156 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

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

BioWare's metrics know the difference between a game that never connects and a game where someone started but never completed. If the game never connects to their server, it's possible that it was completed but the player opted-out.

I don't know how Steam handles its achievements. I do know there are Steam games I've bought during holiday sales but never started.
 
 

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.

Generally speaking, I don't think it's short attention span. Borderlands 2 I planned to play with friends... who inevitably flaked out on me. The Witcher just bored me and I never finished (though I bought and finished Witcher 2). LA Noire offended me, so I stopped playing. Psychonauts was fun until almost the very end; the meat circus felt like the developers fired a chunk of people in charge of puzzle/area design and brought in a new group.

The Walking Dead, Spore, STALKER, Dishonored, the Legend of Grimrock, Divine Divinity and Beyond Divinity, The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, BioShock 1 and 2 - I have not finished any of these games and I don't think it's because I lack attention span (there are games I've put 100+ hours into) but because the story, gameplay, or encounters become tedious.

I almost quit DA:O twice: The deep roads and the battle of Denerim. For me, they were both boring, overly-long filler. I tried a second playthru, hit Orzamarr, and thought, "**** it, I'm not doing this."

It speaks to the strength of BioWare’s storytelling that I didn’t quit the game the first time. The average game has poor storytelling, so when the gameplay falls apart, there’s no reason to continue.

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?

The people who finish your game are also the ones most likely to talk about your game and give their impressions to others. They're more likely to become fans of a specific game or series and 'hype' it when the next installment comes around.

It's one of those 20/80 situations where a small percentage of your players generate the vast majority of discussion about your game.

[Sanunes]

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?

 

Then the question to be asked of why should they have playable races, female characters, endings at all, or romances since only portions of the playbase will actually experience that content.

 

People will experience that content and then talk about it.  

[InfinitePaths]

LA Noire offended me

 

 

I know it's a bit off topic, but out of curiosity in regards to the gaming industry, why?

[SofaJockey]

It's one of those 20/80 situations where a small percentage of your players generate the vast majority of discussion about your game.

 

Certainly true on this forum... 

[azarhal]

Then how can anyone take the metacritic score or the complaints of fans seriously when they didn't even finish the game?

 

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

 

From what I remember those stats are for all game started. I probably completed 10% of all my started Origins playthrough. Some didn't even last more than 5 minutes (ugly char, you know).

[Maria Caliban]

If you finished the game once, then you're counted as having completed the game.

There's also info on whether you've done multiple playthrus, but that's separate.

[dutch_gamer]

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?

I don't see shorter games as a benefit. I have zero interest in games which last at most 10 hours. Games shouldn't only be designed around the lowest common denominator. I don't like the Elder Scrolls games. I haven't finished a single main story line one even though I tried. Should TES change because of gamers like me? I don't think it should. Right now it seems the industry wants to make there games even bigger than before. Completion means nothing if enough gamers have no interest in finishing a game but do keep playing for the side content. I know I play games that way, although I do still finish the main story line after spending lots of time just wandering around. It is the adventure gamer in me who finally got his dream game.

[AlanC9]

The Witcher just bored me and I never finished (though I bought and finished Witcher 2). LA Noire offended me, so I stopped playing.

Going way OT, but how come you bought TW2 if 1 bored you? Obviously the right decision, but how'd you make it?

[AlanC9]

If you finished the game once, then you're counted as having completed the game.

There's also info on whether you've done multiple playthrus, but that's separate.

Right. This came out way back when we were discussing the shockingly low percentage of players who ever played non-humans in DAO at all. The vast majority never even started those origins. What was the figure for dwarves.... 5%?

[Mihura]

It is irrelevant if they continue to have a profit with the game over the coming years.

My theory is that DA2 although being a more easy to complete and probably with a higher rating, was overall an incomplete game and with a repetitive environment. This generated really low fandom response, so it generates a lot less sales on the long run. I sure do not recommend bad games to friends, like most people.

Word-of-mouth marketing can be a powerful tool on the long run, that is why I really thing DA;I is probably going to be immune to this. They are making one of the best PR core(fandom) show this time around, having community members involved, official cosplay, showing female inquisitor, asking for input on cliches, etc... If they do not have success with this game, I will probably eat my shoe. 

[Sanunes]

Going way OT, but how come you bought TW2 if 1 bored you? Obviously the right decision, but how'd you make it?

 

I can only speak for myself, but it looked like the game changed enough to be interesting again.  I didn't finish the first Witcher game either because I grew frustrated with the combat system and I made it further into the second Witcher game because of changes to the game I just got distracted and never went back.  Its why I will never buy an episodic game until its finished for I might play the first couple of episodes, but later on I might not think of downloading the new episodes.

[Gingin]

Gonna complete it with no doubt.

[BloodyTalon]

I'm sure if the game is big some people may not finish it right away or get  bored cause everything is not instant pleasure for them. Thats just human nature we all have our own tastes and what not.

I'm sure if its big and has plenty to do and different options I will complete it a few times bet my total play time might be well over 200 hours or even close to 600 like for skyrim.

[Sidney]

The people who finish your game are also the ones most likely to talk about your game and give their impressions to others. They're more likely to become fans of a specific game or series and 'hype' it when the next installment comes around.

It's one of those 20/80 situations where a small percentage of your players generate the vast majority of discussion about your game.

 

 

...or they could figure the type of people who finish it don't need talking to (the hardcore) and the people who won't don't care about all the added content won't care if the game is only 50 hours long. It really appears to be wasted effort. I value it a lot because I play and replay and replay again but from the PoV of the company it is shocking they make something that long when tons of that effort won't move an additional unit. Skyrim got away with it because they have whatever that generic quest creator thing is that gives you a new boring fetch quest or mindless massacre quest forever so it can appear longer in that way with little additional effort. I'm glad to have, i am curious about the economics of it.

[Sidney]

I don't see shorter games as a benefit. I have zero interest in games which last at most 10 hours. Games shouldn't only be designed around the lowest common denominator. I don't like the Elder Scrolls games. I haven't finished a single main story line one even though I tried. Should TES change because of gamers like me? I don't think it should. Right now it seems the industry wants to make there games even bigger than before. Completion means nothing if enough gamers have no interest in finishing a game but do keep playing for the side content. I know I play games that way, although I do still finish the main story line after spending lots of time just wandering around. It is the adventure gamer in me who finally got his dream game.

 

There is a break even point is all I'm questioning. TES games are a steaming pile in my opinion but the extra effort to create the 100's of hours of grindtastic content is minimal since they cut n paste dungeons, re-use assets like mad and have no real story to worry about. They can easily make an eternal game in that way for very low marginal cost.

 

I might have thought that Bioware was more of a niche developer (albiet a bigger niche developer) and that DA in particular doesn't have a real broad appeal because it doesn't have  a TPS (Mass Effect) or FPS (Skyrim, FNV) appeal so they were targeting their "core" base that wants an expansive tale but if the completion stats are what they are then either the BSN is really not representative of their core (clearly it isn't of any mass market) but of the coriest , hardcore of the non-represenative core.

[Sanunes]

This makes me wonder how many on the BF have finished the DA games.

 

I bet we'd be surprised at the number.

 

It's a great question, and it's something you see in plenty of games. The AC games have tons of little junk, that I can't imagine (even as a person who really likes each game) anyone bothering to look for (except for AC4). Tons of games have collectible type stuff. I think it's just the natural extension for RPGs to have more substantial side content.

 

<heads his head in shame>

 

I have 100% completion in every Assassin's Creed game up to Assassin's Creed 3, but I enjoy finding things in games and the challenge of figuring out the path.

[Sanunes]

Ha! I just can't imagine going after all of those flags. I just can't make myself do it.

 

Though for AC4, I found myself enjoying it enough to run around finding just about everything.

 

The first game was the worst, but after that it felt like they made it easier.  Of course there are always a couple that I could never find on my own and would buy the maps from the game merchants.

 

The worst game for collectibles for me was Donkey Kong 64, for each character had 100 bananas on each stage to get and only they could pick them up.

[Darkly Tranquil]

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.

Sigh. I never did get that last achievement for 100% completion in RDR. Forever on 99.5% ;_;

[schall_und_rauch]

This is deliberate tactic.

Bioware got only complaints about ME 3 by the people who finished the game. So by reducing the number of people who finish the game, they are reducing the number of complaints.

 

...just kidding!

 

In all honesty, I do wonder why Bioware makes such a huuuuuuge game, and move the release date for it two times (and I'd guess this reflects on the budget side as well). Do they expect the enormous size reflect in sales?

But, then again, I don't complain, because I certainly enjoy getting more game for my money. So I can wait for it. And I will definately complete it.

[schall_und_rauch]

I am one of the people who never finished Witcher 2. Everybody said that I absolutely must like it, because it's one of the best modern RPGs. So I bought it on sale, and I just disliked the character, hated the interface, hated the demands on the hardware, hated the lack of party, the action orientation, the everything that was not like DAO.

 

After the game crashed 3 times in the cutscene after the defeat of the Hydra, I turned to something else. Maybe I'll pick it up again. Maybe I'll finish Divinity: Original Sin first.Which is also on my maybe list.

[BabyFratelli]

 

This is deliberate tactic.

Bioware got only complaints about ME 3 by the people who finished the game. So by reducing the number of people who finish the game, they are reducing the number of complaints.

 

...just kidding!

 

In all honesty, I do wonder why Bioware makes such a huuuuuuge game, and move the release date for it two times (and I'd guess this reflects on the budget side as well). Do they expect the enormous size reflect in sales?

But, then again, I don't complain, because I certainly enjoy getting more game for my money. So I can wait for it. And I will definately complete it.

 

 

Maybe it's because I'm a bit of a romantic, but I really do think there's more to people making games than just making money. Yes, Bioware is a company and companies are very concerned with cash, but if that was all they wanted, why wouldn't they skip on the stress and do something easier? With less pressure, more out of the public eye? I mean, they could even just sit around making Simulator 2014 games, or shooters, or sports games - all games that sell well and sell fast. But they don't.

 

Not everything they do is based around sales. I think to do what they do at all they have to care a lot about what they're creating. When you make things you generally don't just want to make a thing, you want to make something ambitious and great and better than whatever you've made before. It doesn't always work out that way, obviously, but them making the game bigger and taking extra time to work on it I think shows just how important the actual product is to them, as opposed to to the money and even how many consumers actually finish it.