An interesting point of discussion is whether games need to be completable and whether completing a game should be the focus of playing it.
The more games I play, the less that I am sure that the main fulfilment comes from completing a game.
For a story driven game, leaving the story uncompleted doesn’t sit well with me. I like to know the ending of a story that I start, and good stories generally have a well structured beginning, middle, and an end. But if the goal of playing is only to complete the story, sometimes I may end up forcing myself through boring sections of gameplay to get to the end. In those cases, was it really best to play a game, or would watching a more focused series have been a better way to experience a story?
Other games that don’t have an ending to work towards have still appealed for other reasons, such as flow, exploration, and self improvement. Examples are games such as Tetris, SimCity 2000, and various rouge likes.
There’s also a problem of endless games that are deliberately drawn out to make more money. I’m generally not of a fan of these, but I can see the appeal, especially if they are online and players can build a community around experiencing a lot of gameplay together over time.
I also like to try a lot of different games, and that means that I can’t finish all of them. So I tend to abandon a lot of games. Playing can feel a bit directionless if that happens too often.
How do you all feel about the topic of completing games? Do games that you play always need to have an ending and do you always strive to reach that ending? Or do you mainly play for other reasons, with “completion” being a secondary concern?