As I play games, Ive noticed there are games that just keep my attention longer than others. These are my thoughts on why there is a difference, and how games invest me to keep on playing.

I think a question game developers would ask before they make a game is What do we want to focus on to drive the player to play our game? How do we keep him invested in the experience? People will not play a boring game. Also, I would argue that almost all games are repetitive. Most of the time, a game is consisted of some core mechanic, which you will repeat many times before you finish the game. This means that there are certain reasons that gamers would come back to play the game, otherwise they would quit from the monotonous action of doing the same thing over and over again.

I think a few of these motivations that cause a gamer to forget repetitive gameplay are: Story/Exploration/Character Development, Fun/Unique Mechanics, Competition/Multiplayer, or any combination of the above. You can see this easily from some popular games.

Games like Bioshock, Mass Effect (or most RPGs), Walking Dead, Heavy Rain, are mainly driven by story. You want to continue through the game because the story has suspense or intrigue, such that you want to know what happens next. In all examples, there are also characters that you grow emotionally invested in, and ones that you want to see develop. These games usually also have high production values. To draw someone into a story, and believable characters, you need good art design, good voice acting and a immersive world that all combine to suck a player into the game.

Bioshock Infinite made me care for Elizabeth. That drove me to discover more about her character and what was happening to her.

Some games are driven simply by fun gameplay. Not all games have to have an amazing story. You can play a game simply because it is fun. Portal comes to mind. The Portal Gun was a fun innovation in puzzle games. Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon is also a more recent example. One of the reasons I loved my time with that game, was the uniqueness of the whole package. The story did not make much sense, and it was all over the top. But all that combined to make a fun, funny and very unique experience.

Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon was a very fun and unique experience.

Finally, one can keep a person playing a game through multiplayer. In fact, this usually increases the value and length of a game the most out of all other elements. No matter how repetitive something can be, if you turn it into a social competition with others, you give people a drive to play the game. There are many, many examples for this that dont require explaining. Call of Duty, Battlefield, DOTA, League of Legends, Starcraft II, etc. This is the reason why more and more games add multiplayer to the game; to inflate the value of the game to give the perception to players that the game is worth the $60 investment they make.

Millions of people play Starcraft II with and against each other, to test their skills!

Of course, most of the time, games use a combination of all of the above. If a game successfully utilizes all of these three categories, it usually makes for a really good game. But I find, many times, a game will focus more on one aspect, or is at least more successful in that one aspect than the other three.

Personally, I really like a good story-driven experience. I loved my time through games like Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, Uncharted. I couldnt put those games down, because there was always something that kept me wanting more. Usually it was wondering what would happen next in the story, or sometimes it would be wondering what would happen with the characters. Or there would be an amazing set piece, or environment that I would want to go through and explore.

On the other hand, games like Sleeping Dogs, Far Cry 3, Borderlands 2, or Skyrim are also really good games. But I usually have to play them in spurts, because the missions or gameplay can easily get more repetitive. Lots of times, these games are also open world. There would be many missions or side missions that I could do, but if I did them over and over again, the repetition became obvious after awhile.

Skyrim was a beautiful world, that drove me to explore.

In terms of multiplayer games, I cant comment too much. The only multiplayer game I play a decent amount is Starcraft II. But its not hard to see why one would keep coming back to play these types of games. We just like playing with others.

I touched on this a little, but all these different factors, can lead to vastly different game lengths. Narrative-driven experiences are usually the shortest, because the developer has to handcraft a majority of the game and therefore, there simply cant be as much game because of limited time. Each scene/area in a story-driven, linear game, usually has a lot more detail and production value. Multiplayer and open world games are usually the longest. There is a lot more repetition in these games, but it is usually not an issue due to the competition that comes from multiplayer, or the variety that is there in an open world game.

With these different game lengths, many gamers think about the value of a game. Is the value of a game simply measured by game length? If that was the case, there would be no market for short, story-driven single player games. I would argue otherwise, but that is another topic for another article.

From: http://jamvng.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/driving-people-to-play-your-game/

Two different perspectives in games. Some people like one, some people like the other. Theres no one perspective that is better objectively. But what I want to talk about is, which is better for immersion. If a developer wants to put the player in a believable world, I would argue (and I prefer) first person games.

I think if done properly, a first person perspective can provide a more believable and personal experience. If you watch some Lets Plays of Bioshock Infinite, many people refer to Booker as I. Even though you arent actually Booker, and arent talking in his place, you believe that you are Booker. You care for Elizabeth. With good voice acting, writing, and story, immersion can become pretty deep.

Another recent example would be Metro: Last Light. I havent played the game, but all critics praise the atmosphere of the story. From the detail of the levels, you feel like you are living in the world. The sounds, the lighting, the graphics also help to contribute to that experience. Your perspective and field of view is also a lot more limited and realistic compared to a third person game. I think that also helps to put you into the game.

I can easily think of some other first person games (that arent even shooters) that use this to help immerse you in its world: Skyrim, Dishonored are two other examples. Each was a joy to explore.

I actually prefer first person games nowadays (especially shooters, FPS > TPS) for the above reason. I really like a good immersive experience. Some notable narrative driven third person games are Uncharted and Tomb Raider. I never felt like I was Nathan or Lara; I was merely playing them. And that proves my point. Not that those two games werent immersive, but I think they werent as personal. Obviously, not every game has to be first person. These are just my thoughts.

http://jamvng.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/immersion-first-person-or-third-person/#more-222