LDJAM analytics

Posted by
May 16th, 2015 5:21 pm

So this time I decided to collect some analytics to try to find out more about the way LDJAM voters played my game.

Number of sessions: 41

I had 34 votes at the time I did the analysis. These 41 sessions came from 34 different IP addresses.

Number of plays per session:
min: 1
avg: 1.24
max: 9

The histogram shows the frequency of the number of plays. More that 30 visitors played the game a single time.

Plays per session

Well, 4 users didn’t event start a game (the only recorded event is “quit”, that is fired when the visitor leaves the page).

All this means that most players just play once, vote, and go to the next game.

Game length (time)
min: 15 secs
avg: 1min 52secs
max: 3min 58sec

Well, my game was designed to be played in quick sessions, so this feels about right. I didn’t want to bore people too much

Session length (time)

Avg: 5min 46
Min: 15sec
Max: 46min 23

(OK, someone had the game tab open for more than 1 hour, but they played for 10 minutes and probably left the tab open while they did something else, and only closed it much later.)

The 46min session included 9 plays spaced throughout the full timespan. One visitor played for 15secs and gave up. I guess you can’t please everyone.

Scores:
High: 14290,
Avg: 6095
Low: 200(*)

Only 17 visitors played until they lost all the energy – others quit mid-play – so I only have recorded scores for those.

(*) – The lowest score was, in fact 0, but I decided to ignore because it might not have been a real try.

Conclusion:

My interpretation is that LD participants are focused in their mission to rate as many games as possible in order to get their own games rated, and don’t spend much time in each game. They optimize their time by playing once, voting, and moving on to the next one. This was more or less what I expected, and I even tried to design the gameplay around that: something easy to understand and start playing and that wouldn’t require a long play session to enjoy.

Still I was hoping to get at least a second try from most players (I think I almost never rate a game before playing twice, to avoid scoring on a first impression). I’d say it’s my game’s fault for not looking too pretty or just not being interesting, except I don’t think my results were that bad. In fact I’m fairly happy with them. I got:

#333 Overall 3.41
#59 Fun 3.87

It was my best overall result ever. Same goes for theĀ fun category. So I guess that’s just the way it is: you typically get a “Jupi Plays”-like run through your game (great videos, btw) and probably only the top games overall are able to grab player’s attention for a longer time. So many games to play, and so little time :)

Big thanks to all those who played, and especially to whoever played 9 times! :)

Next time I’ll try to record my own playing/judging habits as well.

Anyone else with analytics data to share and compare?

My game: Kick it hard!

Tags:


3 Responses to “LDJAM analytics”

  1. nassi says:

    Interesting statistics! An entry of mine with a leaderboard from a few Ludum Dares back told the same tale, albeit with much shallower data at hand (http://ludumdare.com/compo/ludum-dare-29/?action=preview&uid=25343, seems like you were among those who rated it at the time and even left a comment, thanks!).

    The statistics aren’t actually as bad as I feared, but I still wonder what could be done to “improve” them. After all it’s a shame to have a game you worked so hard for be discarded so quickly. I guess the optimal solution would be to make something that provides an overview of what the game has to offer quite quickly, but also has some “bonus” content for those that are more interested.

    I actually encountered some games during this Ludum Dare that had me gripped for nearly (or in same cases for over) an hour. Might also have something to do with the fact that I had plenty of free time during the rating period.

  2. Jwatt says:

    It’s predictable but still a shame. Intricate games are at a disadvantage because people just want to boost their coolness at a rate of like one game a minute.

    Then again, sometimes you get a few really analytic comments, and that’s what makes it worthwhile.

  3. frnknstn says:

    Your game *felt* great, the experience was comfortable, and that is probably why people felt confident to give you that excellent overall rating despite having a short playing time.

    In defense of those people who quit before their energy ran out, it wasn’t 100% obvious that your game had a end state :) The border-less ‘energy’ bar didn’t give much context, and is a bit detached from the play area.

    From my personal experience, the games I spent the most time with were those that seemed to offer a narrative, or at least some progression. The desire to find out what else the game offers made me hand around longer.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

[cache: storing page]