Quantcast
Just Dance, metascore 47

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Just Dance, metascore 47

wow this thread went a long way since I last posted.



Vaio - "Bury me at Milanello"      R.I.P AC Milan

In the 60's, people took acid to make the world weird.
Now the world is weird  and people take Prozac  to make it normal.

If laughing is the best medicine and marijuana makes you laugh

Is marijuana the best medicine?

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

“If any creator has not played Mario, then they’re probably not a good creator. That’s something I can say with 100 percent confidence. Mario is, for game creators, the development bible.

Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight said:
"why should I spend 10 million to make a port Assassin's Creed when I can spend less than half, make a party game and sell more"

What proof will it sell less? You kind of need AC games on the Wii to prove they will sell less. Not other games you lump in there.

I think the real test on what exactly sells well for Ubisoft will be Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands. Avatar pretty much bombed on all consoles so I think PoP will be a good game to see how well it ends up.



Carl2291 said:
nordlead said:

Monster Hunter is the ONLY 3rd party exclusive that is actually worth mentioning. However, like I said, name one game that would be like a GTA or Assassin's Creed that flopped and you can't (note, this doesn't mean actually AC or GTA, but games with the same production values). There have been 0 blockbuster attempts on Wii that have failed. Maybe this is because no one has tried, but if so, then you can't use it as an argument that they do.

Also, Just Dance 2 isn't an easy profit. Look at Shaun White Snowboarding. It was a HUGE success on Wii compared to PS360. So what did they do? More of the exact same thing and guess what happened, the Wii audience dismissed it because there wasn't enough change. Look at the Guitar Hero/Rock Band scene. The games were doing great (also doing great on Wii) and they kept on putting out more of the same, and now the most recent versions are flopping (in comparison and probably in general). If you look at the party sports games, they are selling worse and worse every single time. There is no guarantee that Just Dance 2 will succeed, and Nintendo has never once shown that repeat games will sell on the Wii. In fact, they've shown that ports from the previous generation flop horribly with the New Play Control series.

I'll bring up LAIR. The game was supposed to be EPIC, it was AAA, it had a big budget, it would save the PS3, and it didn't sell. In fact, it essentially put the dev right out of business. Now why put a bunch of money/effort into creating a new core game on PS3 with a risk of it bombing? You ask this question as if core games are a guaranteed sell on the HD systems but they aren't. The only reason we see more "core" games selling well on the PS360 is because they are actually put there. When it comes to multiplatform titles, they get put on PS3, X360, PSP yet the PSP version usually sells horribly (assassin's creed anyone, or the soon to be Dante's Inferno). There is no reason they need to shun the Wii because it "isn't powerful enough". Heck, Street Fighter IV is on iPhone and hopefully PSP, but still no mention of Wii even though it would work perfectly fine and Tatsunoko is selling well.

The Wii never had a chance to break any imaginary image that the industry put on the thing, because no one ever gave it a chance. Nintendo isn't kiddy, they are family and they make quite a wide range of titles from E-T (and publish a few M titles). They wouldn't stop a single GTA, AC, or FF from being put on the system, heck, they have the most violent murder simulator ever on the Wii. Because 3rd parties have refused to put the main titles on the system (or ever try once) there is a false notion that Wii owners don't want good games. Heck, Resident Evil 4 is about to pass the GC version, and all Capcom provides is a light gun test game (I like light gun games, but they don't make for a good test for other types of games) to see if the market wants more 3rd person horror games.

I don't have time to type more, but in summation, you can't say that Wii can't sell big 3rd party core games, when there are none, and you can't say that 3rd party core games are a safer bet on PS360. You also can't say that it is guarantee that kiddy party games will sell, as I can point out hundreds of those that have flopped too.

That is one long post...

Just Dance is selling well, and has great user reviews. I would say it's a game selling on word of mouth/parties, like a lot of other Wii games. It also has the attention of teenage girls, and mums. Which Shaun White didn't have. As we already know from a number of other games and sources, the female market on Wii is huge. Just Dance 2... Will sell. I guarentee it. I'm willing to bet on it selling 1m within a matter of weeks.

LAIR failed, badly. But not due to the game itself being bad, due to the controls for the game being terrible. With better controls it would have gained better reviews and then also would have sold well, i think. Hey, it could even be at about 600k NOW if we had Others sales for it. Sure, not the best sales... But after the reviews it gained it didn't do TOO bad. But i do see what you mean with the costs arguement. I think it's also why we see few 3rd party exclusives now on HD systems, compared to what we saw a few years back. It's a reason why games like FF13 went multi.

You also have to take into account that everyone thought the PS3 would walk away with the generation, and the fact that MS got a whole bunch of devs on the 360... This meant that the game engines for the big games, were based on the HD consoles. Why start developing for Nintendo's next console, when they were selling less and less every generation? You would start with the big boy, the PlayStation. If you have something similar, you would also use that (the 360).

When you look at the big picture, from the start of the gen you see the devs already having the big game engines on the HD consoles, along with the big franchises already being developed for the HD consoles. Why would you then later take your franchises away from the HD consoles, a proven market now for big core games, and put them on the Wii, which is still an unproven market that will buy pretty much anything you throw at it.

As for the Red - The industry didn't put an imaginary image on the Wii, Nintendo gave the Wii its image with how they advertised the console and it's games. When your ad's are like this, this, this and this... You can't say the rest of the industry gave it the image it has.

But, i ask you. What do you think is the actual reason for the Wii not getting the big games like Assassin's Creed, GTA... Etc? I'm sure you know why i think it happens.

yea... my post was way longer than I thought it would turn out, and I'm sure this one will to

Anyways, the two reason that the big multiplatform titles haven't made it to Wii is

1) because every analyst wrote the system off for dead before it ever launched (expecting less than 20m sales). It also had the "kiddy" market cornered before launch according to analysts. The advertising didn't matter, the analysts and industry had already decided that Nintendo was kiddy no matter what they did. I can't watch the youtube videos now, but I'm assuming you are linking the Wii would like to play commercials, which are pretty well even keel. PS3 advertisements at the start of the gen were "hardcore or die", so in comparison I guess you could claim Nitnendo's advertising was "kiddy". Obviously this is a half valid reason for games coming out 1-2 years ago.

2) because the devs just don't want to try. They come up with any excuse they can (only 1st party titles sell, only party games sell, my crappy test game didn't sell). Give me 1 good reason why Call of Duty should be ported to the Wii 2 years late rather than at the same time? It obviously sells well enough, but the Wii gets shafted. SFIV is going to iPhone and they want it on PSP, and again the Wii gets shafted. Remember, the Wii can't handle RE5's title screen when the game came out, but now it could be done... yea, 3rd parties can't really hide that they just don't want to.

I'm not even saying that Wii should get every 3rd party game, but it should get some big exclusives, all the games it is getting now, plus a good chunk of the multiplatform titles that it isn't getting. There are 67m Wii owners, and sure there is some overlap between the owners, but even if 50% of the Wii owners own a PS3/X360 adding the Wii to the CoD release list would add another platform of the same size as the X360 OR PS3.

anyways, this is getting more off-topic with every post. As I stated, there is no evidence that big 3rd party multiplatform games wouldn't sell on Wii, and in fact most evidence backs up that it would if it ever got a fair shot. And as for the original reason I even started posting in this thread again... Just Dance selling (whatever it will end up being) does not prove in any way that Wii owners want bad games, and as you even stated it has gotten great user reviews. I'm yet to actually read a real review that says why this is a bad game.




If you drop a PS3 right on top of a Wii, it would definitely defeat it. Not so sure about the Xbox360. - mancandy
In the past we played games. In the future we watch games. - Forest-Spirit
11/03/09 Desposit: Mod Bribery (RolStoppable)  vg$ 500.00
06/03/09 Purchase: Moderator Privilege  vg$ -50,000.00

Nordlead Jr. Photo/Video Gallery!!! (Video Added 4/19/10)

Maybe 3rd parties just don't like money all that much?



"Give me 1 good reason why Call of Duty should be ported to the Wii 2 years late rather than at the same time?"

Treyarch and IW said the engine wasn't ready for the Wii then. Treyarch also said local multiplayer couldn't be fully implimented because they rant out of time. So in that case, it's a tech issue. They didn't use the usual excuses.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network

this game is good u actually learn to dance the actual dance to the song compared to ddr games it is a must get if ur a social person and awesome with parties with drinks or no drinks great game. i hope just dance 2 comes with online functionality so can download more music and try to get some more artist like top 10 pop female and male artist. u know big artist like mj, lady gaga, spears, madonna. it will sell more with more big artist but of course u got to break the artist some bread with royalties. great game i don't know why it got a low review prob ign don't how to have fun and dance and just be a fool with people. this game is good cardio workout.



Pyro as Bill said:

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/936/936295p1.html

We missed the mark -- that's the only way to explain why we've pulled the U.S. review of Just Dance off our site.

After seeing the community feedback and having more editors look at the title, we agree with the readers that our original review didn't give Just Dance a fair shake. Unfortunately, our critical analysis of Just Dance focused more on what the author wanted it to be rather than what the product actually was. We review games at IGN based on their own merits, and agree that it was unreasonable to compare Just Dance with action-oriented sports titles like FIFA or Pro Evolution Soccer. Because of the unfair comparison, we have deemed the review unacceptable and have removed it from the site.

We extend our sincerest apologies to both SEGA and our readers for the mistake and confusion. Look for an updated and more accurate relation of IGN's view of WWSM '09 sometime in the near future.

The problme with IGN is they do this all the time. They do it so much now that they don't even bother to apologize with it. Especially in regards to the Wii now. However so many other sites do it as well it doesn't stand out anymore until they pull something like their Just Dance review. Another recent one they pulled this with is Wii Music. Now Nintendo could have explained the game more before it came out but IGN clearly trashed it for the sake of trashing it because it wasn't Rock Band or Guitar Hero. Nintendo had dared to do something different and they did it well. However it wasn't a rhythem game so so called reviewers hated it. However majority of those that actually played enjoyed it.



Hahaha lmao that was funny



I mostly play RTS and Moba style games now adays as well as ALOT of benchmarking. I do play other games however such as the witcher 3 and Crysis 3, and recently Ashes of the Singularity. I love gaming on the cutting edge and refuse to accept any compromises. Proud member of the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race. Long Live SHIO!!!! 

4.5 out of 5 in Amazon sounds more reliable than IGN reviews



psrock said:
cAPSLOCK said:
Barozi said:
well consumers can buy whatever they like.
But big sales doesn't automatically equal quality.

Personally it's another game, where I hold my head in shame and ask myself what happened to gaming...
sad sad sad

I'd be willing to argue that sales are the ONLY measure of quality.  It's a commitment of time and money when you purchase a game, and while hobbyists have no problems buying 5-6 games at once that they'll never finish, most people are not so willing to piss their money away. That doesn't just include people with families but also college students and other people around the same age who see gaming as just something else to do as opposed to their whole life.

Why did Mario Kart Wii sell more than Modern Warfare? The answer is simple: not enough people thought Modern Warfare was worth the effort to drive to a store and throw down 3-8 hours worth of pay for the experience.

I've been holding my head in shame wondering what's happened to gaming since around 2002. What took you so long? It's been going to shit since it was taken over by emotionally retarded virgins cranking out the same shit over and over again to the same group of 15 year old walking wallets willing and eager to gobble up the same shit sandwich with slightly different bread.

I'm glad gaming is moving away from being blockbuster driven, because it would be nice if gaming got its balls back.

What the hell are you talking about, seriously. When was gaming not about blockbusters? It just that the genre we used to see as big games have lost creativity and passed by better ones. Games are better now and more diverse as much as we complain about it. 

Sales has never equaled to quality in any medium of life, just demand and the market. More people have seen Family Guy than the Wire, but in terms of quality it's not even close.

COD4 came out in 2007 and is still in the top most played games in both the PS3 and 360. Where are you getting this 3-8 hours stuff.

You walk around in shame, that's your problem. Look at the games coming in 2010 from all consoles, this might be the greatest year in gaming ever, think about this for one second:

November 2010

Halo Reach = 360

Zelda = Wii

GT5 = PS3

Gaming is alive and doing well.

 

Gaming wasn't about blockbusters in the 8 bit and 16 bit era definitely. When you have like 10 dudes working on a much more simple game you don't need 2 million sales to break even.

And no, we don't have more diverse games now. We have 1999 in HD. Gaming has been at an almost total creative standstill for 2 generations and somehow all these ancient PC games and playing online have been repackaged on a console like it's new and isn't ground that's been treaded damn near 20 years now.

Can you seriously say the difference between 2001 and 2010 has been a bigger jump (technologically AND conceptually) is greater than 1991 and 2000?

As far as the 3-8 hours, I meant 3-8 hours of work to pay for the game. Meaning someone has to work at their job roughly 3-8 hours in other to have enough money to purchase the game. Hell even I got way more than 8 hours of Modern Warfare and it drove me crazy :P

As far as Family Guy and The Wire, and the usual Big Mac vs Mario Batali and trying to compare it to video games:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XzWWcritSFoC&pg=PT495&lpg=PT495&dq=degree+of+disanalogy&source=bl&ots=JltwXqhqPv&sig=c8BR7j-rInTLJ3IS8rBarAR7zto&hl=en&ei=B1yHS-6rE8uGkAW23vhF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=degree%20of%20disanalogy&f=false

In other words, the differences are far too great to draw a decent analogy. 

I'm even a bit hesitant to use movies or books as a comparison for video games because the a $5 book doesn't even compare to a $50 game. There's more of a decision process involved as the cost of the item increases.

****************************************************************

I'm not sure those 3 games you picked really help your argument.

Halo Reach: Halo in HD. Sure it may be a different story, but how will it be fundamentally different from Halo 1-ODST? Meaning, if you lower your graphical standards, could I put this game the original xbox? If online is the argument, then fine ...a PC made in 1997. In other words, what is this game doing in 2010 that could not be done in 2001?

GT5: Don't get me wrong, I'm buying this game and anticipating the hell out of it. The argument remains: what is this game doing that couldn't be done in 2001?  Probably not fair since a driving simulator can't exactly have space monkeys melting the world or some shit while driving, it can just do the simulation more accurately than before.

Zelda Wii: We don't know anything about this game yet. It could very well be the same old shit just with more waggle fidelity, or it could be you actually sword fighting Ganon. Could swing either way.

But in all 3 cases, back in 2001 would any of these games blown your mind if you were told about them? Like some future dude coming back and explaining these games to you.

Now imagine it's 1991 and you're being told about The Sims, or Resident Evil, or Thief, EverQuest, Diablo, StarCraft (or WarCraft), Tony Hawk, Ocarina of Time, Mario 64, Tekken, Counter Strike, Final Fantasy IX, MechWarrior.

In at least 2 of the 2001 to 2010 cases you can say "X game in HD" and explain 99.9% of it. How do you explain the Sims to someone in 1991? Or an RTS? Survival Horror?

I'd say 2 of those 3 games you picked actually hurt your argument because they just demonstrate that the video game industry hasn't done shit for 10 years besides make what they know is safe and will sell big (blockbusters). 

 

Edit: and if you look at a lot of those games I mentioned you'll be hard pressed to find any that got so much as 1 TV commercial or any kind of treatment of blockbuster status. 

In the same vein, can you name 1 major blockbuster game that redefined gaming like WarCraft or Counter Strike? How many games that alterer the course of video gaming were done in basements?