5 ms·

A lot of this is probably a function of genre, and the popularity and prevalance of genres has changed substantially over the last 30-odd years. This observati

A lot of this is probably a function of genre, and the popularity and prevalance of genres has changed substantially over the last 30-odd years. This observation is based on a sample size of n=1=myself, so take it with a grain of salt. But the games I've finished have usually been the ones that had some sort of tangible or intangible progression dynamics built in. In other words, the further I got in the game, the more powerful my character became, and/or the richer the gameplay became. RPGs, adventure games, open-world games in which the player could grow more powerful or collect items, games where you built or developed something, etc. Think back to the original Legend of Zelda. I bet that game had a much higher percentage of finishers than many games of its era had. Some of that had to do with novelty, sure. But a lot had to do with the progression of the character, the acquisition of phat lewtz, and the unlocking of secrets. Endgame Link was a substantially different character from n00b Link, and the progress from A to B was remarkably -- if simply and elegantly -- engrossing. Interestingly enough, you didn't really think of it that way when actually playing the game. You didn't say to yourself, from the outset, "I can't wait to slay the demon and save the princess." Instead, you concentrated on the incremental step ahead of you: finding that next level; upgrading the sword; finding the boomerang, or shield, or wand, or what have you. You were very much in the moment, and not always (if at all) cognizant of the linear movement from beginning to end. Contrast this with an FPS or platform game. Your character isn't remarkably different from beginning to end. The only thing that really changes is your skill level, and/or the items you collect (but which are usually expendable, or lost upon death and respawn). The gameplay is interesting, but it's self-contained in its satisfaction: you can derive the same amount of enjoyment from endlessly replaying a handful of maps in Modern Warfare that you get from actually finishing the story mode. And then there's multiplayer, which in many cases is so much more satisfactory than single-player that many players never even begin the story mode.

mattgreenrocks 15y ago
> Contrast this with an FPS or platform game. Your character isn't remarkably different from beginning to end. The only thing that really changes is your skill level, and/or the items you collect (but which are usually expendable, or lost upon death and respawn). I believe the term you're looking for is "emergent gameplay," where the player's deeper understanding of the game is rewarded with new gameplay mechanics, perhaps forcing them to revisit what they already know. And I'm not simply talking about unlocking new guns. I'm speaking more of new abilities that put new demands on the player. Things may be harder in the short term. One example would be the portal jumping that the original Portal required. One of the last levels in the game had you peering several stories up in a room and realizing you had to get there, and you had to figure out how to do that. The portal jump could be frustrating to learn, and yet, the game required you to do so on one of the final levels. IMO, most modern games falter when they require too little of the player. The same basic gameplay is rehashed over and over with tiny tweaks applied each year -- Call of Duty is essentially the Madden strategy applied to FPS games. The skill curve is far too shallow, but if it were deeper, then they may not buy the next version. This is probably because people don't necessarily want to learn some fresh and interesting way to compete, they just want to take what they already know and go at it.
- zephyrfalcon 15y ago
  Wikipedia seems to have a different definition: "Emergent gameplay refers to complex situations in video games, board games, or table top role playing games that emerge from the interaction of relatively simple game mechanics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_gameplay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_gameplay
  - mattgreenrocks 15y ago
    Yep, that states it better. It is similar to how a *NIX CLI gives you a few primitives that can interact with each other in powerful ways. You can see all the primitives individually, but you probably won't grasp the myriad of ways they can be combined until it is required of you.
bradleyland 15y ago
An interesting hypothesis, but the game used as an example in the article features emergent gameplay. In RDR, you progressively receive more weapons, mounts, and (to some degree) abilities as the game progresses. I think emergent gameplay pulls some players in, but I'm not sure it explains the statistics provided by the article. I think you really hit on the primary reason in your final sentence. RDR is, again, a great example. Hop in to a multi-player session of RDR and you'll find a very wide variety of gamers. Some people are just there to hang out. Some are there to explore. Some are there to play the free roam missions. Some are there to participate in more traditional PvP game modes. Some are there to grief other players. When you play the story, you're secluded. Even though the production quality of RDR was great (it won GoTY), single-player lacks the critical human element that you get with online play. Multiplayer gaming is a social event. It's social networking for people who play games, and the draw is undeniable. Single-player has become a sandbox for you to hone your skills to the point that you can participate competently in online play. Once you reach a threshold where online play isn't completely miserable, there's no turning back.
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  "An interesting hypothesis, but the game used as an example in the article features emergent gameplay. In RDR, you progressively receive more weapons, mounts, and (to some degree) abilities as the game progresses. I think emergent gameplay pulls some players in, but I'm not sure it explains the statistics provided by the article." To your point, there's actually a very good argument to be made that emergent gameplay (or the possibility thereof) decreases the desire to finish the game. It increases replayability, and total time played, but it creates incentives to "mess around" within the game and not to play it in a linear fashion. My overall thesis is that games seem to have shifted away from linearity on aggregate, to the point where "story mode" is now a value-add. Single-player, linear, traditional gameplay is the side option that multiplayer or sandbox used to be in the early days of console gaming. Fewer people are finishing games in the traditional sense, because fewer games are being published that are designed to be finished. [That design choice may not be intentional, as evidenced by the exhorbitant production values and costs being sunk by developers and publishers into "story mode" voice acting, cinematics, art direction, and so forth.]

mattgreenrocks 15y ago

> Contrast this with an FPS or platform game. Your character isn't remarkably different from beginning to end. The only thing that really changes is your skill level, and/or the items you collect (but which are usually expendable, or lost upon death and respawn). I believe the term you're looking for is "emergent gameplay," where the player's deeper understanding of the game is rewarded with new gameplay mechanics, perhaps forcing them to revisit what they already know. And I'm not simply talking about unlocking new guns. I'm speaking more of new abilities that put new demands on the player. Things may be harder in the short term. One example would be the portal jumping that the original Portal required. One of the last levels in the game had you peering several stories up in a room and realizing you had to get there, and you had to figure out how to do that. The portal jump could be frustrating to learn, and yet, the game required you to do so on one of the final levels. IMO, most modern games falter when they require too little of the player. The same basic gameplay is rehashed over and over with tiny tweaks applied each year -- Call of Duty is essentially the Madden strategy applied to FPS games. The skill curve is far too shallow, but if it were deeper, then they may not buy the next version. This is probably because people don't necessarily want to learn some fresh and interesting way to compete, they just want to take what they already know and go at it.

zephyrfalcon 15y ago
Wikipedia seems to have a different definition: "Emergent gameplay refers to complex situations in video games, board games, or table top role playing games that emerge from the interaction of relatively simple game mechanics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_gameplay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_gameplay
- mattgreenrocks 15y ago
  Yep, that states it better. It is similar to how a *NIX CLI gives you a few primitives that can interact with each other in powerful ways. You can see all the primitives individually, but you probably won't grasp the myriad of ways they can be combined until it is required of you.

bradleyland 15y ago

An interesting hypothesis, but the game used as an example in the article features emergent gameplay. In RDR, you progressively receive more weapons, mounts, and (to some degree) abilities as the game progresses. I think emergent gameplay pulls some players in, but I'm not sure it explains the statistics provided by the article. I think you really hit on the primary reason in your final sentence. RDR is, again, a great example. Hop in to a multi-player session of RDR and you'll find a very wide variety of gamers. Some people are just there to hang out. Some are there to explore. Some are there to play the free roam missions. Some are there to participate in more traditional PvP game modes. Some are there to grief other players. When you play the story, you're secluded. Even though the production quality of RDR was great (it won GoTY), single-player lacks the critical human element that you get with online play. Multiplayer gaming is a social event. It's social networking for people who play games, and the draw is undeniable. Single-player has become a sandbox for you to hone your skills to the point that you can participate competently in online play. Once you reach a threshold where online play isn't completely miserable, there's no turning back.

jonnathanson 15y ago
"An interesting hypothesis, but the game used as an example in the article features emergent gameplay. In RDR, you progressively receive more weapons, mounts, and (to some degree) abilities as the game progresses. I think emergent gameplay pulls some players in, but I'm not sure it explains the statistics provided by the article." To your point, there's actually a very good argument to be made that emergent gameplay (or the possibility thereof) decreases the desire to finish the game. It increases replayability, and total time played, but it creates incentives to "mess around" within the game and not to play it in a linear fashion. My overall thesis is that games seem to have shifted away from linearity on aggregate, to the point where "story mode" is now a value-add. Single-player, linear, traditional gameplay is the side option that multiplayer or sandbox used to be in the early days of console gaming. Fewer people are finishing games in the traditional sense, because fewer games are being published that are designed to be finished. [That design choice may not be intentional, as evidenced by the exhorbitant production values and costs being sunk by developers and publishers into "story mode" voice acting, cinematics, art direction, and so forth.]