By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Would Castlevania and Enslaved done better if they were exclusive?

darkknightkryta on 01 November 2010

Castlevania wouldn't have done better, it has the name Castlevania and whether people who like this Castlevania or not would check this game out just cause it's Castlevania.  Enslaved would have done better cause as it stands the game has no marketing.  Being exclusive for Sony would have gotten you some kind of hype being exclusive for MS may or may not have gotten you something (Alan Wake didn't get much marketing for instance).



Around the Network
jarrod on 01 November 2010
disolitude said:

castlevania would have done better if it wasnt called castlevania. no one from the castlevania fanbase wants to play this game...and people who dont play castlevania are saying..."i dont want it, i dont play castlevania"


Bingo.  They should've kept it just "Lords of Shadow".

Besides, the CV base is consolidated on Nintendo handhelds at this point.  That's pretty much the only place an exclusive CV makes any sense.



twesterm on 01 November 2010

I'm just curious, why do people not want to call this a Castlevania?

You do realize you have amazing games like Symphony of the Night because Castlevania regularly goes through changes and tries new things.  I'm assuming you all also know that this isn't the first game to introduce new characters have no Belmont.  The only thing you really have to hang on is I believe there's no Dracula, but even that is moot point considering what people have been telling me about this game.



 

disolitude on 01 November 2010
twesterm said:

I'm just curious, why do people not want to call this a Castlevania?

You do realize you have amazing games like Symphony of the Night because Castlevania regularly goes through changes and tries new things.  I'm assuming you all also know that this isn't the first game to introduce new characters have no Belmont.  The only thing you really have to hang on is I believe there's no Dracula, but even that is moot point considering what people have been telling me about this game.

The answer is simple.

It doesn't play or feel like castlevania. I love when castlevania introduces new things (new - key word) but it needs to keep the existing elements i check when doing so. You know the elements which made people fans of the series in the first place...



Zlejedi on 02 November 2010
twesterm said:

No!

God, I hate it when people think this because it's just one of the dumbest things imagineable.  A smaller userbase doesn't mean better sells.  Even if they were exclusive that doesn't mean they would be first party and that means Sony or Microsoft would not have advertised them like a first party exclusive.

The only people that care are the people that constantly browse game forums and news blogs and those people represent an incredibly minor piece of the userbase.

But don't you think you are losing free advertisement by going multiplatform? And by free advertisement i don't mean ads sponsored by Sony or Microsoft but rather the gaming media attention.

Look into case of Quantum Theory - this game was receiving quite a lot of blogs and portals news space when it was hailed as PS3 version of Gears of War with japanise twist but then when they announced it's multiplatform it kinda disappered.

Some people might not like it but exclusives get lot more attention.

It was belived that multiplatform development is always better I belive that Enslaved is good proof that it isn't always true.



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

Around the Network
ArcticGabe on 02 November 2010

The sales on one console might have been better, but the life time total sales would be much worse.



twesterm on 02 November 2010
Zlejedi said:
twesterm said:

No!

God, I hate it when people think this because it's just one of the dumbest things imagineable.  A smaller userbase doesn't mean better sells.  Even if they were exclusive that doesn't mean they would be first party and that means Sony or Microsoft would not have advertised them like a first party exclusive.

The only people that care are the people that constantly browse game forums and news blogs and those people represent an incredibly minor piece of the userbase.

But don't you think you are losing free advertisement by going multiplatform? And by free advertisement i don't mean ads sponsored by Sony or Microsoft but rather the gaming media attention.

Look into case of Quantum Theory - this game was receiving quite a lot of blogs and portals news space when it was hailed as PS3 version of Gears of War with japanise twist but then when they announced it's multiplatform it kinda disappered.

Some people might not like it but exclusives get lot more attention.

It was belived that multiplatform development is always better I belive that Enslaved is good proof that it isn't always true.


No, the game would have gotten just about the same attention.  I don't know if you noticed, but Castlevania and Enslaved both got a good amount of attention from all the gaming blogs.  Being an exclusive wouldn't have really changed that.

And again, exclusives only get a lot more attention from people that constantly browse forums like these and check the gaming news blogs every 10 minutes and those people don't really make up a significant part of the audience.



 

A203D on 03 November 2010
darkknightkryta said:

Castlevania wouldn't have done better, it has the name Castlevania and whether people who like this Castlevania or not would check this game out just cause it's Castlevania.  Enslaved would have done better cause as it stands the game has no marketing.  Being exclusive for Sony would have gotten you some kind of hype being exclusive for MS may or may not have gotten you something (Alan Wake didn't get much marketing for instance).

I think Enslaved got some good marketing actully, there was tv, newpapers, magazines, there was a demo, interviews with the developers, etc. so its not a case of marketing imo, its just a case of people not wanting to get it and imo thats to do with this time of the year and the game being too risky.

if it was exclusive on the PS3, imo it wouldve appealed to the fanbase a lot better in the same way Heavy Rain did well considering being a risky game. and Castlevania is doing ok, it might do over 1 million. i played the demo and i'll get it over xmas.



darkknightkryta on 03 November 2010
A203D said:
darkknightkryta said:

Castlevania wouldn't have done better, it has the name Castlevania and whether people who like this Castlevania or not would check this game out just cause it's Castlevania.  Enslaved would have done better cause as it stands the game has no marketing.  Being exclusive for Sony would have gotten you some kind of hype being exclusive for MS may or may not have gotten you something (Alan Wake didn't get much marketing for instance).

I think Enslaved got some good marketing actully, there was tv, newpapers, magazines, there was a demo, interviews with the developers, etc. so its not a case of marketing imo, its just a case of people not wanting to get it and imo thats to do with this time of the year and the game being too risky.

if it was exclusive on the PS3, imo it wouldve appealed to the fanbase a lot better in the same way Heavy Rain did well considering being a risky game. and Castlevania is doing ok, it might do over 1 million. i played the demo and i'll get it over xmas.


I havn't seen any commercials for it (Have any youtue links? I'd like to see them, I mean the commercial for this game would be interesting.) and all the net ads I've seen were leading up to release and then gone just as fast.  And yeah Castlevania markets itself by name alone. 



A203D on 03 November 2010
darkknightkryta said:
A203D said:
darkknightkryta said:

Castlevania wouldn't have done better, it has the name Castlevania and whether people who like this Castlevania or not would check this game out just cause it's Castlevania.  Enslaved would have done better cause as it stands the game has no marketing.  Being exclusive for Sony would have gotten you some kind of hype being exclusive for MS may or may not have gotten you something (Alan Wake didn't get much marketing for instance).

I think Enslaved got some good marketing actully, there was tv, newpapers, magazines, there was a demo, interviews with the developers, etc. so its not a case of marketing imo, its just a case of people not wanting to get it and imo thats to do with this time of the year and the game being too risky.

if it was exclusive on the PS3, imo it wouldve appealed to the fanbase a lot better in the same way Heavy Rain did well considering being a risky game. and Castlevania is doing ok, it might do over 1 million. i played the demo and i'll get it over xmas.


I havn't seen any commercials for it (Have any youtue links? I'd like to see them, I mean the commercial for this game would be interesting.) and all the net ads I've seen were leading up to release and then gone just as fast.  And yeah Castlevania markets itself by name alone. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4ao8yx5bfI

theres one of them, it got good marketing man. Castlevania has released in Japan yet either, imo combined it could end up doing 1mil. too bad about Enslaved, it still has a good chance if word of mouth picks up, its a shame i think Nija Theory worked really hard on it.