MontanaHatchet said:
mike_intellivision said:
dougsdad0629 said:
This might sound weird, but I think the gameplay isn't really the point. As long as it is passable, which it seems like it is, the game will do well. The whole point of this game is creative freedom and a sense of community. The actual "gameplay" of running through the levels is just the means by which you view and experience someone's creation. |
If gameplay is not important ... then why do we play games?
If this turns out to be more art program than game, it will have a lot of trouble moving beyond a certain level of sales (1M? 2M?). And it won't move systems.
Basically, beyond a core group of gamers who think user created is the greatest thing since sliced bread, there are a lot of gamers who just want to play. And this type of game -- 2.5D platform -- has not fared well on the PS3 so far.
Mike from Morgantown
PS -- I think the score will be in the 90-or-above range because reviewers will love the game, even if people don't take to it as much as they think people should. (Can anyone say "Beyond Good and Evil"? -- highly reviewed, great gameplay, poor sales).
|
First you said it had poor gameplay, and then you made a comparison to Beyond Good and Evil which you claimed had great gameplay. I'm guessing you're making a comparison to show that Little Big Planet will have poor sales, which is really unrelated to the quality of the game and is just a method for people to troll the game when questioning its quality fails. I''d also like to know if Beyond Good and Evil was being advertised months before launch and being highly hyped by major gaming sites.
I wasn't paying attention at the time, but you seem to be an expert on the game.
|
I think your reading his post wrong. The poor gameplay was an IF statement about a question in gaming in general. The comparison with Good and Evil is his opinion on how the game will do. He thinks the game will get good scores, like Good and Evil did, but it might sell poorly, for lack of interest from consumers.
