to complete the main storyline in probably 40-50 hours (that is my guesstimate) if you focused on reaching the level threshold that is required to pursue them. You would get a more story-based experience and the length of the game is significantly reduced. Same thing with more open world games like Skyrim. Rather than exploring every cave on the map players can opt to just follow the story quests. I'm sure the amount of time to finish it would be greatly reduced.
I don't think a game like Mountain is for everyone. If you're looking for a more artistic or philosophical type of game...sure, but to me it sounds dull as dishwater.
So what is the ideal length of a game? I feel like if a game is entertaining and you don't feel yourself getting bored it can really vary and that it depends on the type of experience you are looking for. I've played games that are relatively short and really enjoyed them--the Shadowrun games spring to mind (10-20 hours). I've also played games of epic length and felt very mixed about them. Another aspect I consider is cost. I want to know that I'm going to get what I'm paying for and don't want to feel like I'm getting ripped off. Games are expensive. However, I like to lean towards quality over quantity. A game can be short if it has a great replayability factor but I don't want to spend $60 on something I'm going to play once and then shelf.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.