Joe Danger Completion Level Calls Gamer Desires Into Question

[The Random One]

Ugh, that's perfectly normal. Wasn't that a study saying that it was around that amount of gamers that finished Grand Theft Auto (from looking at what percentage of Live players had the "You Won!" achievement)?

Players want to grow bored of the game before it ends, that's all there is to it. If you think this means the last levels are pointless, you are probably in the wrong career. Ditto if you think everyone who didn't finish the game doesn't count.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

I've invested 100 hours into FF12 much more fun. Monster hunting in real time during FF12 is much more fuin then in FF13.The only thing I give credit to FF13 for is that the summons are more powerful and cooler looking this time around. I like how you searched for them in FF12 though. It made it worthwhile to explore the vast (much larger than FF13) world.

I hated FF12s combat system. I got to some boss in a sewer somewhere ( A flaming unicorn I believe) and I gave up.

I have invested a few hundred hours in FF6, 7, 8 and 10.

And I'd like to finish FF13.. and yeah those summons are badass...

Yet I still miss Yojimbo and his Wakazashi... what a legend.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

This doesn't seem to be a complete argument to me. One game that isn't really about finishing the game (I assume, they mentioned Tony Hawk, so I can assume) isn't enough to jump to conclusions about all games of all genres.

 

[zombie711]

Edit: WAIT. Wrong game, thought this was that parody one about third person shooters. That sucked so bad I can't even remember the name.

mat hazzard?

 

[Mr. GameBrain]

I think it depends on the nature of the game, and the mindframe of the gamer at a specific time.

Games light on plot, and gameplay intesity are good in short doses.

Games heavy on exploration, (in terms of size, space, or things to do (e.g. Fallout...)), plot (I.e. JRPGs, Bioware epics, Pointyclickers (for me anyway as I suck at them (but I do love them! ))), or gameplay intensity, (RTS, Might & Magic, ect.) need several hours, (or even days) of investment to get that certain level of satisfaction.


I know I have a horrible habbit of hoarding games, (I hardly let a good bargian slip through my fingers )
Current No. of games unplayed (approximatley):

50 xbox games
20 xbox 360 (+ About 40 indie games, and about 20 arcade titles)
15 PS2 games (Odin Sphere, SMT 3: Nocturne, Summoner 1+2, Dark cloud 2 and DMC being recent aquisitions)
100 pc games

But my problem is I crave genres of games at different times, as well as lead a unpredictable lifestyle, (sometimes I have only a few hours here and there, sometimes I have days, weeks, or even months of free time, (I got Uni you see!), but also I live with my family, so different gaming areas are available at different times, (so it hard to satiate a particular craving)).

My second hobby also leaks into that time as well, (self-teaching myself at guitar at the moment, (slow progress, (especially so since I'm trying to learn on a right handed guitar, (I'm naturally left handed, (though I suspect that may be slightly selective as I can only use a pc mouse and scissors with my right hand... :/ )))).

(As well as my third, (talkin' about games on forums), and what was my fourth (trying to learn to make videogames (I did have XNA on my lappy before it got wiped, (unsuprisingly never got round to learning anything from it), as well as Game Maker 8, and Unity, (for the record, I also tried to use AGS and RPG maker when I was younger as well (didn't suit me all too well :/)

I'm just glad I'm not a reviewer, else I just wouldn't get anything done at all! XD

To me, getting 10% of players to complete a game well over 20 hours long is a darn good achivement.

Not every game can draw people in for long periods of time, (us gamers are exposed to just as much external stimuli as average joe! XD).

(Not every game can be Minecraft! XD (JOKING! (or am I....?)))

EDIT: To clarify. I don't buy games as they come out, (£40 just seems excessive to me now that I buy online). I tend to buld up a mental wishlist, and hunt them down over time.

(also I am not rich. I work as a till monkey at Tesco. I just don't buy clothes or alcohol, and take advantage of Ebay, Shopto, Steam and GOG (also I usually forget about most games until, like 6 months later...).

Analogy: Sometimes we want candy, sometimes we want a roast, and occasionally its nice to have a 3 course meal.
But not many people want to just eat candy, or roasts, or a feast all the time.

 

[Jumplion]

Snip

This guy here says a lot of good, true things (very accurate about myself actually), but I'll add my own opinion into the fray anyway.

I was one of those 90% of people who didn't finish Joe Danger, and while I loved playing it for when I did play it, eventually it just got a little stale and I wanted to move on. As Tenmar said, I always feel like I need a new game every 2 weeks or so, so I play a game for a bit and then stop, just waiting for the next thing to buy. I rarely play games exhaustively.

That, and downloadable titles aren't really the games you sit down and play for hours on end. They're the kind of games that you chew on every now and again, sometimes going for a complete and sometimes just playing it as you go along.

When people complain about shorter games, they mean the more "Triple A" titles, like Modern Warfare 2 and Bad Company 2. It's the annoyance that those games basically ignored the single player and just focused on the multiplayer, making for very short campaigns. If a triple-A titles like Mass Effect or Dragon Age, epic sprawling RPGs, was only 10 hours long you better believe we'd be ranting.

Also, with episodic content, if the game is short we expect quick bursts from those, making it more worth it (I'm looking at you VALVe)

That being said, Joe Danger was a mighty fine game, and I heartily recommend it to any PSN downloader.

 

[mattttherman3]

I have no problem with long games, as long as they have a good story, but if they are just a long grind fest, I get annoyed, this generally includes turn based rpg's.

 

[Carlston]

Yeah if they didn't finish it, it's not that they don't want long games...


They don't want YOUR game.

Sorry to burst your bubble Chuck.
But good try, trying to make the games to blame...I played it at my nephews and wow....it was just ... yeah...

It's not Total Recall NES bad...but it bored me to tears.

 

[Talendra]

I love Joe Danger, I have not finished it though.. yet
It is a really good game to pick up when you do not have a couple of hours to play, do a level or two and put it down.
I have every intention to finish it, but I am just taking my time and enjoying it, I feel no need to rush it, which makes the game even better I think.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Gamers don't know what they want. At all. Developers are probably better of just ignoring any and all advice from the internet and in a lot of cases doing the complete opposite imo.

Wouldn't that mean they should do the opposite of what you just said and
[HEADING=2]PARADOX DETECTED![/HEADING]

Ot: It really depends on the game. I never finished skate, but I spent ages riding around and just enjoying the world. In open world games, or games where a sandbox is important, the linear goals often aren't as important. For linear games though, I'll feel pretty robbed if it's short.

 

[brunothepig]

Hmmm. You make a fair point about it being the sort of game one might get caught up in freeplay with or something. But I do see this in things like Steam achievements as well. I don't know if they're skewed, but even so, how is it possible that only 8.5% of people who own it got the achievement for escaping the apartment block raid? It's pretty damn early in the game. Also, by the way, that's the most earned achievement. 2.6% got the achievement for finishing the game. As I said, they will be skewed, by people playing offline, or I don't know if buying the hardcopy affects that, but that's still a very small amount.

 

[Jared]

Possibly because not all of it appealed? Its always going to be a case where some will be decicated enough to strive to the end, all the way to the end, of everything.

Its fimnding time, and people want to be able to go back, overtime, to do more

 

[heyheysg]

Erm no, it's because that game is brutally hard.

 

[Dexiro]

Joe Danger became boring incredibly quickly, and boredom coupled with incredibly hard/frustrating levels isn't a good mix.

To be totally honest i was hoping it'd be a lot more like Trial Bikes, not just zipping around a level collecting points. The skill seemed to be in managing your speed rather than maneuvering the level.

 

[Therumancer]

In my case I tend to move between games fairly regularly and always intend to go back to ones that I liked but oftentimes don't. It's one of those things where it takes a really special game to really "Grab" me, and that's what I'm looking for. You need more than length, you need a good, long game that is going to hold your attention for that time... as opposed to a short game that will do that but then be over and leave you feel like you spent your money on a tease.

I didn't play "Joe Danger" but I get the impression from some people I've heard talk about it that the game is both very hard (as someone else here pointed out), and also gets fairly boring pretty quickly. A lot of gamers want to spend that length being entertained, there is a differance between a challenge, and ramming your head into a brick wall. That can be a fine line for a developer to build on... but hey, those games that hit it dead on are the great ones. I get the impression that to a lot of people who liked the idea enough to lay out the money, it did not succeed on that level.

I'd also suspect that Achievements and Trophies have a lot to do with it as well. I tend to only be moderatly interested in such things, but I know a lot of people who are positively obssessed, and as much as they might like the game, tend to lose interest in doing anything there isn't a real immediate "payoff" for. Grinding or practicing for a dozen hours for a bronze or silver trophy or 5-10 gamerscore isn't worth it for a lot of people. What's more really difficult feats are things a lot of people want to get achievements for so they can PROVE they did something.

See, like it or not achievements and trophies have destroyed some of the social aspects of gaming. If you can't show a trophy or achievement for something, then it didn't happen, and if there isn't a trophy or achievement for it the attitude is increasingly it doesn't matter since anyone can claim to have done anything. Since even youtube video and screen caps can be faked, there is increasingly little incentive to experiment.

While I think achievements and trophies are neat and all, and I occasionally chase a few if they seem like they would be fun to do, I grew up gaming long before such things were even conceived of. I can enjoy playing a game for it's own merits, without needing the constant ka-ching of gamerscore and trophies. As odd as it sounds, a lot of the people who came into gaming during this generation aren't like that, and need those things to enjoy a game just like a junkie needs black tar heroin to enjoy life (and I think I just scared myself with my own analogy...)

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Is anyone else fucking annoyed by this "market research" bullshit?

At what point are all my gaming options going to be extremely short, extremely shallow one-button affairs with the exact same Nathan Drake clone as protagonist?

According to focus testing and market research, those are the games everyone should be making. Might as well get started already.