Recommended Posts

I'm sure finish rates are not great, but one thing the article points out is that they don't seem to have a metric to separate "bought" vs "played." I have a shameful number of GREAT DEALS that i haven't even downloaded, and a few I've downloaded but haven't started.

 

I'd like to see the list correlated against certain basic-plot achievements like X% of players that got the 10% achievement got the 50% and then the 100%. 

Whatever the percentage is out of, there's a pretty steep falloff of starters:finishers across all sorts of games.

 

A few examples from stuff out of my Steam:

Bastion: first achievement: 76.5% ending achievement: 31.7%  (41% of those that got the first achievement got a final one)

Binding of Isaac: first 63.0% ending achievement: 26.0% (41% of starters finished the game)

Borderlands: first: 64.1% ending: 21.0% (32% of starters finished the game)

Borderlands 2: first: 75.9% ending: 29.6% (39% of starters finished the game)

Botanicula: first: 75% ending: 24.1% (32% of starters finished the game)

Braid: first: 79.5% ending: 22.9% (29% of starters finished the game)

Lego LOTR: first: 79.1% ending: 22.5% (28% of starters finished the game)

Puzzle Agent 2: first: 79.6% ending: 48.0% (60% of starters finished the game)

Saints Row IV: first: 61.5% ending: 19.4% (32% of starters finished the game)

Saints Row 3: first 73.5% ending: 35.6% (48% of starters finished the game)

Scribblenauts Unlimited: first: 69.9% ending: 13.5%  (19% of starters finished the game)

Sleeping Dogs: first: 76.6% ending: 34.6% (45% of starters finished the game)

Skyrim: first: 88.2% ending: 32.3% (37% of starters finished the game)

Thomas Was Alone: first: 87.9% ending: 27.9% (32% of starters finished the game)

 

First achievement was the one with the highest percentage (story-based or no), ending was the story ending achievement (or sum of the achievements if there was more than one).

(I couldn't really find a good 50% achievement for most of these -- the ones that were obvious showed a less steep dropoff eg halfway on Scribblenauts was 26% which gives a 52% halfway:finisher, Botanicula was 38.9% for a 65% halfway:finisher, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about the first achievement is that the majority of people who even begin the game will get the first achievement. So if I started Game X, played the tutorial and got an achievement for it, then realized I really disliked the game in the next 10 minutes and stopped playing forever, is that the same as playing and not finishing? In my mind, that's much more akin to just having never played it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the percentage is out of, there's a pretty steep falloff of starters:finishers across all sorts of games.

 

A few examples from stuff out of my Steam:

Bastion: first achievement: 76.5% ending achievement: 31.7%  (41% of those that got the first achievement got a final one)

Binding of Isaac: first 63.0% ending achievement: 26.0% (41% of starters finished the game)

Borderlands: first: 64.1% ending: 21.0% (32% of starters finished the game)

Borderlands 2: first: 75.9% ending: 29.6% (39% of starters finished the game)

Botanicula: first: 75% ending: 24.1% (32% of starters finished the game)

Braid: first: 79.5% ending: 22.9% (29% of starters finished the game)

Lego LOTR: first: 79.1% ending: 22.5% (28% of starters finished the game)

Puzzle Agent 2: first: 79.6% ending: 48.0% (60% of starters finished the game)

Saints Row IV: first: 61.5% ending: 19.4% (32% of starters finished the game)

Saints Row 3: first 73.5% ending: 35.6% (48% of starters finished the game)

Scribblenauts Unlimited: first: 69.9% ending: 13.5%  (19% of starters finished the game)

Sleeping Dogs: first: 76.6% ending: 34.6% (45% of starters finished the game)

Skyrim: first: 88.2% ending: 32.3% (37% of starters finished the game)

Thomas Was Alone: first: 87.9% ending: 27.9% (32% of starters finished the game)

 

First achievement was the one with the highest percentage (story-based or no), ending was the story ending achievement (or sum of the achievements if there was more than one).

(I couldn't really find a good 50% achievement for most of these -- the ones that were obvious showed a less steep dropoff eg halfway on Scribblenauts was 26% which gives a 52% halfway:finisher, Botanicula was 38.9% for a 65% halfway:finisher, etc.)

 

And thus it is proven that Puzzle Agent 2 is the best game ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting list! I might be fudging statistics, but given that 30-40% don't even "start" the games, it looks more like finishing is a bit closer to 50% for many games? that's not too bad right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are talking about the explicit narrative of a cut-scene versus the subtle narrative of a simulation, then I typically prefer the latter. I'm not motivated to replay a game to get a different cut-scene, but I'll spend more time in a world where nothing feels like a prop (if I already enjoy the game).

Btw: I hadn't heard of Chris Crawford. His writings are incredible seductive to me. Reading through the overview of Storytron, I think the plans for how the protagonist is designed is an interesting solution for the problem of "How can a player experience the complexity of a low-level simulation?"; the protagonist's choices are generated by the sim as per usual (because assumably, the protagonist just happens to be the portion of the simulation the player controls) and the the* player basically does the decision calculation themselves. I love this idea. That's basically how Civilization 5 works.

*this was supposed to say "then the", but when I went to correct it, I liked how it sounds as if I'm stuttering in excitement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started trying to figure out what a finished game would look like from the perspective of making one. I'm surprised to say that expressing a sense of completion to the player is something important to me. I don't have the skills yet to make a simulation, so my games will be short-verse; I prefer short-verse that expresses a sense of completion. The reason that I am surprised is that I'm ashamed of my consumerist culture and upbringing. Sense-of-completion seems like an illusion that is sold, which ultimately makes real-life seem disappointingly mundane. Win a car; get the girl; save the world; are all fantasies of resolution in a reality where life goes on long after the thrill of living is gone. I'd prefer to communicate how non-commodifiable, non-marketable experiences are awesome rather than bolster the illusion that desirable experiences are measured by distinct and unambigious completion. But right now, that's exactly what I feel the need to make.

So I'm trying to think of things that give the user a completion-high so that I can use them for parts.

-It's satisfying to finish a bottle of wine. There is more of a sense of completion than having more than you can use. The imbiber doesn't feel any confusion of whether or not they should continue (or atleast I don't).

-Circling back to the car after a walk. The hike is complete. I'm not going to question whether or not I should walk a bit more; I done walked.

-Popsicles, there I am holding the stick in my hand and I've read the joke and the punchline printed there. Which brings us to...

-Fortune cookies. Nothing says that I've finished like breaking a dry piece of sugar-dough and reading a piece of hyper-real ancient oriental wisdom. I wonder if they have cowboy-truths wrapped around toothpicks when you eat a steak in at a Texas Roadhouse in China.

I want my little games to feel done. I can't think of many short games that actually accomplish this. If a game consisted of one Super Mario level, the player wouldn't feel the amount of completion I want to express by lowering the flag. The Show Must Go On does the job with an entertaining cut-scene that doubles as the motive for game-play in the first place. Black Swan (the film) takes the sense of completion to perverse levels. That's what I'm going for.

I wonder what it is that creates this unambiguity that it's done; complete, fin.

Edit: I like how the Little Nemo comic did this even though it was episodic. Nemo would wake up in the last frame. It gave a certain rhythm that would satisfy my needs. Basho's poems do this inversely in his travel-log. He punctuates moments with poems. His poems act as demarcations of his life-experience. The Narrow Road to the Interior can satisfy the need to consume completion by appearing as a attempt to coalesce life-experience (the journey) into a commodity (poems), but then never actually confirming that absurd conversion of priority. I'll try to aim for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a good ending leaves you wanting more, while a great ending adds the assurance that there can't be any more. A good denouement shows you why the situation that lead to the events that made the story possible has passed. Either because the characters have grown or died (or both), the environment has changed (Sauron is defeated, summer vacation is over, the bottle is empty), or all of the above.

I also like it when the characters are experiencing that same sense of an ending and melancholy as I am.

At least those are common theme amoung narratives that I end up revisiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great thread. I agree with a lot that has been said here. A few thoughts, probably not original:

 

1) I think the "replayability" / "non-canned-response-ness" of a game is important, even if (perhaps especially if) you're only going to play the game once.  Like kaputt, I rarely re-play even short RPGs or branching adventures, because seeing the same events play out differently often reveals them as systems, and they lose their meaning.  BUT not seeing them play out differently, but instead knowing that they *might* have, for some reason, doesn't break the spell.  Comparing my own stories to those of other people who made different choices, or just had invisible dice rolls go differently, is satisfying and helps give my choices weight as mine.  I only played Alpha Protocol once, but even just knowing that things *might* be going differently adds to the suspense of my decisions.

 

2) One issue that repeatedly comes up with branching narratives is what to do if some of the branches are way less interesting than others.  Is an experience with 12 different endings -- 9 fail states and 3 "real" ones -- better or worse than one with more-or-less one central narrative that can go, at most, two meaningfully different ways?  (Heavy Rain was sort of like this.)

 

3) All that said, I think a very short (less than 30 minute) narrative experience that had meaningful branching on a couple of different dimensions would be worth replaying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking about this again this morning. In particular, I'm thinking how episodic vignettes which take place in the same world can offer a sense of completion and an opportunity for a further development of the world's composure. Quantum Leap is the perfect framework for this type of game. The premise that Sam has to right the wrongs could funnel the branching choices. Ziggy provides hints when the player is stuck. Eventually Quantum Leap became tedious due to the lack of development in Sam's own story, so if I do this I'll have to blend the story of the framework itself with the vignettes so that the priority is gradually converted. Master's Sun did this really well around the fourth and fifth episode. It sure is nice to have reference material!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say that I played through the Yawhg three times in a row quite happily, and Gone Home twice. The combination of things to discover and short start-to-finish time is key, I find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is room for games in the whole range of replayability.

 

Crusader Kings 2 I would (and do) play over and over, not because I'm looking for a different ending but because I know the narrative will be different because i will have different goals based on the randomly changing circumstances and thus changing my personal goals.

 

The Walking Dead I would never want to play again. Not because I didn't like the game but because I loved it, playing it again to try different choices I fear will ruin my first experience with it.

 

Not to dive into what is and is not a 'game' I would like to deconstruct in for the sake of the scope of the discussion:

Action: Player's choice inside the game mechanics

Narrative: Underlying story, description, universe

Narrative Choice: Player's choice that changes or appears to change the narrative

 

In my opinion narrative should support the actions (game mechanics), it should give player's their motivation, why am I or the character doing this or that and why should I care. To me this is extremely important, I may love a game for its aesthetics or mechanics but if I don't understand why this universe exists I really can't get invested into the game. For example Mech games, in what world does a giant bipedal robot a better choice that say a tank or helicopter?

 

Narrative choice, whether it is real (branching story) or just an illusion doesn't matter to me as long as it reinforces the overall narrative by making me more engaged in it by reinforcing that its MY narrative, making it seem that this is MY story.

 

I'm mainly basing this on the fact that when I try to replay a game I finished I keep getting pulled towards the choices I made before because those are the most meaningful choices for me. Trying a different dialog option just because its there and but has little to no meaning for me has no appeal to me. But having those option and at least the illusion that the options have an effect on the world does bring a lot of value for me.

 

In conclusion (if what I said above makes sense):

1. All games should have a narrative to reinforce player's actions (game mechanics)

2. Games don't need narrative choice, but because it will help increase engagement/immersion. Because this is the biggest advantage that games have over other entertainment media it should be encouraged.

3. Unless replayability is part of the core game mechanics games don't need any replayablility. If you want players to play your game over and over encourage them do so with the game mechanics, not to try different narrative options.

 

Thats my opinion, hope it makes sense :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Levine gave a talk at GDC about what he is trying to do, and it doesn't sound very good, but that's probably because it's half baked at this point. I think the snarky tl;dr of it would be it's Dragon Age but with more characters. 

 

The system he talked about names "Star" characters in the world. These star characters have a set of "Passions", issues they care about, that sum up to form their overall opinion of you. Performing actions in the world affects the stars' passions. He stressed that the opinions were zero sum, so if an action of yours made x number of stars happier, x number of stars would dislike you more too. He then suggested that over multiple games the different passions could be interchanged leading to new narratives.

 

Nothing wrong so far right? I think you might understand the Dragon Age comparison. But at it's current state there seem to be big holes in the design.

 

First big problem we find is that a star's opinion of you will effect the resources they give to you. The more they like you the more of an advantage you have in the game. Doesn't this then make the narrative extremely artificial, as your interactions with the story are in pursuit of game success, as opposed to having the narrative resolve in a way you like? Also because it is reflected as a mechanic in game terms, their needs to be transparency to the consequences of your actions, doesn't that cheapen the narrative further? 

 

What about characters with internal conflicts? If a star cares about religion and peace, and as a player you are a church building murderer, their opinion balances to neutral, instead of biting into the much juicier narrative device of internal conflict.

 

Finally, how in this world is everyone so aware of your actions? If small things you do change opinions, why is the news of you doing that small thing immediately propagated across the world?

 

These issues were actually brought to light by the Q&A, and Ken didn't really have answers, saying the idea is still in development. Hopefully this gives you an idea of what he is talking about, and I can clarify anything I've said if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh. If you're going to build a 'narrative engine' then how are you representing person vs environment or person vs society conflicts with a zero sum system?

 

And just giving them one axis on which their opinion is based? If you're going to track complicated opinions, you should be able to expose that to the star's actions, so you can have a slap-slap-kiss kind of character.

 

(But really it's probably easier to just write good characters)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, how in this world is everyone so aware of your actions? If small things you do change opinions, why is the news of you doing that small thing immediately propagated across the world?

The way NPCs witness and judge events is one of the most engaging illusions in social-simulation aspects of games for me. In Civilization 5, I wonder if the other civs know of my duplicitous actions (can spies tell them that?); in Skyrim, I wonder if they saw me sneaking out of their house at night and they are just being friendly to put a knife in my back. I'd love to see dynamic systems developed for how NPCs gain knowledge and draw hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that the idea of social propagation of knowledge it a completely unexplored narrative idea in games. I've often dreamed of game design that might specifically facilitate that idea.

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this