No Pile

The One Game Challenge

The halcyon days of my youth contained few games. Oh, they contained plenty of gaming, but not so many games. I, like many people, could only score one or two games a year, and maybe a third if I spent my summer lawn mowing money on a game instead of some other tawdry bauble.

Naturally, I wore these few games out. I would ride each game like a rented mule. I managed to squeeze every last juicy morsel, each easter egg and shiny sparkle in the corner out of every game in my collection.

And then I'd do it again.

My old carts attest to this: every save slot filled with a 100% clear game. Or, if a game lacked save slots, then I would have been happy to invite you over and show how I can clear the game in one sitting without even using a continue. Even the old PC adventure games on which I was weaned saw many, many (did I mention many?) runs, to the point where I could solve the once-impenetrable puzzles in a laughably short time.

Money was tight. Time was plentiful.

Nowadays the shoe is on the other foot. Maybe I don't have as much spare cash laying around as I'd like, but compared to my eight-year-old self I am Bill Gates. Time, on the other hand, is a very precious commodity. What little is left after work, house maintenance, family time, and occasional social calls is a tiny fraction of my former self's idle hours. Thanks to more available funds and the ludicrous discounting strategy of digital game purveyors, particularly Steam, I have an embarrassing surfeit of games at my disposal. The problem is now that I sit down to play a game and experience analysis paralysis. Badly.

I can boot up Steam and see something north of 200 games at first glance, and that's just the unplayed stuff. I have wasted as much as a half hour of maybe an hour's free time simply deciding what to sample. I imagine I am not the only one who has experienced this particular mental quandary.

The other problem this creates is a very low buy-in on those games that I do manage to start up. Let's face it, every game has a few sections that take a bit more persistence to conquer than others. So when I realize that I probably played less than $5 for this game and that there are hundreds of other games accessible in under a minute, I don't have a lot of incentive to push through the boring bits. Not only does it take me a long time to decide what to play, I have the equivalent attention span of a smartphone-wielding Bieber fan. Contrast this to my youthful self (he says with a small amount of pathos), where I played games through to completion (and even more completion) because if I wanted to play a game, it was the only choice I had.

Admittedly, we aren't breaking any new ground at this point. However, this weekend I had a breakthrough. I managed to play a game … [pause for dramatic effect] … all the way through to the end. I know, right? Please, hold your applause; there will be time for that at the end of the show. What's more, this was a game that I had previously abandoned partway through for something shinier, despite the fact that I was enjoying myself at the time.

How did I accomplish this amazing feat? I developed a plan. Now I present it to you in the form of a challenge. If you're like me (and I know from several threads that a great many of you are), I encourage you to try this at least for a week or two and see how far you get. I call it:

The One Game Challenge.

The One Game Challenge is quite simple at its heart. All you have to do is put yourself back in your eight-year-old shoes, to fool yourself into thinking you only own one game. This is easier than it sounds. For Steam gamers, it's just a matter of choosing your target game and uninstalling every other game in your library.

That's right. Every one of them. C'mon, you can re-download them in no time at all. What do you think this is, 1992? It ain't CompuServe, bucko.

Once you've done that, move every game aside from your target game into a collapsible folder. If you want, have fun with it and call the folder "TOTALLY NO GAMES IN THIS FOLDER AT ALL" or "Pandora's Folder" or something. Then, make sure (if you haven't already) that Steam launches directly into the Library pane*. No need to be tempted by all those tantalizing sales on those shiny new games on the front page. You wouldn't play them for three years anyway, right? C'mon, check your library right now. How many games did you buy on sale three years ago that you still haven't played?

It's okay. I know it's a big number. You can share here. It's a safe place.

That's it. You now only "own" one game. In the mood to play something else? Too bad! You only own one game! So play it. To the end, even! Or at least until you hit a legitimate extraction point where it is no longer fun. I think you will find that it is much, much easier to focus on the game at hand, as opposed to being distracted like a caffeinated hummingbird on Twitter.

When you beat your game, put it into a new folder. Title this folder "I am so awesome, and here's why" or "BOOM! Winning" or "Look ma, I finished something! And you said I'd never amount to anything." Proudly display it at the top of your Steam library to remind you of your success. Then install a new game. JUST ONE. No cheating. We're all on the honor system here.

Console gamers, you may have it even easier. Especially if you have physical games. Pick the one you want to keep, and throw the others in a box. Keep it somewhere difficult to access quickly, like at work or in the yard where your neighbor's underfed dog with the overbite sleeps. Digital games can be handled the same way as the PC gamers: delete, delete, delete. Congratulations, you are once again a poor child on a tiny allowance! Enjoy your game.

The whole exercise exists to keep other games out of sight, out of mind, and to make it more difficult to just boot them up and play them if you get distracted or bored with what you're currently playing. I know this sounds a bit silly, and maybe it is, but it worked for me, and it makes logical sense from the little I know of human psychology.

As to my success this weekend: Without any other options, I managed to push through the rut of Gemini Rue and see the ending. Turns out, it was totally worth it! It wound up being a complex and existentialist narrative that went places I never expected, and the last couple hours (the ones on the other side of the hump) had me on the edge of my seat. I call that a win.

*Settings/Preferences, Interface tab, "Favorite Window" setting

Comments

Interesting idea, I also tend to use the Favorites view for this functionality.

Minarchist wrote:

You forgot #fml

@Whitmanfml is still my favorite Twitter bot.

My wife is a member of Ravelry, an online community of knitters and crocheters. A sect within it practices Project Monogamy to get through an overwhelming collection of yarns and patterns.

When she described the concept to me I figured the idea would let me whittle down my growing collection of partially played games. Good to see affirmation in the article, the research citations and follow-up posts. Good stuff, people.

While I doubt I'll be strictly mono-game-ous, I do limit myself to one single-player game at a time. It makes immersion in the story deeper, tracking the plot less confusing, and satisfaction at completion all the greater.

Minarchist's suggestion is excellent and one I wholeheartedly endorse, even if I don't strictly adhere to the letter of it. It'd be hard to abandon GWJ TF2 sessions, a 20-minute burst of Altitude, or turn-based games on iOS while enjoying titles like Bioshock Infinite, System Shock 2, or Mark of the Ninja.

SallyNasty wrote:

I love this challenge, because this is mostly how I play:) I complete (i.e. 100% achievement) almost every game I play.

From the outside, I can see that I might be seen as a bit crazy about completion, but I like it because it gives me a clear goal and once I pass it I completely move on to the next game - and can sell/uninstall the game I just completed. I am very guilty of having a large pile though (probably 30 unplayed on steam and another 20ish unplayed on xbox).

Such a true point about having more money than time to play! I have, however, given in to the pile and don't really stress about it anymore. I rarely spend more than 20$ on a game, 80% of the time buy new, and having the large pile makes it easy to wait on sales of new releases.

You and I both know he only wrote this article because his completion percentage throne is in jeopardy now that I'm days away from my self-imposed exile from achievements.

It's funny... my insanely large steam pile has forced me into option paralysis every time I sit down to game. I've decided to put one or two games at a time in my favorites list and only play those.. I like it!

For a while I was doing a blog about clearing my backlog. I'd give myself a long game and two short games every month to work on. It's only the 4th of the month. I could easily do that again...

El-Producto wrote:

It's funny... my insanely large steam pile has forced me into option paralysis every time I sit down to game. I've decided to put one or two games at a time in my favorites list and only play those.. I like it!

Hooray! Glad I could be of help to you (and others).

gorilla, I like monogameous. I may steal that.

I developed the opposite mental problem, for the last couple of months all I've played is Planetside 2 and Castlevania: Harmony of Despair. A few days ago, I started to dislike the idea of playing either one of them or any game, and other games I thought about would take effort to set up. I was in a rut, even though I have a vast catalog. So what did I do? I started up Rayman: Origins from Steam. Worked like a charm.

nel e nel wrote:

There is actually a lot of psychology research in this field (choice, not games, dumbass!)

http://www.columbia.edu/~ss957/artic...

This is a link to a short research paper on just that. The basic gist of it:

These experiments, which were conducted in both field and laboratory settings, show that people are more likely to purchase gourmet jams or chocolates or to undertake optional class essay assignments when offered a limited array of 6 choices rather than a more extensive array of 24 or 30 choices. Moreover, participants actually reported greater subsequent satisfaction with their selections and wrote better essays when their original set of options had been limited.

Oh my god (lower case so it isn't taking His name in vain), a certain show aimed at selling toys to little girls which has developed an adult audience has reached new heights of brilliance.

Minarchist wrote:

gorilla, I like monogameous. I may steal that.

Please do. It took two paragraphs of set up to get there, so I'm glad it payed off.

Be careful, though, as some one might see it as a typo.

[Just a quick nod to and echo of wordsmythe's subtle and humorous use of a space to justify the earlier editorial choice.]

wordsmythe wrote:
Minarchist wrote:
Gravey wrote:

I appreciate this article, but man you guys, of all the First World Problems this is up there as the most First Worldish.

Fun fact: I actually had a self-deprecating #firstworldproblems hash in the article at one point, but someone (*coughcough* editor) thought it would be better to take it out. ;)

I thought it was so obvious as to not need saying. Apparently some one disagreed.

I'm actually going to side with the editor on this one. This is definitely one of the most First Worldish First World Problems, no argument here!!! Even a few years ago, I never would've thought having too many games would be a problem!

I definitely like the "monogameous" neologism, but I'm afraid that's one lifestyle choice I can't seem to abide by right now. As long as GW2's in the picture, the rest will be nothing more than ephemeral trysts. I do try to maintain a Backloggery account, and arrange my Steam library in categories (Favorites, Current, To Play, Played, Good Games, Very Good Games), but sometimes, you just can't fight the pile.

I offer you...

[size=20]The One Suit Challenge[/size]

On-topic, I end up wither sentimental for the game I'm playing, or too intimidated to start something new. Thus, some 200 hours into FO:NV and lots of Minecraft, and not much else, for the last two years. I've dabbled with a couple other things, but not to any significant measure.

Wholeheartedly agree with this philosophy! I even wrote an email to the Conference Call on the subject, where I detailed my nerdy strategy for tackling the backlog. It went a bit like this:

1- Instead of having a backlog and/or wishlist, believe in the power of words and keep a "playlist". Who cares if you own a game or not, do you really want to play it?

2- Give the list a hard limit, and accept that you will never play everything (or anything) you bought for $2 on a Steam sale. I have 30 games on mine, which gives me plenty of choice without being overwhelming. Spread evenly between short and long games so it's not all epic RPGs.

3- Ignore the sales! Buy games when you are about to play them, and should they be at full price remember: if it's not worth your $40 it's not worth your 10 hours either.

To which I should have added:

4- Be monogameous (TM), at least on a per-platform basis, and always aim for completion.

The monogameous part has been working great for me for several years now. The playlist I've adopted more recently, and it's had just as big an impact on the enjoyment I get out of the hobby, by reducing my own perceived pressure to play an impossible amount of games.

muraii wrote:

I offer you...

[size=20]The One Suit Challenge[/size]

NEVER! Death first!

il dottore wrote:

The playlist I've adopted more recently, and it's had just as big an impact on the enjoyment I get out of the hobby, by reducing my own perceived pressure to play an impossible amount of games.

This is definitely an important part of it. If you want to get nerdy about it, it's reducing your opportunity cost. Normally to play one game you (obviously) have to forego playing other games at that time, which is your opportunity cost. It can be a mental stressor if it gets out of control. By staying monogameous™ you remove any real opportunity cost for other games. You aren't missing out on playing something else because you have nothing else to play! Therefore you can actually settle in and enjoy it.

gorilla wrote:

[Just a quick nod]

When I looked at Steam last night and switched from the uninstalled list to the installed list it informed me I have 71 games installed.

Plus three installed on Origin, Starcraft 2, Diablo 3...

No. No no no. When someone says hey let's play multiplayer in (whatever game) I want the odds that I happen to already have it installed to be as high as possible.

As much as I appreciate the sentiment, I think that adopting mono-game-y would result in me simply playing not only fewer games, but playing less.

Say I pick GRID 2 (which I'm currently playing and enjoying) as my til-credits-do-us-part game. What do I do during those times when I'm not in the mood for a frenetic, high-focus game? When I was to kick back and relax?

If I limit myself to the one game, then the answer is that I would do something else. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it does defeat the thing that makes gaming such a good hobby for me. It's versatile, and offers many options to suit my many moods.

Not surprisingly (:)), I'm could do a limited form of poly-game-y. One shooter, one racer, one RPG, one turn-based something.

Which to be honest, is mostly what I do anyway. I have a handful of games I'm "actively" playing, a bunch that are sitting on the pile waiting to be dug into, and others that are half-played that I'll (maybe) get back to one day.

Jonman wrote:

As much as I appreciate the sentiment, I think that adopting mono-game-y would result in me simply playing not only fewer games, but playing less.

Absolutely. I don't need to put added stress into my gaming. Raising stress associated with gaming is just going to get me to game less.

When I check out other folks' Now Playing lists on Backloggery, I'm surprised to see how many people juggle multiple games at once. I almost always go with just one game at a time. Maybe I just can't manage more than one control scheme. If I still don't like a game after a few tries, I'll get rid of it rather than sending it to the back of the line.

I'm very good at serial "monogamey," but I still give in to the sales. I do a pretty good job of getting through games, but I never seem to make any progress on reducing the pile size.

I've vowed not to get a PS4 or Xbox One until I've cleared out my pile of PS3 and Xbox 360 games. By then there should be a price drop and several lower-priced games so that I can build the pile anew.

Jonman wrote:

As much as I appreciate the sentiment, I think that adopting mono-game-y would result in me simply playing not only fewer games, but playing less.

Say I pick GRID 2 (which I'm currently playing and enjoying) as my til-credits-do-us-part game. What do I do during those times when I'm not in the mood for a frenetic, high-focus game? When I was to kick back and relax?

If I limit myself to the one game, then the answer is that I would do something else. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it does defeat the thing that makes gaming such a good hobby for me. It's versatile, and offers many options to suit my many moods.

Not surprisingly (:)), I'm could do a limited form of poly-game-y. One shooter, one racer, one RPG, one turn-based something.

Which to be honest, is mostly what I do anyway. I have a handful of games I'm "actively" playing, a bunch that are sitting on the pile waiting to be dug into, and others that are half-played that I'll (maybe) get back to one day.

This is what I was thinking as well. The mood I'm in determines what I'm going to feel like playing at that moment. Right now I have three games on my "Favorites" list and those are the only ones I'm focusing on.

That being said, reading this reminded me I am a gamehorder. I plan to play everything I buy, I just can't exactly say when I'm going to play it.

First article I've ever read on this site, and already it speaks volumes to me. In all honesty, I blame Steam for these First World Problems. Back in the old SNES days, games were expensive, and as a result, each game had to count. I had to find every secret in Yoshi's Island, explore every corner of Mario RPG, and find every upgrade in Mega Man X to get my money's worth.

Now, thanks to Steam, Good Old Games, Humble Bundles, and online retailers such as Green Man Gaming and Amazon, it's too easy to build up a giant backlog of games, and treat each game with the (fallcious) mentality of "Well, I paid only $3 for this game, so as long as I get $3 of enjoyment out of it, I'm satisfied."

CrackerBarrel wrote:

Now, thanks to Steam, Good Old Games, Humble Bundles, and online retailers such as Green Man Gaming and Amazon, it's too easy to build up a giant backlog of games, and treat each game with the (fallcious) mentality of "Well, I paid only $3 for this game, so as long as I get $3 of enjoyment out of it, I'm satisfied."

That's not really fallacious though.

Gnoupi wrote:
Hangdog wrote:

The problem I often face is the unending games: MMOs, DOTA2, LOL. Perhaps set yourself a finite goal and then put it away for a while? Hit level 30 in an MMO, win 10 matches in DOTA2?

That's my problem as well. League of Legends takes massive amount of times, is very involving, and I keep coming back to it (even more since the ARAM mode).

In a way, there is no doubt it fits the description of the One Game Challenge. I know most of what there is to know in it, and I improve myself everyday.

What is crazy though is to compare the amount of time I got and still get from it, compared to the money I actually spent there (around 15-20 euros).

Yep these games are evil. My wife was out of town for 10 days and I didn't "beat" any games, but I played a crapton of LoL and Marvel Heroes. All the online only fun that she gets mad at me for playing cause I can't pause.

Thin_J wrote:

When I looked at Steam last night and switched from the uninstalled list to the installed list it informed me I have 71 games installed.

Plus three installed on Origin, Starcraft 2, Diablo 3...

No. No no no. When someone says hey let's play multiplayer in (whatever game) I want the odds that I happen to already have it installed to be as high as possible.

Yeah I keep a multiplayer folder on Steam. Stuff like TF2, L4D2, Killing Floor, etc. Things I will only play with you people at this point.

Demyx wrote:
CrackerBarrel wrote:

Now, thanks to Steam, Good Old Games, Humble Bundles, and online retailers such as Green Man Gaming and Amazon, it's too easy to build up a giant backlog of games, and treat each game with the (fallcious) mentality of "Well, I paid only $3 for this game, so as long as I get $3 of enjoyment out of it, I'm satisfied."

That's not really fallacious though.

Well maybe not strictly fallacious, but thinking that way means you can play anything and consider it worthwhile. After all almost any game can probably entertain you for 30-60 min and thus be "worth" your $3. I think the real question is: is this game worth your 30-60 min, regardless of price? Otherwise you're selling your time too cheap.

Ideally, you want to spend the most time with the games that you enjoy the most. However, on a subconscious level, it's easy to treat those more expensive games as ones more worth your time, regardless of enjoyment level.

It's the sunken cost fallacy. For example, experiments conducted show that at a buffet, people who pay a high price are more likely to overeat to a level of discomfort than people who get in for free.

il dottore wrote:
Demyx wrote:
CrackerBarrel wrote:

Now, thanks to Steam, Good Old Games, Humble Bundles, and online retailers such as Green Man Gaming and Amazon, it's too easy to build up a giant backlog of games, and treat each game with the (fallcious) mentality of "Well, I paid only $3 for this game, so as long as I get $3 of enjoyment out of it, I'm satisfied."

That's not really fallacious though.

Well maybe not strictly fallacious, but thinking that way means you can play anything and consider it worthwhile. After all almost any game can probably entertain you for 30-60 min and thus be "worth" your $3. I think the real question is: is this game worth your 30-60 min, regardless of price? Otherwise you're selling your time too cheap.

That's a good point. It's easy to equate dollars with value, but seeing as the pain point is in time and energy rather than a couple bucks, dollars really are the wrong metric.

wordsmythe wrote:

That's a good point. It's easy to equate dollars with value, but seeing as the pain point is in time and energy rather than a couple bucks, dollars really are the wrong metric.

Or maybe dollars still is the right metric, but needs to include how much your time is worth, in the same vein as spending a frustrating six hours making a bicycle repair that would have cost $20 to do in the shop. It goes back to opportunity cost, really.

Hangdog wrote:

The problem I often face is the unending games: MMOs, DOTA2, LOL. Perhaps set yourself a finite goal and then put it away for a while? Hit level 30 in an MMO, win 10 matches in DOTA2?

There are natural points in MMOs where you could call it "complete". Hiting 90 in WoW, for example, is a natural point where you could move on. Clearing all the endgame raids is another.

All of the MMOs have a level cap which could serve as a signal to move on, unless the endgame is really important to you. And if the MMO has one.