Path of Exile on PS5 (I don’t have access to PC/xbox).
According to the trophies, only 8.8% of players complete Part 1, with 4.4% completing Part 2. For context, Part 1 would take a new player maybe 20 hours, with Part 2 being a tiny bit shorter. Imo the most likely reason for this is new players bricking their characters. PoE is extremely complicated and if you don’t know what you’re doing you’ll build and gear your toon so wrong that you’ll get to a point where you can’t progress and you don’t have any way of fixing it.
2.3% of players reach level 80, with 0.9% reaching level 90. Context: After completing the campaign you’ll be around level 70, getting to 80 isn’t difficult, long or hard. Level 90 requires a slight investment of time and effort.
If you’ve never played PoE before these stats might seem low, but for people that have played it I’m sure it makes a lot of sense! It does to me anyway.
That’s the reason that only 15% of Crusader Kings II players have “The Marriage Game” achievement, which is awarded for getting married. In a game about dynastic politics.
It’s worse for CK2, you only get achievements if you’re playing on ironman mode. Given how complex it is to just understand how to play the game properly, even if you really enjoy it you might play for hundreds of hours before even starting an ironman run!
Paradox games require you to turn on Ironman mode to get achievements, which is why all of them have really low achievement percentages. That combined with vanilla just seems like not a whole lot of fun to me.
That’s stat is on ps5 and there’s no mod support, also achievements aren’t disabled if you use mods on the GOG version. I mod it to reach level 72 and max all the stats and I still got the achievements.
Bloodborne (PS4). Only 44.6% of players beat the first boss, Father Gascoigne
He was the second boss for me. The first one I encountered was the Cleric Beast. Then I got so fed up with the frame rate after that I swore off the game, especially since I just found it to be Dark-Souls-but-less. Still, Gascoigne was a hard fight, so it's not surprising that the first major souls-esque game on PS4 had a huge dropoff at a difficulty spike.
The one that always got me is that even predominantly multiplayer games have a very low participation rate in multiplayer. I've heard about 70/30 split from developers in most cases (and I've gotten a peak behind the curtain at a few other games where this trend continues to hold up, within a margin of error), where even if your game has a bad single player mode and focuses on multiplayer, only 30% of the player base will ever go online. I'll bet that's why these games stopped putting in achievements for "win one online multiplayer match", because it was astonishingly low. Far more people finished a single player story in Street Fighter V (which were awful) than those who went online to play multiplayer.
Multiplayer trophies are the worst, in general, except in multiplayer-only games. Once the servers go offline, those multiplayer trophies become unattainable. It’s especially a problem on PlayStation where, once the trophies become unattainable, so does the platinum.
DMC grades you on the “rule of cool.” It’s not about being good. It’s about looking good, and is based on how many times you can hit something without missing or being hit; often you’ll take out an enemy pretty fast without getting even a B rating, and I feel like getting through the game faster is better than keeping a weak ass enemy in the air for 1000 hits. So found it much easier to ignore than Hitman and other stealth game rating systems, as those really do kinda judge how well you did since they focus on being stealthy. Sure you can go in guns blazing and kill everything to win, but it’s a stealth game. You’re supposed to be sneaky. The scoring reflects that.
But in Hitman, it gave the agent do many tools to take the target out. I could’ve spent an entire day setting up traps and still score SA rank. It felt more relaxed that way.
Yeah was thinking about a switch, but I’m a bit reluctant due to high cost of games. They mainly use the tablet to game while traveling, at home they play with their toys or on the xbox.
These stats are what I have in my head when I am deciding on what to buy. Fact is, most people on the internet are overwhelmingly negative and unable/unwilling to give games a fair shot.
This sounds critical, but look at the numbers. I have a family member who, when asked about Cyberpunk, said it was a shit game, that enemies were too spongy, driving was terrible, and said it was “literally unplayable”. (not bug related, just gameplay) When asked about story he said “Oh I only played a couple of missions”.
Like what? I’m not saying you need to play 100% of Gollum to know it’s a bad game, but come on, talk about judging a book by it’s cover. If you aren’t going to give it a fair shot then why buy it at all, just don’t buy the game?
So many people go into games expecting them to be bad, or expecting bugs/problems that guess what, you’re probably going to find something wrong with it. Maybe watch a few less reviewers ahead of time, maybe turn off the FPS counter, and I don’t know, see if you have fun playing it.
In response to cyber punk though, it's entirely possible for gameplay to be bad enough that even a good story can't save it. Personally, I had a problem getting invested in cyber punk's story because I just was not enjoying the moment to moment gameplay. Each person has subjective opinions on where that line is, so I think it's fair for someone to judge it even after just a few missions (though I agree, it might be they enjoyed it more if they gave it more time)
To be fair to your family member, a couple of missions in Cyberpunk is a couple of hours. I remember an extremely late title card in that game. That's more than a fair shake.
I may just have not the most critical taste but I recently picked up Cyberpunk (v1.6, not the latest update) and I loved it, my first AAA game, played it for 170 hours within a few weeks. The story and worldbuilding is amazing imo.
You’re right about people not giving some games a chance. Pretty sure that Cyberpunk had quite a hate hype trend at the start.
Oh it was incredibly popular to hate it. I still see threads that are CJ’ing around about how horrible it is. Because it’s fun to hate something on the internet. Now, the people who had bugs or actually “literally unplayable” statuses - genuine. That sucks, I’m sorry, but to everyone who just jumped on the hate train, well I feel bad for people who can’t enjoy things because of that.
Well, he did play the game, he’s judging the book by the first few chapters. If you don’t like any aspect of the gameplay, even if the story could be good, it’s very understandable why he dropped it.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne