156 réponses à ce sujet

[Shaftell]

It's an interesting thing you bring up. I for one will beat the game. But many others will be too distracted. For example, I've never finished any of the GTA games. I end up being distracted long enough with activities to the point where I don't care about playing the story anymore. It's interesting to see how many completionist campaigns there will be. Obviously the BSN is a very biased population sample, the majority of us will most likely have completionist campaigns.

[Pateu]

It doesn't take long to figure out if you're enjoying a game nor to have an informed view of its technical merits.

- User interface
- Graphics and aesthetics
- Sound design
- Encounter design
- Camera
- Feedback to player actions
- Quality of voice acting
- Whether combat is interesting
- Novelty of gameplay or setting

I can usually figure out how good all these things are in under an hour. As D. H. Lawrence supposedly said, "I don't have to eat the entire omelet to know that it's bad."

There are aspects of a game that require you play most of it, or all of it. Deciding whether you like it or not, which is what metacritic reflect, is not one of them.

 

Dragon Age 2 having 4.4 in user ratings disagrees.

[blahblah]

Gonna have to wait and see if what they say is the truth...Finished DAO in 20 hours and DA2 within 12-13 hours which is probably well below what most people get.

[Maria Caliban]

Dragon Age 2 having 4.4 in user ratings disagrees.

Can you extrapolate on that? It doesn't seem to be a response to what I said.

I am making two statements:
1) You can evaluate a large portion of what makes a game good or not without finishing it.
2) Metacritic reflects whether a user liked the game or not, which does not require they complete the game.

Dragon Age II having a low rating doesn't seem to 'disagree' with either of those ideas.

[Fredward]

Dragon Age 2 having 4.4 in user ratings disagrees.

 

Personally, I'd rather stick to the critic's scores and not the 5 year old's bombing reviews without ever having even touched the game because all their friends are doing it.

[Bizantura]

For me personally Bioware has a good track record for I complete all there games multiple times, even DA2 wich I consider very mediocre.  Thats why I buy them full price on day one.  The rest of my games are "today" from the bargain bin for a song and dance because I bought a lot af games full price I only played for an hour or so.  The elder scrolls is the other exception that I buy day one.  

 

Once I start a game I know very fast if it is a hit or miss "for me" and I allready spent a fortune on the faillure ones.

 

Reviews (profesionnal/fans) I gave up on, that doesn't give me any clue if I will like a game or not it just gets me swept up in hype and disappointment there after.

[Fredvdp]

Games in general have low completion rates. On Steam, Skyrim has a 30% completion rate (based on the endgame achievement), and to be honest, I think that's pretty high for an open world game.

[teenparty]

A high completion rate increases the chances for an expansion.

[brightblueink]

 

Also 36% completion for Origins, considering how good Origins was, seems dreadful.

It's not, really. The majority of people these days don't finish games. I've heard similar stats for all sorts of popular and beloved games. Heck, wasn't there even a controversy a few years ago when a game dev questioned if it was even worth having a story/long game when so few people finished them? (I disagree with him, of course, but it's a common enough "problem" for people to talk about it.)

 

BioWare has many different metrics for the game and I think they would be more concerned if the majority of the players gave up at the exact same quest, for they know people can't dedicate a lot of time to games for they have other commitments and then other games are released.

 

Someone brought up Borderlands 2 completion on Steam and something I find odd is the easiest achievement in the game (completing the first quest about 10 min into the game with no combat just following a NPC around) only 76.5% of the people who bought the game have even done that.

 

Now I am the type of player that will try and get all single player achievements in a game and then stop playing the game for I find that completion gives me something to aim for and frankly I just can't afford a lot of games anymore so anything to keep me interested in a game longer is a good thing.

I'm not surprised that only 76.5% of people have gotten the first achievement in Borderlands 2 on Steam. Borderlands 2 has been on sale in the big Steam sales multiple times. (I know because that's how i got the PC version.) I'm the sort of person that will snatch a game up when I know I plan to play it eventually and it's going for cheap, so I have a LOT of games in my Steam library that I haven't even started yet. My husband is even worse--he's bought used, cheap games for systems he doesn't even OWN yet. (IIRC, he had a decent library of PS3 games 2 years before he ever bought a PS3...)

 

I wouldn't be surprised by the idea that about 25% of people who buy games on Steam are collectors/hoarders like me and my husband when it comes to games, particularly since Steam pretty much encourages that with the steam sale thing.

[SolNebula]

Unlike Skyrim or GTA games...BW games are story focused so I can see myself finishing the game multiple times provided the story is good. The first time i play the game I go for the story only and then only on the second run I do the exploring stuff.

[Dubya75]

People who don't complete Dragon Age games probably do so with all the games they buy.

So it should be of little concern to Bioware. It's the gamer's loss if they don't complete the game.

Personally, I'm a completionist, so I won't even start a new game unless I intend to complete it (and in the case of Dragon Age, multiple times).

[Ajna]

I intend to complete it multiple times and I'll run away from that giant spider every time if I can...

[fchopin]

If i don’t finish games then i don’t bother if there are sequels unless there are big changes in the new game.
For DA games there will always be uncompleted games if the player played the game more than once as they like to try different ways to play the game.
So it depends on the reason why the game was not completed.

[JEMEDAOME2]

I'm going to complete the game.  I don't really care what everyone else does.

 

What he/she said It's gonna be my game what other people do is their own beeswax

[Darkly Tranquil]

Well at least I know I did my part. 13 completions of Origins (across 2 platforms - PS3 & PC) and 4 DA2 completions (PC), so I know that even at 150 hrs a run (I suspect I will be able to do it in less) I will smash at least 2 completions out of it. I went from 61 hrs on my first Origins playthrough to being able to do it in 32 by my 13th, so if you can cut game time roughly in half through practice, we will still have a very long game even when you know exactly what to so. Even if you estimate conservatively, and figure that they are embellishing, you can assume that a completionist playthrough of DAI is still going to take even an experienced player 75-100hrs.
The way I see it, it just means exceptional value for money. Most major releases these days run 15-20 hours if you're lucky and then rely on multiplayer to give the game longevity.

As a side note, The Witcher 2 was a fantastic game, but it's controls, camera, and character advancement systems were far from user friendly, and it was disappointingly short, so its low completion rate is not that surprising. Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt looks amazing indecently, and appears to address the issue of W2 being too brief. I need to get DAI complete before W3 releases...

[Magdalena11]

I think I've only completed about 30% of the games I started, but I've still killed the Mother about 20 times with an imported warden, and at least 20 Hawkes have seen red Meredith statues.  

[dutch_gamer]

It's not, really. The majority of people these days don't finish games. I've heard similar stats for all sorts of popular and beloved games. Heck, wasn't there even a controversy a few years ago when a game dev questioned if it was even worth having a story/long game when so few people finished them? (I disagree with him, of course, but it's a common enough "problem" for people to talk about it.)
 
I'm not surprised that only 76.5% of people have gotten the first achievement in Borderlands 2 on Steam. Borderlands 2 has been on sale in the big Steam sales multiple times. (I know because that's how i got the PC version.) I'm the sort of person that will snatch a game up when I know I plan to play it eventually and it's going for cheap, so I have a LOT of games in my Steam library that I haven't even started yet. My husband is even worse--he's bought used, cheap games for systems he doesn't even OWN yet. (IIRC, he had a decent library of PS3 games 2 years before he ever bought a PS3...)
 
I wouldn't be surprised by the idea that about 25% of people who buy games on Steam are collectors/hoarders like me and my husband when it comes to games, particularly since Steam pretty much encourages that with the steam sale thing.

Would gamers who buy a game even be counted if they never even started up the game they bought?

And what is completion? I see a lot of mention of 150 hours but that is for 100 % completion of the game. The stats of gamers finishing a game is not about 100 % competition but about finishing the main story line. And even then it doesn't really matter only 30 to 40 % of gamers finish their games. It just goes to show the short attention span some gamers have. I wouldn't be surprised if this is about the same with shorter games as well. The only game (series) I have never finished is TES. That series always bores me to tears but yet I keep trying to play it but I never manage to finish it and I don't have that issue with any other game I have bought in the past.

I also doubt the completion stat counts the multiple play throughs. Counting that would taint the number significantly. The completion stat probably only counts if you have completed one game per account or not.

Anyway, the last thing I want is games being made shorter to appease gamers who seem to get bored after just 5 hours (some times even less). The shorter the game the less likely I even want to buy it at release. For me a game needs at least 20 hours of actually game play before I even consider buying it for release, otherwise if a game is really good I will buy it when it is on sale. I am actually glad that more games are becoming "open world" games. It gives me that much more choice because with an open world game I can spend the time in a game I want to spend to make it worth the price tag.

[SofaJockey]

There's completing a game (getting through the main plot line, deal with big bad, roll credits) and

doing a completionist play through (did you max Elfroot?).

 

People play in different ways:

 

(this Game Lengths site is interesting to see: http://www.gamelengt...s/Dragon Age 2/

 

Much of what people do in games reflects their personality.

• Some will play if for a while, will get distracted by something else.
• Some purchases will be gifts, particularly in November
• Some will pump through the main plot
• Others will nerd out over every deep mushroom
• Attention span will vary
• Some play for story
• Others for combat
• Others like team-games
• Others just play for LOLs

The casual gamer who might buy it in a supermarket on chance may get

less from it than an enthusiast who visits the forums, but that's their choice.

 

We live in a busy world full of:

• unread books
• unwatched DVDs
• unworn clothes
• unread e-mail
• unfinished games

EDIT - and if you think PC/console completion is bad.

 

2/3 mobile app games are abandoned within 24 hrs.

 

http://www.gamesrada...t-mobile-games/

[Fearsome1]

Seeing as this game F***ing Dwarfs all of Bioware's previous titles both in terms of map size & content with an apparent 55 hour main Campaign ONLY completion average... I'd be amazed if more than 30% of the players who buy this game actually finish it.

 

DA:O had a 36% completion rate

DA:2 had a 40% completion rate

 

Some of, if not all of the levels are larger than the previous Games entire play space combined. Can't expect many players to put the time or effort into seeing even 1/2 of what this game has to offer considering these areas are so huge.

 

So my question is how would Bioware respond if the completion rates for DA:I were lower than DA:O's? Would it alter the design of future titles or are completion rates inconsequential as long as the game Sells well?

 

Do low completion rates it actually matter? What do you guys think?

 

To me, your post is the very definition of nitpicking!

[RogueState]

I'll definitely be finishing the game, probably more than once because I'm a total completionist.

 

But I don't think it matters if you do or you don't, if you enjoy the time you spend playing it what does it matter? And I'm pretty sure as long the game sells well and they get positive feedback BW really aren't going to mind.

[Gruntburner]

Completion rate is not indicative of quality. For proof, look at Red Dead Redemption, one of the best games of the last generation and it only had a completion rate of around 10%. Generally the longer a game is, the less likely it is to be completed.

[DrDeeft]

Where do you get these completion rates from?

[Sanunes]

A high completion rate increases the chances for an expansion.

 

I can't see that being the case, for Dragon Age: Origins the last BioWare game with an expansion has the lowest completion percentage. I personally believe Developers go into making a game realizing a majority of the people that buy the game won't finish it and if I am remembering an article correctly BioWare games have some of the highest completion averages in the industry generally in the 40% range.

[Sanunes]

Where do you get these completion rates from?

 

They have talked about the percentages a couple of times, here is an article I just googled from GDC Europe in 2012.

 

Link

[Sidney]

Completion rate is not indicative of quality. For proof, look at Red Dead Redemption, one of the best games of the last generation and it only had a completion rate of around 10%. Generally the longer a game is, the less likely it is to be completed.

 

 

It isn't about quality, often it is about style. Something like RDR or Skyrim or Borderlands 2 are massive open world main plot semi-irrelevant type affairs - oddly Borderlands 2 being the best of that lot.

 

Still, the question as a development staff is why? Why build in so much stuff that so little of your audience will ever experience? Is there a benefit to a more tightly told story a more compact experience?