Joe Danger's Length And Challenge Proves Daunting
Joe DangerJoe 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
Tags: joe danger, joe danger psn, joe danger review
8/22/2010 9:24:24 PM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (29 posts)
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Sunday, August 22, 2010 @ 10:33:14 PM
2 up, 0 down
Kowhoho
Sunday, August 22, 2010 @ 11:21:18 PM
1 up, 1 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 12:11:48 AM
5 up, 0 down
ShadowRunner
Sunday, August 22, 2010 @ 10:07:24 PM
Reply
8 up, 0 down
BikerSaint
Sunday, August 22, 2010 @ 10:10:25 PM
Reply
(at least it keeps my women happy)
Oh, the game...yeah, that too.!
6 up, 0 down
mexgeo86
Sunday, August 22, 2010 @ 10:51:48 PM
Reply
3 up, 0 down
bigrailer19
Sunday, August 22, 2010 @ 11:20:45 PM
Reply
I do plan on getting this game though. Ive been wanting it!
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 8/22/2010 11:22:00 PM
0 up, 5 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 12:12:42 AM
7 up, 0 down
kevinater321
Sunday, August 22, 2010 @ 11:44:59 PM
Reply
4 up, 0 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 12:12:18 AM
0 up, 0 down
kevinater321
Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 12:27:33 AM
0 up, 0 down
mexgeo86
Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 8:29:32 AM
0 up, 0 down
ps3sownsxbox360
Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 12:26:57 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
kevinater321
Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 12:30:26 AM
0 up, 0 down
Axe99
Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 1:27:50 AM
Reply
"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.
1 up, 0 down
YesterdysRising
Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 1:33:08 AM
Reply
Last edited by YesterdysRising on 8/23/2010 1:33:36 AM
2 up, 0 down
DazeOfWar
Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 2:55:27 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
___________
Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 4:05:31 AM
Reply
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!
1 up, 0 down
tridon
Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 5:18:42 AM
Reply
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.
0 up, 0 down
JackC8
Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 7:37:59 AM
Reply
2 up, 0 down
mastiffchild
Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 10:21:36 AM
Reply
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!
0 up, 0 down
dante_zero
Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 11:23:20 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
nogoat23
Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 3:30:49 PM
Reply
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...
1 up, 0 down
Alienange
Monday, August 23, 2010 @ 6:42:43 PM
Reply
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.
0 up, 1 down
nogoat23
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 4:39:59 PM
(I usually just play offline.)
0 up, 0 down
phade2blaq
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 @ 7:47:24 AM
Reply
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 !
1 up, 0 down
Kowhoho
Reply
Sunday, August 22, 2010 @ 10:05:44 PM
HELL NO!