next »

[Jackson31]

I've been noticing a pattern in the way I enjoy games, after finishing a game I haven't found myself with those words in my head "woo, that was fun", usually once the credits start rolling I'll be thinking "well I'm glad to be done with that"

I'm wondering if perhaps game developers in general are getting something fundamental wrong in finishing their games, something important that we've lost sight of.

In films it seems they have the idea of making people walk out of the cinema happy down pat.
Even if a movie was bad for most of the time, films will have some redeeming quality saved for the ending that will make you feel good about seeing that particular movie.

But in games I think this 'feel good finale' idea is a lot more rare. In some games, like Skyrim, it's hardly even possible, since the game isn't exactly "finish-able" in a traditional sense and ultimately you just stop playing Skyrim because you lose interest, not because you where given an awesome ending and felt 'invited' to leave.



Shank 2 and World of Goo where 2 games that I can recall off the top of my head that left me feeling like I'd just completed a really fun game, and will forever be remembered as fun, but Skyrim on the other hand, despite having it's epic moment, will always be tainted by the way I left it because it GOT boring, and therefore get's remembered as BORING.

I wanted to ask what you guys think is the formula to make a game end on a high and be remembered as fun, or what devs are doing wrong to leave people feeling unsatisfied (even if they had really enjoyed themselves at first)?

[Core Xii]

Don't outstay your welcome. As you outline with your Skyrim example, a game mustn't be too long. It needs to end while it's still good, not drag on to eternity. Like Portal.

Or if it's a game intended to be replayed, then it must be replayable enough to simply never get boring. This requires a high degree of randomness either from procedural content, or other players. Like Counter-Strike or Spelunky.

[johnki]

I've noticed that a lot of times, I'm not thinking "WOO! That game was awesome". In fact, I'm usually thinking something entirely different. Usually something along the lines of "OH MY FUCKING GOD, THAT GAME WAS FRUSTRATING AS HELL! ...but the story was gripping, and the end was so great, so the experience was totally worth it."

But lately it's more been a reaction of , as in "Really? REALLY?! THAT'S HOW IT ENDED?!"

I've actually been moving further and further away from games like that. I just can't handle the length of them vs the reward. In the case of RPGs, games like Persona really are gripping. They're frustrating as hell, but it's hard to put down the story (for me at least) in the 100 hours or so that they last (give or take. Persona 3 lasted about 100 hours). But most of the time, the games I spend the most time on are games with a lot of replay value. Ones with SESSIONS that may take up to an hour, but that I can play over and over again.

I just can't handle 100 hours ending in disappointment. It makes the whole experience feel like it was a waste of time. It's supposed to be the journey that counts, but if you spend 100 hours working on a bench only to have it fall apart at the end, it doesn't matter how much you learn. That experience will be soured at least a bit.

EDIT: I'd also like to note that there are very few games that I've ever thought were worth playing for more than 10 hours that didn't include a lot of replayability.

[leonelc29]

Most of the time that i will think a game were "fun" is basically caused by the ending, which the developer basically tune up the climax part at the end. 3 game i've played recently that i think i didn't get the "it was fun!" idea when the game end, is Treasure Adventure Game, Aquaria, and Bastion. While most part of the game is fun, the ending end, just like that, no big surprise or stuff. And of course, most Bethesda game has always make me think "This were the climax?" when i complete their main story.

[PompiPompi]

I think there are different types of fun, and it's no coincidence you mentioned movies.
Some games have movie like "fun", but that doesn't mean all games need to be like that to have that fun. This kind of "fun" is a lasting appeal. It means you keep thinking of the game\movie long time after you finished playing\watching it.
It's easy for me to describe in a movie. A movie is a concentrated story done in relatively a very short time. The story doesn't have to be special, but if it has certain moving momenets or atmosphere it might have a lasting appeal on you.
It could be something shocking, something scary, something funny, something touching and etc. I think some games do that as well, but I think it's mostly done with story elements, or more rare, with atmosphere(like in LIMBO).
There are other types of "game fun" though. There is "epic win". In competitive multiplayer games like BF, counter strike, nox and etc, there are these epic rare moments when something exceptional happened.
Things like, you were the last solider of your team and you fought off 3 players of the other team and won for your team. Or you flew with that jeep above the wall, or something that is rememberd and thought of a long time afterwards.
I am not sure how to describe the rest of the time spent on these games, although I know they are fun too, just I don't remember how. :/
There is the sim\civ kind of fun, where you feel succesful and powerful for building your empire. And etc.

[MR4Y]

I wanted to ask what you guys think is the formula to make a game end on a high and be remembered as fun, or what devs are doing wrong to leave people feeling unsatisfied (even if they had really enjoyed themselves at first)?

My question is:

Aren't you thinking too deeply about a specific game?

My point being:

Is fun really fun when you have to think about it?
If instead of having that funny feeling of 'emptyness inside', you couldn't wait for the game to finish, you really had fun or just self gratification for beating the game?

[Azure Lazuline]

All the games that I remember as "really fun" are ones that build up to a satisfying ending, then don't have much to do after it. Portal is the first thing that comes to mind - sure, there are the bonus challenge chambers and stuff, but who really cares about those? Everyone just plays the main game, it lasts a few hours, and they're done.

The developers clearly put all their effort into the main game, and everything ramps up extremely well, to a satisfying climax. It doesn't overstay its welcome, and the final section and boss are very memorable. When you think about a game, you think back to the last time you played it - so ending on such a high note means that the game is remembered as being awesome.

[Squid Party]

I would say try to keep the gameplay quality consistent
That's why I enjoyed Timesplitters 2

[rogerlevy]

the answer you seek as a game developer is

don't be fucking boring.

[charlestheoaf]

I would say try to keep the gameplay quality consistent

I think this goes right along with the point of "don't make the game too long". No filler content.

If a part of the game isn't fun, see if you can make it fun, and verify that it actually feels good in the overall flow of the game. If it doesn't meet these two criteria, then cut it out.

I feel that "filler content" is one of the biggest problems many modern games (particularly the bigger-budget or larger-scale games: developers end up chucking in more content just to give the player "more stuff to do" or "more gameplay hours", but the focus should be on overall quality above all else).