How Far Can Games Engage You?

I think my Elden Ring playthrough was 215 hours, platinum trophy. I'll put in the time if I'm given something substantial and fun.
 
mFQIxn9.gif
 
It's not a thing you can generalize. Depends on the individual. There was a time when I could spend days on end engrossed in a game. The only game I've been engrossed in since the start of this generation has been Mass Effect Legendary Edition and those games are from the PS360 generation. It depends on whether good games are being made in genres you enjoy. They don't make many games in my favorite genres these days.
 
I think the pokemon go phenomenon was an indicator of how far engagement can reach. Create something as appealing and/or addicting that gets you out in social settings and widespread gatherings of this game.. I always wonder about how that social manipulation could be utilized by malevolent forces.
 
Games with too much cinematics is boring for me. I already hate watching movies.

Games with too much guides is annoying and kill joy.

Games with high hp fodder mobs is annoying too. I am high leveled player. I don't need mobs to be at my level or have enough hp to tank my attacks unless they are unique mobs or bosses. It takes the moments away from the game.
 
Some games I have several hundred hours spread over multiple years.
Some games I play through once doing the minimal to see the ending.
Some I bounce off within a couple of hours.
 
Some games yes. But most AAA feel overrated to me nowadays... I don't really get that satisfaction from them most of the time.

The games I use to enjoy the most nowadays are generally quicker and more gamplay centered.

And I tried many times but I gave on MP games. I simply don't really like them.
 
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes said:
Time played.
Click to expand...
Really? I though engagement in this context meant how much you are "into the game".

For example, I have 100 hours in Rimwold, but I still think Metal Gear Rising is more engaging even if have only put like 30 or 40 hours into it, since I'm more "into it", more immersed, more focused, etc.
 
TintoConCasera said:
Really? I though engagement in this context meant how much you are "into the game".

For example, I have 100 hours in Rimwold, but I still think Metal Gear Rising is more engaging even if have only put like 30 or 40 hours into it, since I'm more "into it", more immersed, more focused, etc.
Click to expand...
There are exceptions to every rule, but overall you spend the most time with the girl you fancy the most.
 
Men_in_Boxes said:
There are exceptions to every rule, but overall you spend the most time with the girl you fancy the most.
Click to expand...
You could spend multiple days or weeks dating a girl and it might end in nothing, or maybe not. (Rimwold)

Or you could go and buy yourself a hooker, fuck her and forget about it. (Metal Gear Rising)

Now imagine some of those dates with the first girl were pretty nice, but others kinda boring. Meanwhile the sex with the hooker was amazing on all levels. Wich would you say was more engaging?1
 
TintoConCasera said:
You could spend multiple days or weeks dating a girl and it might end in nothing, or maybe not. (Rimwold)

Or you could go and buy yourself a hooker, fuck her and forget about it. (Metal Gear Rising)

Now imagine some of those dates with the first girl were pretty nice, but others kinda boring. Meanwhile the sex with the hooker was amazing on all levels. Wich would you say was more engaging?1
Click to expand...
Calculating Zach Galifianakis GIF by filmeditor
 
TintoConCasera said:
You could spend multiple days or weeks dating a girl and it might end in nothing, or maybe not. (Rimwold)

Or you could go and buy yourself a hooker, fuck her and forget about it. (Metal Gear Rising)

Now imagine some of those dates with the first girl were pretty nice, but others kinda boring. Meanwhile the sex with the hooker was amazing on all levels. Wich would you say was more engaging?1
Click to expand...

Life hack: Don't marry the hooker.
 
Attention to detail, stunning graphics, level of care put into the game/craft, engaging story, satisfying and engaging combat, varied locations, ATMOSPHERE.
 
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes said:
Life hack: Don't marry the hooker.
Click to expand...
Next time don't come at me with analogies. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Anyway, to answer OP's question... if it's time played I'd say there's no limit to it. I've seen reviews on Steam where the reviewer might have put more than a few thousand hours into the game, which would be impossible to me.

If it's a matter of being "into the game"... Dunno man, if VR would keep advancing that would for sure increase the limit of engagement, but things have been quite stale on that front as of late.
 
GTA games engage me to commit GTA. I think GTA 6 will engage me to do it at a national level, but it will depend on the effort of Rockstar employees.
 
majorgamer10 said:
Is there a limit to how far games can engage you?

Who decides this stuff, anyway?
Click to expand...
I do.

And yes, there is a limit. Games have only ever been able to reach 80 engages so far. There's a theoretical maximum of 83 total engages per game, but we've never come that far in practice. I doubt we'll ever even see 81 in our lifetime.
 
Fun gameplay is the main drive for me.

I usually re-play Zelda: ALttP once year. That's probably the most "engagement" I've gotten out of a single game ever thus far. The only limit to my engagement is probably death.
Grim Reaper Halloween GIF
 
Last edited:
Heck I'm still logging session on GTA Online, Setting times on Dirt Rally 2 , Collecting Korok seeds in Zelda and blasting dungeons in Diablo 4. So a while I'd say.
 
Games can make me think about them even when I am not playing them. The last games that did this were Tears of the Kingdom (I am playing it again...) and Unicorn Overlord.
 
I literally moved to a tropical island and started wearing cowboy boots and smoking cigars. It's no Tahiti, but near enough, and I run a game studio here. Earlier this year we lost funding and my staff struggled. We need more money, but I told them that I have a plan and that if we have some faith and stick to the plan we will be able to ship the game later this year.

I am living the life that Dutch dreamed of.

If you know me on LinkedIn, you know this is true.

RDR2 was plenty engaging in my life.
 
Games can engage me almost indefinitely, as much as any other artistic medium.

When I was younger, I think I'd lean more to the gameplay side of things that could keep me thinking about the game every moment not playing it. Especially when it facilitated creative self-expression through build-craft, combat, strategy, etc. These days, I think I'm more interested in games that have evocative themes, stories, worlds etc., that give me something to think about when I'm not playing. Doesn't mean a game should not be fun though, I think the strongest and most engaging games are those that creatively utilize the interactive aspect of games to do something artistic. Nier Automata and Spec Ops: The Line are probably some of the most hardcore examples of that.

To also look the other way, the presence of real-world monetisation in games has a cancerous effect of engagement for me. Even when not implemented egregiously, money is the last thing I want to think about when trying to relax with a fun game or be intellectually stimulated by challenge, story, themes, etc. This is one of the main reasons I've not been super keen on Diablo 4. The story and visuals look awesome and just the kind of stuff I'd like. But it is ensnared in a financially incentivised never-ending 'live-service' format, which kills my excitement. Probably nowhere near as bad as I make it sound, but to me it sets it way back, especially with the breadth of cool games out there.
 
I once stopping smoke forr one day, i forgot to smoke, i was playing BoTW at the time. And thats full one day. I forgot to smoke even once in that day
 
Not sure what OP is really asking here......historically,if a game has gameplay I like and systems that are interesting then I can engage with it for a certain period of time,but there has always been a time when I am ready to move on(I'm talking about single player games,I was never a big fan of multiplayer although I did play some).....right now I am totally unengaged from gaming though,the rise of woke politics in games,copy and paste game design,relentless monetization driving the industry.....it's all a huge turn off for me.
 
You can be engaged and not engaged with the same game. GT7 for example. I've been super engaged in a challenging, long race, but then not engaged in a 10 lap oval race with samba buses.

At my age, if something doesn't immediately engage me, then I get the hell out of there. Stellar Blade is constantly engaging, because even when you're running through a desert, at least you have a nice butt to look at.
 
I would say, if a game compels you to master it (not forcing you), and you learn its intricacies and improve and enjoy the process, that's when it's most engaging.

Games that are more like movies ("immersive experiences") can be engaging for a short time, but it's not sustainable.

I remember playing Sekiro relentlessly until I've felt I mastered the combat to my liking, and I was completely absorbed the whole time.
Men_in_Boxes said:
Time played.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's necessarily a good metric. Some games can become extremely repetitious, but you play them to unwind and distract yourself, not to be engaged.

Time wasters can be addicting, but mind numbing
 
Last edited:
elhav said:
I don't think it's necessarily a good metric. Some games can become extremely repetitious, but you play them to unwind and distract yourself, not to be engaged.

Time wasters can be addicting, but mind numbing
Click to expand...

If they weren't effective at engaging your brain (ie distracting you) then they wouldn't be engaging and you wouldn't play them.

Time played is the king metric.
 
Men_in_Boxes said:
If they weren't effective at engaging your brain (ie distracting you) then they wouldn't be engaging and you wouldn't play them.

Time played is the king metric.
Click to expand...
But many of these games are played on autopilot. You don't need to focus on anything. I think some of these games are meant to disengage your brain from things that bother you, but not engage it with something worth your time.

All those grindathons and live service games are just there in the background so that you won't feel the emptiness of your own existence
 
elhav said:
But many of these games are played on autopilot. You don't need to focus on anything. I think some of these games are meant to disengage your brain from things that bother you, but not engage it with something worth your time.

All those grindathons and live service games are just there in the background so that you won't feel the emptiness of your own existence
Click to expand...
We don't play things that don't engage us. Autopilot loses to fun 10/10 times.
 
Men_in_Boxes said:
We don't play things that don't engage us. Autopilot loses to fun 10/10 times.
Click to expand...
That's a nice ideal. I think people can be addicted to games they don't particularly enjoy, but give them the satisfaction of gambling (like in Fifa and other games with loot boxes) or reassuring repetition.

The trend in the industry is attempting to find new gameplay mechanics that are more addictive (to maximise extra consumer spending), not engaging
 
elhav said:
That's a nice ideal. I think people can be addicted to games they don't particularly enjoy, but give them the satisfaction of gambling (like in Fifa and other games with loot boxes) or reassuring repetition.
Click to expand...
I don't know about any of that. I do know time is the greatest resource and games we spend the most time with are valued the most. It's the metric the entire industry values most now (outside of $$$)

elhav said:
The trend in the industry is attempting to find new gameplay mechanics that are more addictive (to maximise extra consumer spending), not engaging
Click to expand...
Always has been. If you don't think they were trying to find new gameplay mechanics that were more addictive to maximize consumer spending in 2015 or 2005, I don't know what to tell you. War never changes.
 
Men_in_Boxes said:
I don't know about any of that. I do know time is the greatest resource and games we spend the most time with are valued the most. It's the metric the entire industry values most now (outside of $$$)


Always has been. If you don't think they were trying to find new gameplay mechanics that were more addictive to maximize consumer spending in 2015 or 2005, I don't know what to tell you. War never changes.
Click to expand...
With the exception of MMORPGs, I actually think videogames were designed to be fun, unique, or popular, because that's what sold. Obviously the goal was to sell as many copies, but the point was to make the game as appealing to as many people, not to make people addicted to it.

Games used to come finished in a disc, and replay value was based on how well the game was designed, either being really fun or having enough challenges to merit subsequent playthroughs.

Now many of the games are designed to never end, to keep you playing out of addiction, less because you're having so much fun, and to always have more DLC. It started during the PS4 generation, and gets worse and worse.

I want what you say to be true for most people who play videogames, but I just don't see it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
How would you rate Xbox Games Showcase 2025?
2 3 4 5 6
251
3K
Orbital2060 replied
  • Poll
How important is game preservation to You?
2
52
686
seething left replied
  • Poll
How would you rate Gamescom 2025?
2 3
107
670
SpokkX replied
How often do you replay games?
2 3
134
4K
StueyDuck replied
NIGHTS Into Dreams, how would you improve this game?
23
392
Crayon replied
Top Bottom