Twilight Princess > Skyward Sword

[oniyide]

Metrium said:

oniyide said:
@metrium if you would stop crying for a few seconds you would realize that those games you mentioned have one thing that Zelda doesnt, MULTIPLAYER. Like it or not that is a popular feature. Generic war fighter??? Who cares people play COD for the MP, i would bet alot of people do the same for U3, and yes it wasnt as good as U2, but the MP was an improvement.

The fact that games have multiplayer doesnt make that a studio deserves more money for puking unoriginal cashgrabs. I understand that alot of ppl buy some games for multiplayer, but imo most of them doesnt deserve the money theyr making... A game that gives you a terrible and short campaign, same features over and over again... with all that is changing year after year is pretty much the maps and the name on the box of the game doesnt deserves millions of $ by selling over 25million copy year after year just because it has good multiplayer.

And for UC3, yes the multiplayer was a improvment, but no one bought the game thinking ''oh, I cant wait to play this online... as soon as I get home, ima take that disc out of the box, put it in my ps3 and go straight to the multiplayer'' because ppl buy and want to play UC for the campaign. I played a little multiplayer and then stopped playing it, personaly I dont think UC would have deserved less sales if it didnt have multiplayer, its just a bonus. Kind of metroid prime2 and ME3, couldnt care less if it had multiplayer or not, imma buy the game anyway... play the campaign... and THEN when I have time I will TRY the multiplayer, have fun with it for few hours then move on. But that is just me and my opinion but im pretty sure tho that it IS a fact that MOST ppl who bought UC3 would have bought it if it didnt have multiplayer anyway.