By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
oniyide on 19 April 2012
Edit Thread
Soleron said:
happydolphin said:
...

You clearly didn't read my post with the NES games and their sales, the market Malstrom was talking about created by Mario.

You're mixing two things up, Malstrom's views, which confuse sales and awesomeness, and Rol's pov.

Like most of us, Rol wants to see Nintendo do well. In that case, he wants them to sell well. But if you look earlier in the topic, I asked Rol, what is most important here, sales or awesomeness, and he told me awesomeness. So the question is, if a game is fantastic, yet it doesn't sell all that well, which desire is the most important, for Nintendo to do well, or for their games to sell.

You'll tell me, they're one and the same, when a game is good, it will sell. But the fact of the matter is, many games don't sell all too well (relatively speaking) despite being gems. Galaxy is by far a much better game than NSMBWii, but which one sold better, we both know the answer to these questions.

Bottom line, if that is your stance, that you discuss sales as sales and don't equate sales to quality, don't bash a game if it doesn't sell well, be SPECIFIC. Just say: "this or that game would have sold better", don't use other confusing rhetoric such as "this game didn't sell well because it's not a real Mario".

 

And I'll gracefuly close this with

"..."

Wasn't really responding to you, was making a point Rol made stand out more.

Not, when a game is good it will sell. The games that sell IS the only decent measure of quality (obviously you can hold a subjective ranking but it's not worth discussing on the internet as your preferences are your own). Plenty of quality games that I like haven't sold, and they didn't deserve to sell either.

Galaxy had higher production values, yes. Was it doing the job the market needed it to do, not really. Nintendo put no effort into NSMB Wii (recycle art, sound and level design) and yet it sold more. If Nintendo had put NSMB Wii on an equal pedestal development wise we wouldn't need to have this debate, it would just be so high that Nintendo couldn't continue to be in denial about what they need to spend money on.

I disagree with Rol if that's what he said, I believe sales are the important thing. I desire Nintendo to do well because they will then have enough money to do projects that don't make sense - the games I like e.g. Galaxy.

"not a real Mario" is Malstrom shorthand for "a sequel to the original Marios that people who liked those would want to buy, and that new gamers can experience the same as what SMB did for 80s gamers".

But why would they?? they put little effort into the game and it still sold like crazy, what incentive would they have to put in effort when millions of people will buy it regardless?? Im not try trying to be difficult its a legit ?   I would have love them to put in more effort (one of the reasons i passed on that game)