Poll of the Day > Would You Rather No 75

(+) Yeah! (+)

For the first, you pick one game and you're permanently stuck with it. The second one is you have to play every game to max completion.
---

I don't even play video games anymore. So 1.
---

even if no more video game ever got made, you can't even live long enough to play every game to max completion.
---

I guess the second. I'll probably die before I can complete all of them. But I try to do that to most games anyway. It wouldn't be any different, I guess...
---

I'm already doing the second one. I just put off playing the shitty ones until after the good ones.

Red_Frog posted...

I'm already doing the second one. I just put off playing the shitty ones until after the good ones.

Also, I don't think it says we have to at that moment. Like play a game to almost max and then switch for a while... So, basically, I can live my life the same and just play games until I die...
---

So, how would the second choice work with games that have no end/max completion?
---

DiduXD posted...

The second one is you have to play every game to max completion.

This is physically impossible, even with extremely generous limits on what constitutes max completion.

To pick just a single game, Phantasy Star Online usually takes ~1000 hours to reach max level with a single character. There are 12 different classes, so that's 12,000 hours, and if you also have to earn every single item in the game... well, some of them have drop rates as low as ~1/250,000 and spawn off of enemies that you might see 10 of in an hour's playtime. I honestly think you could put 100,000 hours in that game and still not earn absolutely everything.

Or, to pick another few Gamecube classics, Super Smash Bros. Melee. In order to earn all the secret messages, you have to (among other things) play 1,000,000 Vs. matches. Even assuming a generous 10 seconds per match, that's roughly 3,000 hours. Animal Crossing's most hard-to-get furniture requires you to save 999,999,999 bells, a sum that requires thousands of hours to acquire. By the way, there are four Animal Crossing games, and three of them have these billion-bell rewards (the 3DS was nice and knocked the sum down to a "mere" 100,000,000).

For the record, if you play 16 hours a day, 365 days a year, you're looking at just under 6000 hours a year to work with. Even if we said that you didn't have to worry about new games and only had to play ones that were already out (which you would have to, since games are being released far faster than anyone could complete them, never mind 100%ing them), there's still far too many games out there for one person to play through in a single lifetime.
---

1 i suppose. Too many games i dont like and 1 would be easy what with things like RuneScape around. Over 12k hours of gameplay and i didnt even hit the 10% mark on stats let alone full on completionist.
---

Considering that I really only play a few games, I would lean to the first option.
But when the MP scene dies and I'm not allowed to move on to the game that is populated (Say like a counter strike or rocket league) That would mean that I can't even play 1 any more.

2nd option is insane, I doubt that you would be able to play the 10,000 games released on steam in 2018 alone in your lifetime to completion.
---

Johnny Eagle posted...

So, how would the second choice work with games that have no end/max completion?

I'm can't say for all, but for certain ones, maybe they just want you to get all achievements. Or maybe all items and such. I guess they would have some way to say you're done...

darkknight109 posted...

there's still far too many games out there for one person to play through in a single lifetime.

Right. Meaning you would die first...
---

1
---

Play every game I guess.
---