Joe 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