Any other quitters out there?

[rxd]

So it's happened again, just like it always does with me. I'm a quitter

I just played through the original Halo on my 360 and have gotten to the final scene, where you have to drive a warthog and escape the explosion of the Pillar of Autumn to complete the game. After trying several times I just quit. Why? Well I don't particularly care for driving the warthog, I don't like the timed aspect of it and I don't see the point. There isn't going to be anything else to do so why bother. I seem to do this with a lot of the games I have. When it comes to the end I just say "Who cares?" and move on to the next game, in this case Halo 2. So I was wondering, are there any other quitters out there like me or do most of you keep plugging away at a game until you finish it. Even though you know there's nothing else to do and the end of most games tend to be tougher than the rest of the game, at least in my opinion.

[kevincal]

I got close to the end of Final Fantasy X and couldn't beat one of the final bosses, so I said screw it. That was years ago. I couldn't care less about beating it.

Edited September 23, 2008 by kevincal

[joeybastard]

I find with most modern games I lose interest and never finish them. For some reason I don't mind plugging away on the handhelds until it's done but very few console games keep me interested. I never used to do that in the 8 bit and 16 bit era. Hell, I only finally made it through all of HERO on the CV last year and I'm still trying to finish Miner 2049er 25 years later!

Edited September 23, 2008 by joeybastard

[Jess Ragan]

So it's happened again, just like it always does with me. I'm a quitter

I just played through the original Halo on my 360 and have gotten to the final scene, where you have to drive a warthog and escape the explosion of the Pillar of Autumn to complete the game. After trying several times I just quit. Why? Well I don't particularly care for driving the warthog, I don't like the timed aspect of it and I don't see the point. There isn't going to be anything else to do so why bother. I seem to do this with a lot of the games I have. When it comes to the end I just say "Who cares?" and move on to the next game, in this case Halo 2. So I was wondering, are there any other quitters out there like me or do most of you keep plugging away at a game until you finish it. Even though you know there's nothing else to do and the end of most games tend to be tougher than the rest of the game, at least in my opinion.

 

Boy, you should try Halo 3. Although I eventually struggled through it, the mandatory Warthog scene was what convinced me to sell the game and buy a copy of Mercenaries 2 instead.

[godslabrat]

For me, it's the opposite. It takes so long to learn a new game and get into the story that I don't feel motivated to start a new game until I finish an old one. I do beat more games than I used to. A few games, especially the mediocre ones, do end up getting pushed to the side, though.

[+remowilliams]

Opposite for me too. The 360 has by far the highest percentage of games that I have completely finished, nearly all of them. Quite amazed myself actually.

[Artlover]

There isn't going to be anything else......

There's the "ending"!

 

I seem to do this with a lot of the games I have. When it comes to the end I just say "Who cares?" and move on to the next game, in this case Halo 2.

What's the point of playing at all then.

 

Do you read books, then skip the last page? Or watch movies and change the channel 5 minutes before the end? ("And the killer is"...{click})

 

If I haven't finished a game, I keep trying till I do. I might put it down for a while, but I always go back and continue to do so till I have finished it. Don't like unfinished games. About the only exception are really crappy games that I hate and didn't bother to play much to begin with.

 

Even though you know there's nothing else to do and the end of most games tend to be tougher than the rest of the game, at least in my opinion.

No, this SHOULD be the way games are, but more and more it's the exact opposite, with the ending level being easier then previous segments of the game..

 

Halo series is really the worst offenders tho. The original Halo is the hardest of the 3 to finish. Between 2 and 3, it's really a coin-flip. I'de be tempted to say Halo 3 is the 2nd hardest, but only because you have to do something. Beyond that, it's a joke. Ignoring that, Halo 2 is kinda hard and involved, but is without a doubt the easiest if you know the secret.

Just find a place to hide and wait, then one of the NPC's will "eventualy" finish the game for you.

 

[+Random Terrain]

Unless I'm in the mood to fight with a game, I quit if I get to a part I hate and I can't cheat my way past it. It's an F-ing game. It's supposed to be fun. I don't want a time limit. I don't want to die 5,000 times to memorize the exact dance steps it takes to get to the next level. I'm not the game designer's puppet. He is my puppet. Make a game that I will like. Make a game that is fun. If you refuse to do that and get a sick thrill out of trying to punish me for wanting to have fun playing a game that I paid good money for, you can go sodomize yourself with a wire brush and die, you piece of human filth.

[Atari5200]

i quit playing Halo 1 probably somewhere halfway in the game maybe? Haven't played a Halo game since.

 

But the majority of my 360 games I play til I beat. Bullet Witch I got to the very end and then quit. I still haven't beat GRAW, GTA IV I'm just now getting back into after quitting for 3 months. It really depends. Like you, I don't want to fight with a game, I don't want to get my ass handed to me time after time after time after time, for the life of me I still can't believe I beat Gears of War, I got lucky, I can't even come close to beating the game no matter how hard I try, but at least I did it once. I also quit on NFS Most Wanted. WTF how am I supposed to win when my car is as tweaked out as it can be and I still can't come close to winning???? So I quit. I noticed Carbon doesn't have this problem.

[Jess Ragan]

Unless I'm in the mood to fight with a game, I quit if I get to a part I hate and I can't cheat my way past it. It's an F-ing game. It's supposed to be fun. I don't want a time limit. I don't want to die 5,000 times to memorize the exact dance steps it takes to get to the next level. I'm not the game designer's puppet. He is my puppet. Make a game that I will like. Make a game that is fun. If you refuse to do that and get a sick thrill out of trying to punish me for wanting to have fun playing a game that I paid good money for, you can go sodomize yourself with a wire brush and die, you piece of human filth.

 

WE HAVE A WINNAH!

 

Seriously, I completely agree with and endorse everything he just said. Developers... don't make a game that will pain us. Here we are now, entertain us!

[+remowilliams]

I also quit on NFS Most Wanted. WTF how am I supposed to win when my car is as tweaked out as it can be and I still can't come close to winning???? So I quit. I noticed Carbon doesn't have this problem.

Ah, there's one of the few exceptions I can think of, off the top of my head. I also bailed on NFS Most Wanted. It was quite a bit of fun, and then suddenly became well impossible. And I'm a very good gamer, and can usually stand up to any punishment that a game might give out and still press on.

[Artlover]

Unless I'm in the mood to fight with a game, I quit if I get to a part I hate and I can't cheat my way past it. It's an F-ing game. It's supposed to be fun. I don't want a time limit. I don't want to die 5,000 times to memorize the exact dance steps it takes to get to the next level. I'm not the game designer's puppet. He is my puppet. Make a game that I will like. Make a game that is fun. If you refuse to do that and get a sick thrill out of trying to punish me for wanting to have fun playing a game that I paid good money for, you can go sodomize yourself with a wire brush and die, you piece of human filth.

 

But I would like to clarify something, to be fair.

 

Fun doesn't mean not challenging.

 

I personally don't mind time limits or being difficult, so long as it's humanly reasonable.

 

That's the part many designers seem to screw up. It's like they are making it for the hard-core crowd, who eat/breath/sleep/shit video games 24/7, can press a button 16 times in 1 second, and instinctively know every twist/turn/short cut of a game they never even played before.

[moycon]

There's been many games I've quit without finishing and for reasons Random Terrain already mentioned.

I can't stand a game that has an area that is hard to clear and that you have to go through 15-20 minutes of redundant gameplay just to get up to that particular part so you can to try your luck again to get past it.

 

Others I just started, and then started something else and never got back to.

 

I'm a quitter for sure.

[godslabrat]

Unless I'm in the mood to fight with a game, I quit if I get to a part I hate and I can't cheat my way past it. It's an F-ing game. It's supposed to be fun. I don't want a time limit. I don't want to die 5,000 times to memorize the exact dance steps it takes to get to the next level.

 

While I agree with your overall point, I find it interesting that you're posting this on an Atari board, when so many of the 2600-era games required insanely precise timing.

[Lord Helmet]

I also quit on NFS Most Wanted. WTF how am I supposed to win when my car is as tweaked out as it can be and I still can't come close to winning???? So I quit. I noticed Carbon doesn't have this problem.

Ah, there's one of the few exceptions I can think of, off the top of my head. I also bailed on NFS Most Wanted. It was quite a bit of fun, and then suddenly became well impossible. And I'm a very good gamer, and can usually stand up to any punishment that a game might give out and still press on.

 

 

I third that. NFS Most Wanted is a great game at first, then gets impossibly hard. I quit playing that one as well.

 

 

Biggest problem for me is time. The games come out faster than I can beat them

If I could only quit my job...

Edited September 23, 2008 by Lord Helmet

[+Random Terrain]

Unless I'm in the mood to fight with a game, I quit if I get to a part I hate and I can't cheat my way past it. It's an F-ing game. It's supposed to be fun. I don't want a time limit. I don't want to die 5,000 times to memorize the exact dance steps it takes to get to the next level.

While I agree with your overall point, I find it interesting that you're posting this on an Atari board, when so many of the 2600-era games required insanely precise timing.

And that's why I hated many Atari 2600 games, Nintendo games and so on. Here's one thing I wrote years ago about Pitfall II: Lost Caverns:

 

http://www.randomterrain.com/atari-2600-me...preciation.html

To me, E.T. is also a million times better than that so-called adventure game Pitfall II: Lost Caverns where things are always in the same place and you jump over mindless enemies that just bounce up and down or move back and forth and usually don't even know you're there. Pitfall II: Lost Caverns did have some cool things in it such as being able to swim, but for the most part, it was just another lame exercise in perfect timing with nothing else to offer except the frustration of going back many screens to do it all over again. At least the original Pitfall let you skip or retry the screen you were on (your choice depending on whether you went left or right). The idiotically frustrating idea of making you go back multiple screens was not an advance, it was a giant step backwards and that model is still used today by misguided game designers.

[KrazyKaiju]

I quit 'No More Heroes' after about two hours in. It was a great concept, but the execution was terrible. It felt like Ubisoft finished half the game then just said "fuck it, it's good enough." Paid full price for it too after reading the raves about it on the Nintendo forums. People were going on about it like it was the second coming or something. For me, it just wasn't any fun.

[HammR25]

I rarely finish games. The last game I finished was Call of Juarez on the PC. I actually finished it several times on different skill levels. The last game I finished before that was....................................................probably something in the late 90s. I don't remember if I finished Commandos or not in 1999.

[Atari5200]

i rarely finished games too, that was until I got the 360, now most of the games I have played are so damn good I can't leave them unfinished.

[Lauren Tyler]

My problem is that I have ADD/ADHD, which means that it's easy for me to lose focus on one game and shift focus to another. As a result, I'm kind of a quitter in a sense that my focus keeps shifting.

[Lord Thag]

I quit if the game sucks, cheats, or is boring. If it's good, I'll beat it. Random terrain hit it on the head. That's why I still play Atari. You don't have to put the time into an old game like you do to get through a new one, and you're generally just competeing on score.

 

That said, when a new-gen game is good, it's fantastic. Bioshock, Mass Effect, Halo, Oblivion, Force Unleashed

 

Wouldn't havemisse any of those for the world

[kisrael]

If I get deeply into a game I'll usually want to finish it.

 

Didn't Pitfall 2 have a bit of an exploration element? Admittedly mostly it was just timing challenges, but there was also this feeling of a big space you were kind of lost in...

[kisrael]

Unless I'm in the mood to fight with a game, I quit if I get to a part I hate and I can't cheat my way past it. It's an F-ing game. It's supposed to be fun. I don't want a time limit. I don't want to die 5,000 times to memorize the exact dance steps it takes to get to the next level. I'm not the game designer's puppet. He is my puppet. Make a game that I will like. Make a game that is fun. If you refuse to do that and get a sick thrill out of trying to punish me for wanting to have fun playing a game that I paid good money for, you can go sodomize yourself with a wire brush and die, you piece of human filth.

WE HAVE A WINNAH!

 

Seriously, I completely agree with and endorse everything he just said. Developers... don't make a game that will pain us. Here we are now, entertain us!

First off, I don't think the "sodomize yourself with a wire brush and die" is a useful way of talking.

 

Setting an appropriate amount of challenge is one of the tougher game design issues today, I think.

 

The fact is most players want mostly everything handed to them on a silver platter though they don't want it made obvious that it's on a silver platter...

 

There is a brand of "fun" that is facing a challenge that seems difficult, and then overcoming that challenge. It's a sense of satisfaction that you don't get if things are too blatantly easy.

[moycon]

I don't think the "sodomize yourself with a wire brush and die" is a useful way of talking.

 

It's useful if you want to give people a chuckle.

[+Random Terrain]

There is a brand of "fun" that is facing a challenge that seems difficult, and then overcoming that challenge. It's a sense of satisfaction that you don't get if things are too blatantly easy.

That brand of 'fun' seems to be the only thing most video game game designers have known how to give us over the years. It seems many game designers can't imagine any other brand of fun and most gamers have been thoroughly flooded for so many years with that brand of 'fun' that it's hard for them to realize that they have been brainwashed into thinking that's what games are supposed to be like. They have video game Stockholm syndrome and they don't even know it.