Gaming

30562 readers

20 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

What's the most surprising facts about a game you've gleaned by reading a game's achievement/trophy acquisition percentage? (self.gaming)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by OfficialThunderbolt to c/gaming

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'll start with a few:

Cyberpunk 2077 (PS5). Only 53.8% of players earned the "Lovers" trophy, awarded for clearing the prologue at the No-Tell Motel, and only 77.3% of players earned the "Fool" trophy for clearing the preceding lifepath part of the prologue. Which means that ~20% of the people that played the game never made it out of the character creator, and another ~20% of the people that played the game went out into the open world, faffed around for a while, and then decided they were sufficiently entertained & then went back to playing FIFA.
Bonds of the Sky (PS4/Vita). You might have heard of Cyberpunk, but I doubt you've heard of this game, which is a low-budget Dragon Quest clone. It's not one of those "pay us 3 dollars/euros/pounds games and we'll give you an easy platinum" shovelware games that the PS4 had in abundance at one point in time, and yet, the platinum trophy has an insane 59% acquisition rate. (By contrast, Horizon Zero Dawn, a much more popular game with a trivial platinum trophy, has only a 5.4% acquisition rate for its platinum.) The few people that played this game must've really loved it.
Bloodborne (PS4). Only 44.6% of players beat the first boss, Father Gascoigne, but 25.9% of players beat the boss that triggers the endgame to start. So FromSoftware lost half their players in the game's first area (or the character creator again), but of the roughly half that made it out, roughly half of that half went on to finish the game. Talk about polarizing opinions.
Kingdoms of Amalur Re-Reckoning (PS4). How common is it for players to rage-quit in the character creator in any given game, I wonder? Because only 69.1% of the people that played the game collected the "Reborn" trophy for clearing the prologue. I don't get it; a 90% rate would make more sense, but even that would imply that 10% of their players started the game once, decided "oh hell no," and then went back to playing FIFA.

What are others' observations? All platforms with achievements/trophies are valid.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] Xandolas 24 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 2 points 1 year ago

Fair, but I'm talking he spent 20 minutes in there, maybe started one of the main missions.

[–] hulemy@ani.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 6 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] JowlesMcGee@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

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)