Jump to content
IGNORED

How much of your time do you give games before abandoning them?


Jamie John
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Pob said:

If I was designing an open world game, I'd create far fewer main story missions, make the story do-able in about 15 hours, but make each story mission more memorable and with different approaches and outcomes. Short enough that you might actually replay the campaign if you really love the game.

 

Most open world games do have quite short campaigns though, if you just wanted to power through it? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I struggle to accept a recommendation of a game these days. There has to be something that interests me personally, and whatever it is that causes that spark will be enough to drive me to play the game and maybe see it through to the end. When someone says to me that I really should play GameX because it's brilliant, it's hard to muster up the enthusiasm to spend £50 on the game and then stick with it in the hope that it's something that I will like. 

 

My policy in the last couple of years has been to wait and pick games up as they get cheaper. For example, I've always enjoyed arcade racers much more than simulations but I'm thoroughly enjoying Gran Turismo on PS4 , partly because it's great in VR, partly because it's got amazing graphics, partly because it's good fun to play, and partly because it cost me £11. I won't feel bad about abandoning it when I get tired of the simulation aspect because I have had a lot of fun for the price of a couple of McDonald's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gabe said:

 

Most open world games do have quite short campaigns though, if you just wanted to power through it? :huh:

 

The ones I have played recently don't feel that way - Assassins' Creed Origins, Spider-man, GTAV and Red Dead 2. And I've just started Days Gone which supposedly outstays its welcome in the story stakes. I guess Spider-man was pretty reasonable, and a bit more how it should be done - it's the only one out of the above that I've actually finished, and was able to follow properly.

 

The quality is key, though. I think a re-directing of resources so that campaigns are half the length but feature more in-depth, varied and open-ended missions would result in much better games and stories. With a lot of open-world campaigns I feel like I'm just going from cutscene to cutscene and participating in some perfunctory gameplay or scripted sequence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Pob said:

Too many open world games make the player feel guilty for not doing the side content, or even gate story missions behind side-mission grinding. I'd totally change that paradigm. I guess loot games like The Division do this quite well. The actual campaign is relatively short but you can play forever in the end-game gear grind.


Crackdown got it right.

 

The game is open-world with lots of distractions but the premise amounts to “find each of the crime lords and defeat them”. There’s no narrative thread tying them together, and nothing preventing an attempt to defeat a crime lord... just a primer when you enter the zone of the crime lord, and you’re welcome to leave the zone if you don’t want to do story stuff today.

 

:wub: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to drop games I don't get on with quite quickly, but at the same time do try and persevere with games that I know I should like and/or love the style of but am crap at. So yonks ago, before it was even widely known of, I managed to complete a Japanese import of Demons Souls including about a zillion deaths and all the bastard bosses. But I then got Dark Souls and just couldn't get past one of early bosses and after I don't know 20 attempts at the fight (and fricking battling through to the fight from the last fire place) dropped the game and never went back. I loved the style of Bayonetta but was absolutely crap at learning the combat controls and again dropped that despite not wanting to.

 

I also suffer from the 'but its not as good as <insert brilliant game in the same genre here> and stop playing to replay the better game again instead. Zelda BotW for a long time killed my interest in playing any other game at all as did, in days of yore, playing FFXI for maybe 2 years solid and nothing else, and completely leaving Half Life 2, bought at the exact same time, unplayed apart from the first 2 hours. I never did go back to HL2 either

 

Finally every now and then feel I need to buy a game and, fuelled by other peoples' enthusiasm or reviews, buy it and immediately realise I hate it. I'm not a great enthusiast of fps's or on-line shooters but still bought Destiny :rolleyes:. And I recently bought Skyrim again, for my switch, having fully completed and enjoyed it ages ago and.....absolutely hated the first person perspective and stopped pretty much as soon as I'd escaped that little castle where I was to be executed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Qazimod said:


Crackdown got it right.

 

The game is open-world with lots of distractions but the premise amounts to “find each of the crime lords and defeat them”. There’s no narrative thread tying them together, and nothing preventing an attempt to defeat a crime lord... just a primer when you enter the zone of the crime lord, and you’re welcome to leave the zone if you don’t want to do story stuff today.

 

:wub: 

 

Crackdown is more of an interactive toy box, really - and it's very, very good too. If you were skilled enough you could probably complete the main game in about an hour (I think? I don't remember any gating of areas, all 3 bosses were open at the start, right?)

 

Not so good if you do want some narrative driving you forward, mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before this gen if I bought a game I would finish it. Even if it was pish. 

 

I have changed as a person this gen and if a game doesn't grab me within a couple hours at most then I'm done. I would rather watch films or TV than play games these days. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive started Red Dead Redemption 2 twice, got to Valentine (i think thats the name, first non snowy town) twice and given up twice, not a bad game just cant be arsed, its me not the game, just end up going back to Battlefield V online

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too many games and not enough time. 

 

If something grabs me I play it usually to completion. These days I tend to spend a bit more time selecting the type of game I will enjoy and it's usually got a duration of 10 hours to complete and story driven. 

 

Life is too short to squander your time on something that you are not enjoying. 

 

How much time do I give? 15 minutes usually. You know within probably 5 minutes if you are going to love something of not but generally allow another 10 minutes just to give something a chance. No gullt and this is why I love GamePass and other services like it.

 

The only exception to this is some racing games where you have to fiddle around a bit to get an optimal experience but it's usually worth it in the end. Thinking of the PC driving games the VR headset and wheel in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Qazimod said:


Crackdown got it right.

 

The game is open-world with lots of distractions but the premise amounts to “find each of the crime lords and defeat them”. There’s no narrative thread tying them together, and nothing preventing an attempt to defeat a crime lord... just a primer when you enter the zone of the crime lord, and you’re welcome to leave the zone if you don’t want to do story stuff today.

 

:wub: 

Absolutely. Crackdown is all the fun of say a GTA game without the pretence of trying to be a movie. Also it's a game and doesn't try to be anything more. You have superpowers that are upgradable and a city to play in. Go have fun. Why I still play it today. Some would call it a "gamers game". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all well and good giving a game 15 minutes but a whole load of games I've played which have gone on to become favourites have taken a good few hours to get going. This isn't always bad design. Quite often there is a lot to communicate to the player, a period of adjustment to controls/systems before the training wheels come off etc. A lot of modern non-arcade games get better the more you get into them, like a long novel or a slow-burn TV series. Then, when you do get into them you really get into them.

 

Some people prefer quick arcade experiences, and that's fine, but lots of games require and reward time investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Gabe said:

Yeah, 15 minutes is a ridiculously short amount of time to allow a game to grab you - but if it works for you @MattyP then all is good (though you are undoubtedly missing out on a lot of really good stuff).

It does seem like that but given I do a bit of research before downloading stuff I can usually get a feeling about a game.

 

Think as I've got older have less time to spend learning all the bits and pieces and just want some fun tend to enjoy games that are quick to pick up and play or have a story that grabs me.

 

Don't think I've missed out on much TBH but have saved myself a whole lot of more valuable time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On topic, I started Senua's Sacrifice on the Switch this afternoon and played it for 20 minutes. I say 'played', because, really, five of those twenty minutes were me reading the credits and looking at the back of Senua's head as she canoed down a river, without me controlling her. The next ten minutes involved me periodically pushing up on the left stick so that I could get to the next section where the game took control away from me for a while. It was only in the final five minutes that I actually did something vaguely gamey by fighting a few enemies, but even that only lasted about 30 seconds, and I had to look at the game's manual to figure out the controls as there weren't any tooltips to speak of. After that I turned it off.

 

Just bloody get on with it! Tell me what my objective is, tell me how to control the game and give me something interesting to do. That should always come first, then you can add in the story guff. Strewth.

 

I'm going to go back to it and give it the benefit of the doubt, and also because I paid £12 for it months ago, but some games make it bloody difficult at times.

 

Super Mario 64: immediate, engaging player agency. That should be the touchstone for all developers when they're designing the initial levels of their games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jamie John said:

Super Mario 64: immediate, engaging player agency. That should be the touchstone for all developers when they're designing the initial levels of their games.

I do miss the immediacy of older games... Probably why I'm fairly dismissive these days about game intros that drag on too long.. unless it is a story based adventure game of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless something really rubs me up the wrong way the first play lasts at least an hour, and I usually don’t so much actively decide to abandon a game as just never bother to go back to it. Sometimes I put a lot more time in though, if a game is widely touted as great; I must have played at least 20 hours of Red Dead Redemption 2 before conceding I’m just not having fun and should stop hoping it will click so I’ll realise what I’m missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to try and play a game to completion even if I didn't like it, especially if it had good reviews. I had this weird sense of owing a game (or film or TV series) something, having to give it a fair chance. I did rationally think that it's entertainment, and its purpose is to entertain me, so if it's not doing that I should stop wasting my life on it. But that didn't always connect.

 

I'm getting much better now, and not feeling bad about ditching stuff, but I'm still sticking with stuff a bit too long. I probably played alien isolation a good four or six hours after realising that it was definitely a stealth game and that I was never going to enjoy it. Same with the last of us, I didn't give up on that anywhere near quickly enough.  Kept going because everyone said it was amazing, despite having a horrible time.

 

Still have a problem with playing games I do like to the point where it makes me miserable, but still can't stop, though.

 

21 hours ago, therearerules said:

Unless it's a narrative game such as 9 persons 9 hours 9 doors, then it's usually, do I feel in control when things get complex. When you start a game they've generally got 3 things to get across:

1. How you control it

2. What you should be doing (not a long term narrative, more how to play optimally)

3. (optionally) a narrative.

 

Have you ever played the witness? Lol

 

21 hours ago, Vimster said:

There was a time when I would maybe put 2 or 3 hours into a game, go "yeah that's alright" and not go back. Couldn't understand why, could have been the Pile Of Shame glaring at me, or a low boredom threshold. Then I built a new PC, the first decent one I'd had in about 7 or 8 years, and my time played in games went right up: 30 hours in Far Cry 5, 25 hours in The Division, 64 hours in Borderlands 3. I'd not seen numbers like that in years, and I came to the conclusion I much prefer sitting at my PC playing games that hunched on the sofa in front of the telly.

That's funny, I've never been able to sit comfortably at a desk without hunching and ruining my spine, which is why I prefer gaming relaxed on the comfy sofa!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chris on the moon said:

I used to try and play a game to completion even if I didn't like it, especially if it had good reviews. I had this weird sense of owing a game (or film or TV series) something, having to give it a fair chance. I did rationally think that it's entertainment, and its purpose is to entertain me, so if it's not doing that I should stop wasting my life on it. But that didn't always connect.

 

I used to be an obscene amount of DVDs and yet barely watched any of them. I also used to buy a lot of PC games (especially back in the day when PC World used to do a 3 for 2 quite often on all the new stuff). I barely played any of those, either - despite having some very well-regarded stuff. Those were the days when I had more disposable income and more time, yet I never quite took advantage of it at all to actually watch/play things.

 

I no longer have any DVDs (they were sold-off following a house move a long time ago) and I don't buy tv or films (Sky/Netflix and Amazon have enough content there, even if I sometimes have a hankering for something not available on any service). Games, though? I have lots (primarily PC, but I still have a PS2, PS3 and X360 with games for them).

 

The difference now though is that over the past few years (and it was actually one of the 'What Games Did You Complete...' threads that gave me an impetus to do so) I've started to put more effort in playing things and looking to complete them. Being old now I have far less time, but I still manage to get a decent amount of gaming done each week and I think one of the main things is that I like to feel I've used my little window productively. That can sometimes mean the thought of a big open-world game or RPG - where progress is hard to measure in an hour here or there - can sometimes put me off wanting to start (or even go back to) a title, but it generally works out alright.

 

I think that compartmentalising of my time also helps focus on not playing stuff I am just not enjoying. A recent-ish example was Void Bastards; I thought it looked fun and I probably put about 6 or so hours into it, but I never really enjoyed playing it and at least part of that time was thinking 'Well, just push on and complete it, you've nearly done half' - but whereas once I may indeed have carried on, I decided that, actually, I had better stuff to play and so I binned it - and it felt good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't so much as abandon games as put the on the pile of shame.  Like the friend zone, it's hard to get out of it.

 

Borderlands 3 is the latest game to go that way.  I played about 8 hours of it, which is more than usual for a game I give up on.  Jedi Fallen Order got about 6 hours.

 

More often than not it's not a conscious choice to abandon a game.  I come to a bit I struggle with, so I take a break, start playing something else and never get round to going back to the first one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.