Why do people quit playing?

[cool evil]

I think people quit playing wesnoth because it simply doesn't keep up with the commercial competitors, every week or so there is a new fancy game released to the commercial gaming platforms, and avid gamers would just go play on their Xbox or playstation. Wesnoth doesn't have the fancy graphics or the fast paced action that some games requires to attract the general consumer market, the only thing it has above any other game is that its free.

[eyerouge]

I think people quit playing wesnoth because it simply doesn't keep up with the commercial competitors, every week or so there is a new fancy game released to the commercial gaming platforms, and avid gamers would just go play on their Xbox or playstation. Wesnoth doesn't have the fancy graphics or the fast paced action that some games requires to attract the general consumer market, the only thing it has above any other game is that its free.

You mix up the genres. Wesnoth keeps up very well and has pretty solid game play, if you compare it with other games in the same genre, meaning, a turn based strategy game in the direction of 4x.

Consoles and action games being more fast paced etc doesn't account for why a strategy gamer quits Wesnoth. It accounts for why people who don't like the genre doesn't play Wesnoth - they don't get enough of whatever they get in the genre of their preference. Console players are usually not the kind of people that play games like Wesnoth anyways, as consoles have a different audience than the people that enjoy games like Civilization, Wesnoth etc.

[Fosprey]

Cool evil, if you read right for example why my friends (and at some point me) don't play or quit wesnoth, was not because other commercial games. We started to play WESNOTH because we wanted a strategy game, and a slow peaced one, i like turn based strategy games. Sadly today is hard to find those. Wesnoth is right now the best option for people wanting to play Turn based strategy games. Still, even that, people that's looking EXACTLY that, is quiting, and of course not becaue there otheres commercial games, they don't change games, they just quit wesnoth and just that.
As Eyerouge said , youi mention why people don't start to play wesnoth on first place, not why they quit after a while, even people that TEND to stick to games and the game is the genre they were looking for.

[Kestenvarn]

Honestly not much of a fan of strategy games in general; was drawn to it for reasons other than the gameplay. I think a large drawback was the sheer time a single match could take, seemingly moreso than other titles.

[SumnerH]

In a discussion it was suggested that the average Wesnoth player has a short Wesnothian life, that most people are new to the game and leave it in a not to distant future, that there are not that many veterans around.

It lacks huge replay value, because there are only a dozen or so well-developed campaigns and they're pretty much identical when you replay them (aside from maybe a fork here or there and a few attempts at the Sceptre of Fire or something). I liken it to X-Com: UFO defense; incredibly great game to play through, but once or twice is enough (unless there's a major new campaign or massive overhaul to an existing one).

Nethack has an even bigger hurdle to overcome attracting new players, but many people stick to it or keep coming back and it's not unusual to run into people who've played it for over a decade. Perhaps not coincidentally, every game of nethack is different (as far as maps, what resources you may have early, etc). That makes it fun to play over and over even for those of us who can ascend 5+ times in a row--each game has to be approached afresh.

Civilization, likewise, at least has randomly gen' d maps and you feel like you're exploring new territory from the outset of each game. It tends to be a little "samier" than Nethack but still some variety there.

[Chris NS]

Code: Select all

Why dont you allow to buy a spectre for 5G and then say *you should not use this, as this is cheating*.

It is allowed. You just go into the files, allow your player to recruit spectres, and change the recruit cost to 5G. It's open-source software, you can do what you like with it.

I personally think cheating in a single-player computer game is like cheating in solitaire - just who are you cheating? It's debatable when save/loading should be considered cheating, but it would be impossible to stop, difficult to make harder without also hampering legitimate use, and I really think the devs have better things to do with their time. If you beat Under the Burning Suns on hard through 1,000,000 save/loads, that's fine - just don't expect anyone else to be impressed.

[Aethaeryn]

In a discussion it was suggested that the average Wesnoth player has a short Wesnothian life, that most people are new to the game and leave it in a not to distant future, that there are not that many veterans around.

It lacks huge replay value, because there are only a dozen or so well-developed campaigns and they're pretty much identical when you replay them (aside from maybe a fork here or there and a few attempts at the Sceptre of Fire or something). I liken it to X-Com: UFO defense; incredibly great game to play through, but once or twice is enough (unless there's a major new campaign or massive overhaul to an existing one).

Nethack has an even bigger hurdle to overcome attracting new players, but many people stick to it or keep coming back and it's not unusual to run into people who've played it for over a decade. Perhaps not coincidentally, every game of nethack is different (as far as maps, what resources you may have early, etc). That makes it fun to play over and over even for those of us who can ascend 5+ times in a row--each game has to be approached afresh.

Civilization, likewise, at least has randomly gen' d maps and you feel like you're exploring new territory from the outset of each game. It tends to be a little "samier" than Nethack but still some variety there.

I kind of agree - better random maps (and even campaigns) would probably add greatly to the replay value for those who do not like (or have time for) MP.

[eyerouge]

It lacks huge replay value, because there are only a dozen or so well-developed campaigns /../ Perhaps not coincidentally, every game of nethack is different (as far as maps, what resources you may have early, etc). That makes it fun to play over and over even for those of us who can ascend 5+ times in a row--each game has to be approached afresh.

Civilization, likewise, at least has randomly gen' d maps and you feel like you're exploring new territory from the outset of each game.

I kind of agree - better random maps (and even campaigns) would probably add greatly to the replay value for those who do not like (or have time for) MP.

I don't follow: Wesnoth supports random maps, doesn't it? Not that I ever used the function, but from what I've seen it's there. There are also plenty of maps one can download from the net, and also a map editor that lets people draw their own.

Surely this can't be any real reason for why people leave Wesnoth.

[SumnerH]

I kind of agree - better random maps (and even campaigns) would probably add greatly to the replay value for those who do not like (or have time for) MP.

I don't follow: Wesnoth supports random maps, doesn't it? Not that I ever used the function, but from what I've seen it's there. There are also plenty of maps one can download from the net, and also a map editor that lets people draw their own.

Surely this can't be any real reason for why people leave Wesnoth.

Civ and Nethack are designed around random games--the first time you play, you get a random game and that's all you ever play.

Wesnoth isn't, and I'd guess it's rather hard to create balanced random maps. Whether or not the feature is in there, I haven't seen it used except in the terminally boring "Sceptre of Fire" scenario. The majority of players aren't going to find it, nor are they going to want to create their own campaigns. There are some you can download but the total number of reasonably large, well-fleshed-out campaigns isn't that high (maybe 20 or so including the mainline ones) and you wind up digging through stuff that's still in development to find the good ones.

In Nethack or Civ, the replay value Just Happens, out of the box, by default, without you having to constantly seek out new downloads or whatever. Nethack also has a lot more going for replay value; there's a much more varied set of resources that are distributed differently each game, and you need to use them differently. An early ring of conflict, wand of fire, or magic whistle might be a game-breaker if used properly--or might look like a minor advantage to beginners. While terrain distribution and available units matter greatly in Wesnoth, there's a lot more similarity in how each scenario is going to unfold.

[DEATH_is_undead]

I think that's why people don't begin playing it in the first place. Not why someone who has played it a while stops playing it.

I believe that what he meant is not that they don't like 2D graphics, but merely that they get tired of them and move on.

[Fosprey]

In fact 2d graphics tend to tire less than 3d. 3d are good and flashy, but after a while it getts annoying, you get a lot of details that aren't usefull at all to the game, and makes the screen harder to read (read warcraft 3 here) , 2d graphics, if properly done, are always Cleaner.
i know several game designers of commercial games. And it's well known for the porpouse of the game functionality 2d games are always better, cleaner, and is easier to get the feel you look for.
But 3d games have a WOW flashy effect that makes the consumer...well, consume, And as a commercial game designer you can't reject that.

[Dave]

I think that's why people don't begin playing it in the first place. Not why someone who has played it a while stops playing it.

I believe that what he meant is not that they don't like 2D graphics, but merely that they get tired of them and move on.

Yes and this is the point I dispute. I don't think many people 'get tired' of 2D graphics.

David

[Kestenvarn]

Neither do I.

How would it even be possible for someone to lose interest in a game over its graphics as long as they are well done? 2D/3D seems entirely irrelevant here.

[Fosprey]

ok, now i will quit playing, i will reconsider it, but i i'm really pissed off and it happend liek 6 hours ago. The Luck is just too much, i played like a 2 hour game, that STALLED, and my oponent got impacient and did a bad attack and i got a huge advantage, and i had a HORRIBLE luck, but horrible, and lost, really, when you play a 2 hour game, and it's screwed by luck, it's not fun, is frustrating.
I know that better player will win MOST games, but losing and winning 15% of the games because luck, it's just frustrating.
here i have one reason why people quit playing even if they had intention of playing for long time.
The only reason i would come back is to get on top of the ladder if i think doing so would make people consider that i know what i'm talking about when i point some of the game problems, something i consider unlikely.

[tsr]

ok, now i will quit playing, i will reconsider it, but i i'm really pissed off and it happend liek 6 hours ago. The Luck is just too much, i played like a 2 hour game, that STALLED, and my oponent got impacient and did a bad attack and i got a huge advantage, and i had a HORRIBLE luck, but horrible, and lost, really, when you play a 2 hour game, and it's screwed by luck, it's not fun, is frustrating.
I know that better player will win MOST games, but losing and winning 15% of the games because luck, it's just frustrating.
here i have one reason why people quit playing even if they had intention of playing for long time.
The only reason i would come back is to get on top of the ladder if i think doing so would make people consider that i know what i'm talking about when i point some of the game problems, something i consider unlikely.

Hehe, maybe this is one important clue of why people stay (and I do think that's the more relevant question), most stayers don't really care about the outcome of the game, we are more interested in a well played game.

One example: my first ladder game vs Gallifax lasted for some 5-6 hours, near the end (until then it was IMHO a very well played game) I got tired of thinking and launched a bad plan to win, then Gallifax almost killed me off but left me (unintentially) with a 50% chance of killing his leader which succeeded. Neither of us has quit after that or after any other mistakes or luck-depending situations.

Have fun with your life, welcome back whenever you feel an urge to outwit the rng or another human

/tsr