Ben-DutkaJoe Danger is in the driver's seat for the race to Downloadable Game of 2010 but apparently, the end is just too challenging for many.
Even so, the whole situation should kick off an interesting discussion concerning game length. The latter is often one of the more important traits of a video game these days, especially by those who don't really play online very much and who don't wish to waste $60. It's even a consideration for downloadable titles that cost only $15, such as Joe Danger . But as Hello Games' Sean Murray tells us, only one in every ten players who bought his game actually went on to complete it. This from his mini-autobiography :
"Only about 10 percent of people who bought Joe Danger have completed it (their average play time is well over 20 hours). Most journalists didn't get past the halfway mark. Was it a wasted effort to add those last few levels that most people don't see though? Is it valueless?"
First of all, Sean, we need to know what you mean by "completed." See, I saw credits after finishing the last tier of events – oh yes I did; that game ruled – but I didn't finish the "lost levels;" i.e., the insanely difficult levels the developers decided not to include in the campaign experience. Is he counting those…? If not, I'm one of those journalists that finished it. But that's hardly the point: the point is, you can easily dump 20 hours into Joe Danger , as Murray and I will tell you, and yet…it doesn't even seem as if those who bought it are utilizing all that potential.
So in other words, are at least some people always complaining about length just full of sh**? Do they insist they won't pay for any game that's too short, buy something, play it for five hours and lose interest? Hmm…
Related Game(s): Joe Danger
Only the hardcore fans "completed" the Final Fantasy installments. Was that a waste of the developer's time?
HELL NO!
I'm willing to bet the majority of FF fans back in the day were "hardcore," so a really high percentage completed those games.
By completed I meant like, leveling all characters fully, getting the ultimate weapons, beating all monsters, etc. Do you really think most people did this? (I really didn't realize.)
That's also not technically "completing" a game. Hardly the same thing.
Great, fine. Consider me shot down.
For me, Joe Danger is a game that I'd like to play every now and then. I won't be playing it until I finish it, its gonna take me some time till I reach the end, but I'll be there eventually.
Exactly.
The longer the length, the better
(at least it keeps my women happy)
Oh, the game…yeah, that too.!
I have beaten all but 2 of the 'uncut' levels; they're indeed difficult. I don't know how many hours I put in but I'd play it on and off since some stages require quite a bit of time to complete but the satisfaction is great once you overcome them. Given all the levels and sandbox mode, the game is a steal at the current price.
one of two things happened. Im not saying the game isnt good, i want it, but maybe it got boring and doesnt have lasting appeal to the end. Or it is just too long for the type of game. I dont really know.
I do plan on getting this game though. Ive been wanting it!
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 8/22/2010 11:22:00 PM
No chance in hell it ever gets boring. It only gets better.
This game is very difficult and i am a sort of perfectionist so when i start a level i need to get 100% on it or else i can't move on. And doing this can take a while and when i sit down to game i don't have to long. So i normally just go for a match in uncharted 2 and get off. So i doubt i will finish this game anytime soon.
I'm convinced it's impossible to get every last objective in Joe Danger. Get this idea into your head and you'll break your controller.
Haha yeah and thats the problem with it 😛 that is why i will never finish it.
I had every star/achievement up until the 'extra' set after the credits. i agree with Ben that you eventually realize it's quite difficult to get every last star.
i really wanted this game intill i played the demo is the full game good?
The full game is great and a steal at that price! I totally think you should buy this game. Although it is not for everyone, It is very difficult and takes patience and some grinding.
The broader question of length and value behind this definitely raises the question you do in the last para, ie:
"So in other words, are at least some people always complaining about length just full of sh**?"
I definitely know of some people who've complained of games being too short, but when you look at their trophies, it suggests that they rarely finish games anyway. People in general always will say they want more (some people quite aggressively so), but when push comes to shove, there's often only so long people want to spend in one universe, or with one set of gameplay mechanics, before they want a break. And if
What I find amusing is that there's still a 'school of thought' that games have been getting shorter, where if you look at the amount of content in your average FF game, average GTA, average you-name-it, the campaigns, gameworlds, what-have-you have all generally been getting substantially larger, pushed by the imperative to keep up with the competition in perceived value, despite the fact a lot of this isn't getting used by the majority of consumers (the main exception to this is arguably (but not necessarily categorically) in the "action FPS" area, which tends to be more competitive in the online space these days).
Given all this extra game material costs money to make, in many ways this constant call for "more" could be driving up the prices of games that we never play all of anyway*, which seems a bit crazy.
* I'm not one of these people – I'll always play a game through to the end, or at least until it becomes too hard/frustrating/boring to continue – but this isn't often – I've DNF'd less than ten games in the last few years, from many more than that.
I downloaded the demo but haven't tried it out yet. It looks cool but I might wait until it hopefully gets a PS Plus discount 🙂
Last edited by YesterdysRising on 8/23/2010 1:33:36 AM
I played it for a couple days when it came out but then kind of forgot about it. I'll get back to it again but right now I've focusing on some retail games. I actually haven't played any of my arcade games lately.
its not too hard or too long your forgetting how many freaking games have released as of late!
i still have not finished RDR, im only like a third of the way through split second, like a quarter of the way through blur, like a quarter of the way through MNR, AND im trying to finish metro 2033 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat.
not to mention mafia 2 comes out on thursday then thats going to throw everything on the back burner, not to mention metroid other M releases the week after so it will probably be next year by the time i get back to joe danger!
I loved this game, I really do. It's this generation's Excitebike. However, with that being said, I just don't have the time to complete 20 hours games anymore.
With a new game I want to play coming out every few weeks or so, it's really tough to play them all (I work a full-time and a part-time job). Personally, I'm one of those guys who actually likes it when games are only 8-10 hours a piece. That's perfect for someone like me. I go in, experience the gameplay and the storyline (I'm a single-player gamer only), and I move on. If it's really amazing, I'll go back to it down the road and replay it.
Joe Danger is an awesome game, but I can't put in that kind of time right now. As far as I see it, I supported the developers for their incredible work, so I'm happy for now whether I complete it or not.
When people complain about short single-player campaigns, they're talking about stuff like MW2, Halo ODST, Splinter Cell Conviction, Kane & Lynch 2, etc. The fact that somebody made a game that most people quit before they were halfway done with it, well…that's a different problem entirely.
I think more will complete it as they for because PSN games tend to take a back seat over expensive retail disc fames and, naturally, rentals, Also anyone who trades games will always finish their discs as fast as they can for most value etc so PSN downloads all take a back seat for them, too.
I was lucky enough(and unlucky enough to do the same with the truly awful, gamer insulting K&L2)to play most of JD pre release at a mates house who is currently reviewing for one of the big local papers in the UK-and I think it's amazing for a PSN game and excellent for ANY game.
My mate was a journo who DID finish it(everything, funnily enough, but it's the only game he's actually given 100% to this generation and said he'd have given it more had it more MP options!)and I must have played most of it myself and can safely say it's not likely to be that it got dull or too challenging. I prefer it to 360's Trials HD but I'd say THAT was more difficult and frustrating yet loads finished tat one for the achievements alone-expect more, over time, to do the same with JD-I will be platinum-ing for sure once I have a space!
i really need to pick this game up. can someone tell me what the create and share mode is like on this? I'm definately gonna try getting it this week if Sony let me sign into PSN for longer than 5 minutes. cant sign in proper since that stupid maintence on Sunday.
I would actually be interested to see completion statistics on other games.
What percentage was Sean Murray hoping for? If it was 100% then that would mean that it was too short. 50% still means that half the people that played it didn't see all of the content. What is the magical percentage?
It's true that it doesn't make sense to bake a cake the size of a house when your customer only wants a slice, but I'm pretty sure video games are different. If you make a game that is a metaphorical cake-house there will always be players that eat the whole thing. Going the extra mile may not be noticed by all, but for the ones that do notice it, it is always appreciated.
I like my games to aim for the $1/hr mark. $60 game should last me 60 hours. $15 for 15 hours. Story line = 1/3, new game plus = 1/3, side quests & collectables = 1/3. I usually play through the story on each of my games twice. Once without any FAQ's, and the second time with FAQ's, so I can find everything and do everything. Joe Danger isn't the type of game where you'll want to do that, so it makes sense to make the first play through longer.
Dear Sean Murray,
As long as you're profitable, try not to worry about it. Once you get into the red, then worry about where to make cuts.
Dear complainers,
When's our next secret meeting? The last one was terrible. The a/c was too cold, the bagel bites were too hot, the building was irregularly shaped, there was simultaneously too few and too many people at the last one…
Who are these dinosaurs you speak of that don't play online? It's 2010 for cripe's sake. Even the RPGs have online now.
The problem lies in games that have no online whatsoever. Is adding a few extra levels that are insanely difficult worth it for the developer if only 10% of customers play them? Did they add value? Enough value to increase sales? No they did not.
Me = Triceratops
(I usually just play offline.)
I haven't played "Joe Danger" but I think a game should be challenging but I also think it shouldn't be so challenging that people have to spend countless tries completing it !
I've played games that took me sometimes a couple of weeks to beat a level and that to me is just absurd to make a game that frustrating !