Completion vs 100%

What games have the largest difference in consumable content between basic completion of the game and 100% completion.

Example 1: Mario 64 needs 70 stars to beat in a normal playthrough but 120 to 100%. To be more precise, we could define completion as explorable content in the game, in which case you need only visit 8/15 of the main worlds to beat and can miss 7. So, the complete to 100% ratio is a little over 1:2.

Example 2: Dark souls contains several completely optional areas such as ash lake and the painted world. Ratio is perhaps 5:6.

Example 3: FPS games like Quake and Doom have episodic campaigns of 7 - 8 levels that are completed sequentially, with a secret level per episode. So the ratio is closer to 7:8.

What games give you the most "extra" content? It seems like the ratio would be very difficult to dip much below 1:2 because as a developer you're essentially only making a game that most casual players will only see half of.

Where's the 100% Kills kind of completion?

Good question. You made me realise I totally forgot secret areas in the Doom / Quake type games, which often have monsters needed for that category. Probably slips the ratio down a fair bit, since those old FPS games were fucking loaded with secrets.

Yakuza

What about games where the game between completion and 100% is so small you may as well 100% the game.

Drakengard

What happened to me?

You grew up.

So it's normal for me to play a game, get bored after 30 minutes and refund it? These days all that keeps my attention is FFXIV and Siege with the gang. I feel like I have shit taste now, but nothing else entertains me anymore.

You're an adult, and the novelty of collecting digital icons is no longer exciting. You'd rather do that with real money because it actually has an impact on your life. Perfectly normal.

I pretty much can't stop a game nowadays unless I 100% it. In some cases it's because I don't want to touch the game again, in others it's because I liked it so much.

You say that but he admits to enjoying FFXIV, a game entirely about collecting digital icons.

The occasional game does still hook me, but you're probably right for the most part. Dark Souls spoiled the shit out of me though, nothing is as fun anymore after Souls became easy for me.

Spyro comes to mind

Crash too, you're missing out on most of the levels and challenges if you don't go for 100%.
You're also missing out on some massive frustration too so it's kind of a double edged sword.

It's the opposite for me. When I was younger I didn't give a shit and could enjoy things a lot easier no matter what level of completion I put into them, now I've become super autistic about 100% completion to the point where I won't play a game at all if I think I can't fully commit to getting 100%.

I just lose interest so fast. I tried playing Witcher 2 the other day, and despite it being a good game, I was just so bored.

Same with me. I also must play on hardest difficulty, which ruins a lot of games since many devs don't put thought into it.

...

Yeah that's the worst. 'Spec Ops: The line' comes to mind for me with that kind of thing. Parts of that game are practically broken on just hard difficultly and on the hardest difficulty it's an immensely frustrating game where most of the core mechanics start to break down due to the sheer amount of damage you take.

Touhou. Start by clearing all of the difficulties one by one, then play with conditions and for score.

Its hard to replace the sun with a candle light

Fug…how did you find it vs 1? I loved 1 but have heard that 2 is a bit wonky.

What games make it actually challenging to complete them 100%? As in you can't do it with brute force, you basically get a limited number of tries and if you fuck up you have to start all over. The only non-roguelike example I can think of is Sonic 1 and 2. You have to get all the emeralds, and you only get so many chances at it cause you can't replay stages, and if you get a game over then you're done. Although it might have let you keep your emeralds on repeat playthroughs, I don't remember.

The Last Remnant has a ton of missable content.

There's at least 3 or 4 towns (of like 10 or 11) that are completely missable if you advance the plot too fast and don't do their quests. In turn, the quests from towns open up deeper areas of non-missable areas, as well as entirely new missable areas. I'd say if you run through the main quest and skip side content, you'll only see 25-30% of it.

I always want to complete a game 100%, but often give up really close and just don't care. Though, this is only for games that have a stupid amount of content. For example, I'm currently playing Dragon Ball Fusion, and there's 1017 characters to recruit/fuse. I'll probably give up once I've got all the normal characters and not bother to sit there and get all the fusions. There's however many hundred fusions and it take so long to sit through all the menus. Took me maybe 10 minutes to get through 6 of them.

Other times, if the game was fun enough but there's no reason to 100%, I won't bother. Sure, I could go back and grind an extra 30 hours for the rest of the content, but I could also put that 30 hours into another game on the backlog.
To be clear though, that's only if it's shit like "Collect these extra 10 things, but there's no reason to." If there's storylines or shit like that, I'll finish it, but needless padding by the devs to claim the game is longer than it is just put me off.


MonHun.
Souls players all rushed to MH4U and MHG and shat it up due to their belief they were actually good at a Souls game and that both franchises play the same, so prove you're better than them and git gud.


I found the AI to be bullshit on Spec Ops: The Line. I played it on max difficulty and was rewarded with cancer of the highest caliber, then I lowered the difficulty by one degree and it was still bullshit at times, though possible to beat.
They were literally shooting me behind walls and throwing perfect grenades constantly.


Any game that locks you out of content due to failure is shit. I can understand if you get a limited number of tries that you can somehow increase, even if it's bullshit, but forcing a restart to go back through however many hours of gameplay just to retry a single segment is outright stupid.

I disagree. True the idea would not work in most games, but short, linear, arcade-like games are basically made for it. Where the extra content that makes up 100% is like an alternate path through the game or a secret last world or something like that. And through the game's there's basically an ongoing sidequest or something to open up that content later. Getting 100% completion never felt like an accomplishment to me because all it really takes most of the time is patience. I prefer something that demands only skill, so it feels really satisfying when you finally manage to achieve it.

Mass Effect 2 comes to mind. Its the difference between winning and losing.

That game is a pile of pretentious trash

Just counting the number of areas and collectibles is not enough. You should count the amount of time it takes to go through each instead.
For example, Ash Lake is pretty short. You also failed to mention the DLC, which has a lot of extra stuff that does take a considerable amount of time to go through.
There are also the covenants, which take some grinding or PvP dueling to complete, so it's harder to estimate due to the RNG.

Same for Mario and Doom's levels… each secret in Doom takes some exploration to do, which really depends on the person, and how long each Mario 64 star takes to obtain varies.

Forgot to mention, this also brings up the point of the quality of entertainment for each piece of content. Grinding or dueling is just doing the same thing on the same area over and over, whereas exploring a completely new area with new enemies takes a lot more effort to design.

Jade Cocoon
Main game is 4 short dungeons that you travel to twice over the course of 14-18 hours.
Post game is one of the largest dungeons in gaming making the average game time for 100% 78 hours

Recycling content in pre-explored areas should not have the same weighting.

You go play Vice City,finish it 100% and DARE to tell me you didn't had fun

who's the hunky steamy male on the left? I want him to culturally enrich my boypussy

the guy on the right is way sexier than the guy on the left

That's some serious autism. The game is fun, but not 100% fun. Fuck, I'm pretty sure only the oldest games are fun to 100%, because you had to try to NOT do everything in them.

You have less time and more games. In most games getting 100% is really just a waste of time, something developers put in to stretch the game to give you the impression you got more value for your money. When you're a kid who gets like one game per year this is great because you still get to do something, but as you get older you can afford more games and have less time, so you don't care about the boring crap that has been bolted on. The game is beaten, you have already seen all the fun content, might as well move on.

At least that's how it used to be for me.


That's the point, the game has to be short. No one wants to wast ten hours just to try the alternate path. This is also why limited continues work in arcade game, it takes like five minutes or so to get back where you died.

Casuals don't even finish games, so as far as developers are concerned you only need to create an engaging first 2-3 hours at most, skip the middle part and just make some bait ending that people can watch on youtube.

Tekken 3

Do a test. If you can go back and 100% the old games joyfully, it's because games are now too shit for you to enjoy. Otherwise, it's probably because your brain is screaming at you to get a career, wife, and children.