Trend of unfinished games

[Zoltan]

Its very rare to see a finished game. Some games look like they are finished but they are not. If we divide games in to "start", "Mid game" and "End game" you will notice trend to. I think reviews need to tackle these different parts of the games more.

"Start": For most games most of the game is found here. There may be a tease and a grind to open new aspects of the game which if fine. Its always fun to think about the game your playing developing into something for fun and less redundant. The trend is if devs think this part of the game is good enough that its almost finished even though its really only one third of the way.

"Mid Game": The trend is that this part of the game often becomes very redundant and this is where most game lose their players or they lose interest. The developer may have had plans for this section but did not have enough time to implement them all. Pressure from the financial end also contributes to the not spending much time on this. Maybe too much time was spent on the start game and not enough here. Mid games should be designed to maintain player interest so they can progress to the end game. This part of the game tends to get very buggy.

"End game": many games are deliberately not finished here. Some games rush these and you feel like you were just starting a game that was getting interesting and suddenly its finished. Other games may delay the end by giving you a sense of eternal grind. We get the feeling here that not a lot of effort was made here by the developers and we become very disappointed in the amount of time spent on the game and regret starting this game in the first place. This is the part of the game with the most bugs. Sometimes it get so buggy the end of the game is a bug.

The solution is for devs to plan better how these parts of the game keep players on their toes. They should know by now that designing a game takes much longer than they forecast and the financial side needs to have patience for when its final release.

Mods will also increase play ability. I find it amazing how many mod devs will give vast amount of their time for free to enhance a game. Devs that don't consider allowing their games to be modded are cutting down the games play ability by 10 times of its potential. Player content is very vital to a games lifespan.

Devs need to finish their games properly so players can get satisfaction. If they want to do more just sell additional content via add ons. That way they can get paid for adding content. Whether it extends the game past the end game or adds mini games within the game.

I find that games that have a lot of mini games inside of it eliminate the feel of repetition. Having the option of doing something different with the game you like everyday helps in its life span.

For those that have a large collection of games you know what I am talking about. You have a large collection of unfinished games you got bored of and a lot of content you never got to see because you did not want to suffer to get yourself there. It was easier to just buy a new game.

I think most players are not as worried about game cost as devs and their financial end are. They are willing to pay more for a game that keeps them on there toes. Devs need to pay more attention on how this works to bring value to their creations.

[Satoru]

Devs are finishing their games since obviously they're being released and you're buying htem

I think you have just a somewhat unrealistic and unhealthy definition of 'finish'

[Zoltan]

Originally posted by Satoru:

Devs are finishing their games since obviously they're being released and you're buying htem

I think you have just a somewhat unrealistic and unhealthy definition of 'finish'

And that endorses the fact that game design is all about getting it to sell and hoping that the players will accept unfinished games.

I think most players expect a game to be finished when they buy them. Luckily I watch a lot of reviews and don;t buy as many games as I use to. This is the truth of the money devs are losing because they think we will buy badly designed games.

[Zoltan]

I think the You tube reviews and play through have help us decide where to spend our money and time. For some of us time is more important than money. What I am hoping is that review tackle and show the mid game and end game more so we know where to invest our time

[Crazy Tiger]

I've been gaming for a few decades on different platforms, but this "trend" is not something I've ever seen. Sure, the occassional game which gets rushed towards the end because they ran out of money and time, but "Its very rare to see a finished game." is complete bollocks.

[nullable]

Ah yes, "I'm no longer satisfied with games and rather than that being evidence of how I'm changing as a person it must mean developers are not doing their jobs, industry wide."

Problem is the first few times you play a genre it's going to feel fresh and amazing. But after playing those games for years, or decades, there's only so many ways you can make the experience feel amazing end to end.

Some games are just better than others. Most games are just OK. That's always been the case. It's not a new facet of games today. And that's never going to change.

Yeah the industry is still evolving. And that's got pros and cons. Games can continue on and have continued development for years. Twenty years ago that wouldn't happen. Maybe there's a couple of minor patches or an expansion pack. But that's it. But nowadays games can see support for years.

As for my library of unfinished games. I don't think that's a problem with games. I think it's a problem with being an adult and having a lot of disposable income and games being extremely cheap. Between sales, Humble Bundle, and things you actually want, and things you impulse buy... it's not that hard to have a library of more games you can play. Especially when you're working against a finite amount of time.

Making games "better" won't solve those issues.

[Kargor]

Probably depends pn what you're looking at.

Most games I've played have been finished. Every now and then, something feels rushed or even lacking (like recently, "Ary and the secret of seasons" had 2 seasons with specific effects, and 2 that did... nothing) but that's not very common.

For games that are done in "chapters" I'd not even consider getting them before all the parts are available...

Sometimes, the voice acting might be incomplete -- but that's likely to be a budget thing.

[Zoltan]

One thing I am seeing is a huge scatter of developed games. There are much more games out there now but all the teams are much smaller. Small teams can only so much.

When devs end up with a large team, the potential seems to be much more viable.

I guess what I saying less games might mean better games. Bigger dev teams would be needed.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Zoltan:

Originally posted by Satoru:

Devs are finishing their games since obviously they're being released and you're buying htem

I think you have just a somewhat unrealistic and unhealthy definition of 'finish'

And that endorses the fact that game design is all about getting it to sell and hoping that the players will accept unfinished games.

A Bad ending, or an unsatisfying ending is still an ending.
Also you can't fault a game for leaving out a few sequel hooks.

The problem is that unlike movies, or books. Games are interactive which causes a unique issue with pacing. And due to the very subjecttive nature of the medium,

Typically games manage pacing by steadily ramping up difficulty and challenge and then bam. You've beaten the game. ALl the tension gets released and you feel good. It worked and still does. But the more mechanics you cram into a game the harder it gets. And then there's the narrative.

The problem is when a game has a good stoy and a very interestin

I think most players expect a game to be finished when they buy them.

Games are finished...you are just unsatisfied by the conclusion.

Luckily I watch a lot of reviews and don;t buy as many games as I use to. This is the truth of the money devs are losing because they think we will buy badly designed games.

And they may jyust see you as someone who's drifting out of the habit.

[Satoru]

Originally posted by Zoltan:

And that endorses the fact that game design is all about getting it to sell and hoping that the players will accept unfinished games.

Again I don't think you understand what this word 'unfinished' means because you keep throwing it around for games that are, you know, finished.

they think we will buy badly designed games.

This has nothing to do with whether a game is 'finished' or not

Again I recommend you stop using words you apparently don't understand the meaning of

[Your Mom's Oshi]

Read the first sentence of the op and laughed so hard that I couldn't read any more. There are tens of thousands of finished games on here. How does that make them rare?

[Judgmental Amaterasu]

Originally posted by Zoltan:

Originally posted by Satoru:

Devs are finishing their games since obviously they're being released and you're buying htem

I think you have just a somewhat unrealistic and unhealthy definition of 'finish'

And that endorses the fact that game design is all about getting it to sell and hoping that the players will accept unfinished games.

I think most players expect a game to be finished when they buy them. Luckily I watch a lot of reviews and don;t buy as many games as I use to. This is the truth of the money devs are losing because they think we will buy badly designed games.

Yeah I'm sure Captain No Name No Dev Experience has the solution for all their problems

[nullable]

Originally posted by Zoltan:

One thing I am seeing is a huge scatter of developed games. There are much more games out there now but all the teams are much smaller. Small teams can only so much.

When devs end up with a large team, the potential seems to be much more viable.

Small games can be good. Simple games can be good.

I guess what I saying less games might mean better games. Bigger dev teams would be needed.

Gross oversimplification. More and more people working on a game doesn't translate into a better game automatically. Big projects fail, large teams fail. There are no golden hammers.

Larger dev teams are more expensive, so now games cost a lot more to make, which means they have to be extremely successful to make their money back. Which means making games is extremely risky, so the only games that will get made will be the ones guaranteed to make money.

A lower quantity of games being produced in no ways guarantees a higher ratio of quality. It's wishful thinking.

Games are entertainment. Like all other mediums, there's a place for big budget titles. There's a place for indie titles. There's a place for constant rehashing of games. There's a place for grand new ideas and novel new ideas. There's a place for success and failure.

Trying to get rid of bad games and the sort of circumstances that you believe produce them means a lot of good games get chopped too. Simple as that.

[Zekiran]

I love short cartoons.

I also love long animated films.

I don't want just long animated films.

I don't want just long supposedly-triple-A-games. I like short and sweet ones. I even like those that might seem lesser quality, depending on how that plays out.

There's room for everything.

And also: many adult users of steam know that many games aren't completely polished, completely bug free, etc - when they buy them. Long ago, they were also not completely polished, completely bug free, when they were *pressed onto disks* and sold in plastic shell packaging and didn't require steam to be able to update them when the developers realize there was an error. You got what you got. 'Finished' game sold.

[Mr. Warhead]

If we are talking about story wise, I agree with the ”end game” part. Is not only hard but a challenge of it's own to finish the story and even the best writers just don't know how to end it while making sure a potential sequel could be made.

Not bashing them.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Mr. Warhead:

If we are talking about story wise, I agree with the ”end game” part. Is not only hard but a challenge of it's own to finish the story and even the best writers just don't know how to end it while making sure a potential sequel could be made.

Not bashing them.

Yup. You either have to close the door on a sequel, or have a bunch of dangling threads.
TThere is one way to do it. But it basically involves closing the door on using the characters of the previous game.
Final Fantasy manages this, as did the Breath of Fire games.