"Completed"

[Rhino172]

This is just one of those little things that bugs me, even more so recently due to the introduction of Gamerscore/Trophies etc.

I've seen it mentioned a few times on here and elsewhere, where someone might ask about a specific game and someone else comes along like billy big b****cks "I got it on release day, completed it in a day and took it back, it's alright but not worth the money"

So do you buy a game, play it through once on one of the easiest "difficulty" settings, finish the main story in a matter of hours and say job done, thats that game "completed", then trade it in for something else. Once of my mates even skips all the cut scenes that explain the story!!

Or do you play through many times on various difficulty settings, find all collectables, unlocks, extras, get 100% gamerscore/trophies before you say you have completed the game.

For me it's the latter, I don't see the point in just blitzing the game on easy then binning it off. Surely if you are into computer games then you should get as much of your monies worth out of them.

The same could be said for using guides. I like to get as much as possible out of game on my own before finally resorting to a guide to find that last frigging collectable item etc before I can truly say I've 100% comleted a game.

The gamerscore/trophy introduction has certainly had more of an impact for this type of thing for me. Ok so I haven't got 1000/1000 on every game I own but it definately introduces more replay value and gives you targets to aim for that you wouldn't normally try to get.

(This isn't a "whos got the biggest gamerscore" thread by the way, more to do with the impact it's had on they way games are played)

 

[Cliotoby]

Single player is the important bit for me. I want to enjoy a storyline and gameplay.

As for multi player, I got bored of MW, MW2, Black ops and ive not even played MW3 online. In that sense, i never prestiged, got to level 50 something then gave up. whats the point.

 

[Revels]

There's always someone that boasts about completing a game in a few hours or whatever. I don't really see the point. It's supposed to be enjoyed. Not got rid as quickly as possible like brussel sprouts.

The latest COD games have been notoriously short for the main storyline but with the online play, does anyone really care?

10 years ago you'd buy a game. Play it. Then it goes on the shelf/gets sold on. The increased playability with online games means that the life of a game is infinitely longer now. How many people would pay £40+ for COD for 8hours game play, that once they've done, would be unlikely to bother with again? There's a lot of people now that don't even bother with the storyline. Just straight online.

Achievements help get people playing. Competing with friends and keep playing it when you'd maybe not bother otherwise.

I've played all the GTA games long long after the story ended. I even had one of those guide books and hunted all the numbered pigeons

 

[Christopher]

Same.

I play for the enjoyment rather than rinsing every achievement.

That said, 408 hours into Skyrim tell another story.

 

[Krispwee]

It depends entirely on the game for myself. Games like CoD is a case of playing through it reasonably fast and then never load the game again. Games like Portal are slightly different as I play through it fairly quickly, play the co-op and then continue to add third party maps every few weeks and play more co-op but won't go back through the original storylines to pick up all the achievements.The other end of the scale is GTA and L4D2 which really are a case of playing through a few times to get all achievements and do things differently.

 

[Scutch]

I'll "try" and get the Achievements if I can. I made a point on fully completing Skyrim including all Achievements etc.

There's only 3 games I've done that on, 1000/1000 Gamerscore: Assassin's Creed 2, Skyrim and one other I can't remember.

I still thoroughly enjoy games even if I don't get all the Achievements, but it's nice knowing you've fully completed what the developers wanted you to.

 

[Jay.S]

Its very rare that i complete a game. I will play them up untill i get bored then shelf them for some reason i never sell them.

Games like Skyrim, LA Noire, GT, GTA they are fun to play but only to a certain extent for me. I dont find them the type of games i can sit on and get into and spend hours upon hours of playing.

The latest game i completed was Need for speed run which was only due to the fact the game was very short so it kept hold of my attention span. I have a really short attention span so unless a game grips me near the beginning then I will lose all interest and never turn it on again, hence Skyrim being played once and now just taking up room on my shelf.

On the other hand games like Fifa and Football manager which in effect are incompletable are more my style. Im going to look through my games later and see how many i have actually completed.

 

[Gorms]

I only bought games to play online. Never seem to play the single play games. Been a long time since i have played any games to be honest after i got a little addicted to Halo 3. At one point i was in the top 5000 in the world but had not even finished single player.

Before playiing online became a massive thing i played Final Fantasy 7 to death.

 

[Rhino172]

Same.

I play for the enjoyment rather than rinsing every achievement.

That said, 408 hours into Skyrim tell another story.

That's similar to using a guide for me. I'll get as many as I can just through simply playing the game, I'll keep a check of some of them and try to get them where I can. But once I've done all I can then I'll start to aim specifically for achievements

I'll "try" and get the Achievements if I can. I made a point on fully completing Skyrim including all Achievements etc.

There's only 3 games I've done that on, 1000/1000 Gamerscore: Assassin's Creed 2, Skyrim and one other I can't remember.

I still thoroughly enjoy games even if I don't get all the Achievements, but it's nice knowing you've fully completed what the developers wanted you to.

This too, although some of them are just sooo stupidy hard it starts to get frustraiting. That's when a game ends up collecting dust. I don't want to trade it in as I haven't "completed" it yet but it'll probabaly be a good few months before I return to it to finish it off.

I only bought games to play online. Never seem to play the single play games. Been a long time since i have played any games to be honest after i got a little addicted to Halo 3. At one point i was in the top 5000 in the world but had not even finished single player.

Before playiing online became a massive thing i played Final Fantasy 7 to death.

This to me is also bit of an odd view (no offence intended by that) but surely it's like buying a Big Mac Meal and only eating the Chips? Or do you mean that you would never buy a game such as FF7 again as it has no multiplayer element?

 

[Jonnio]

I can never seem to get a decent balance on games. I normally set them on the hardest settings then lose interest and never complete them. On the otherhand though I don't see the point in playing through on easy in a day.

IMO Achievements/Trophies could be removed and I wouldn't care. Find it hard enough to finish games in the first place without that lol.

My mate seems to think he is a gaming master because he rents any old shite just to max out his gamerscore.

 

[ChrisR]

I'm halfway between the two as well I guess.

I'll play a game hrough properly usually on the hardest setting rather than blitzing through it as quickly as possible on easy (wtf is the point in that), but whilst I'll go for some achievements/trophies they aren't the be all and end all.

 

[Gorms]

This to me is also bit of an odd view (no offence intended by that) but surely it's like buying a Big Mac Meal and only eating the Chips?

I totally agree and its the main reason i just dont play games any more.

 

[Silent_Scone]

I always play games on the most difficult setting first time round for a challenge. Taking them back after completion isn't really an option as it's all digital media for me, but if the games got MP value then it's a keeper anyway. Casual gamers and certain stereotypes do take the "Daddy Can I Play?" setting and then tell all their mates they've already clocked it, and then send it back, and let them. It's what the settings are there for.

For me unlocks and side achievements are only worth doing if you gain anything within the game for doing so. So achievements within the game...

Not trophies, Xbox Live or Steam achievements or other such s**te.

Also I can kind of agree with Gorms when it comes to some games. I barely touched the SP in Battlefield 3, because the multiplayer is so good. Though BF is primarily a MP game. If you bought it purely on the basis you wanted to play the campaign you're doing it wrong.

 

[mantis946]

I have to play every game to death and to be honest, I only ever trade a game in when I'm running out of space.

I remember when Need for speed underground first came out, I must have finished that game 100 times on a few different save files.

I've played and kept every Final Fantasy game, still going through VII for what must be the millionth time - they are pretty much like books to me I guess.

 

[Darren S]

Good thread this.

It's purely down to the game in question for me. I very, very rarely replay a campaign/storyline game through again - perhaps the sole exception being Company of Heroes. Even the truly excellent ME2 had me playing through the complete story once and then it went back on the shelf.

I have many interests gaming-wise on the PC, that I simply don't have the time or commitment to retry the same 70% of the game, but with slightly different outcomes. More often than not - regardless of how good a game is - it's a one-shot-deal for me. That goes back to one of the key issues I had with Skyrim's super-skill trees. If we all played it like Scutch or Turner - would there be ANY difference in our character come the end, other than the equipment we're carrying and our character's physical appearance? Hardly - because the game more or less forces you to end up being uber in the same 20+ skills - with little input from yourself. Silly, imo - and definitely a backwards step. Would my chop-choppy barbarian-type geezer end up much different than an alchemist archer after 100 hours in Skyrim? I suspect not.

As much as I dislike the 'achievement fever' that seems rife in games these days - I would appreciate a simple 'Completed' tag on ones through Steam. More for my own recollection, than anything!

I also tend to play most games on the Normal difficulty. My understanding being that this was the level the developers wanted the story or the campaign to be played through at. Most games have pitifully stupid AI on Easy, and lame-ass enemies 'perks' or character-based crippling affects when set to Hard. Games like L4D2 are a perfect example of this. Let's simply give the opposing Tank quadruple hit points and make the character have health where on two hits, you're dead. Wow. That must have taken all of 30 seconds to program. And I will GUARANTEE that the game hasn't been fully play-tested on that setting either. It just makes it a grind, dying, reloading, dying, reloading, rather than making the game actual fun to play.

D.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Your point about Skyrim is valid, but it's the way gaming is going. Look at the transition from Mass Effect to Mass Effect 3. ME3 is barely an RPG anymore than it is a card game. It's been dumbed down to f**kery to appeal to even the most simple of retards. It's clearly too much work to ask that this be optional so that if you wanted to you could still retain an inventory and certain skill sets.

I cracked up when I saw the menu screen for ME3 where it asks you whether or not you want to play in "Story mode". I mean what the f**k is that?

 

[Darren S]

Your point about Skyrim is valid, but it's the way gaming is going. Look at the transition from Mass Effect to Mass Effect 3. ME3 is barely an RPG anymore than it is a card game. It's been dumbed down to f**kery to appeal to even the most simple of retards. It's clearly too much work to ask that this be optional so that if you wanted to you could still retain an inventory and certain skill sets.

I cracked up when I saw the menu screen for ME3 where it asks you whether or not you want to play in "Story mode". I mean what the f**k is that?

Got to agree. I did think "WTF?" when I saw that.

D.

 

[@Spoonie]

I tend to buy games with the intention of investing time in them but find I have so little free time that they get left. I still haven't finished GoW3 so will probably play that on easy just to burn through it, red dead redemption is another game I really got in to then left so I can't remmeber the story. I think ME2 is the only game I have managed to invest a lot of time in (44 hours) which is a hell of a lot for me. Currently started on ME3 but only managed to get 4 hours in since release. This lack of time means I don't really go looking for achievements and will rarely, if ever, play insane/veteran/mentalist modes.

 

[Munson]

For me it takes as long as it takes until I either complete the main story or get bored.

 

[Rasclart]

Same as Roy. Usually ends up with me getting bored.

I havent really played a game properly since Christmas. I reckon I have spent 1-2 hours since Crimbo gaming. Not sure why really... Nothing really holding my attention at the moment and having lack of time/better things to do I guess.

 

[Brand86]

I only play to complete a game, not really bothered about achievements unless it gives me something extra in the game, e.g. new armour or weapons or something like that. Not even touched the BF3 or MW3 single player games and probably never will.

 

[Ex-User (19928)]

I am neither really, I had the old gamerscore addiction but geranlly never play single player save a few select titles.

 

[iain187]

I always complete story lines but achievements bore me to tears usually.

just going round collecting things that unless I get a map off the internet I have no idea where they are - that is not my idea of fun! Not to mention going on the net to get a map or whatever is cheating (imo)

also on FIFA12 there is a lot of Ultimate team achievements, I hate UT because most players just use speed cards to make all the players zip about... yawn. I have a problem with MP achievements anyway- how are the noobs supposed to earn them!!!

I play games as either interactive movies where I get to see/be involved with a story. Or I buy them for online play (fifa/cod/forza etc)


I don't think I've ever 1000/1000'd a game