I was thinking of games. not game stories. Things like Rock, Paper, Scissors: We know how it can be ruined by that one guy who keeps losing saying "OK, best two out of three! three out of five!", best 4 out of 7 ...
This idea that games must have an end, single-handedly explains why the concept of DLC is crap. And the more savvy devs have created DLC, that simply has a new story and a new protagonist; instead of breaking everything and inflating the numbers.
Now loot and gear are their own huge ball of wax (since it is gambling and so forth), but it absolutely applies to item systems. Meaning that a player has to be able to finish a collection. This is one huge blunder the hires at Blizzard have made with Diablo III and later had to correct, by creating a loot lottery with extremely rare drops, where basically nobody ever wins. (Source: Wikipedia) And it was likely motivated by the sick intent of getting a cut of the sales in the real money auction house.
The temptation of creating unobtainable stuff, as an easy means to keep people coming back, is just too great. Hiding it behind a pay-wall in a blind box, is how the more putrid free-to-play schemes bring home the bacon.
It's a really simple and powerful idea, the difference between a story arc, and frustrating crap. Even low-budget mid-day television programming realized, that it can improve quality by creating telenovelas rather than neverending soaps.
An Ever-quest was a bad idea from the get-go. Of course there is a complexity and difference, when people made friends and then they don't want these relationships to end just as the game ends. I'm not going to unpack that.
Log in to comment