Squilliam said:
So... One of the highest selling franchises which has been made with a pretty good effort on the Wii bombs. What does that do? It means that shooters are going to be fewer and further between on the Wii. The Wii proved it can sell music games, and it gets Guitar Hero like everyone else. If the Wii proves is struggles to sell core games then I guess its more cooking mama and petz in the future since they have proved themselves to be profitable ventures. You know the one thing which breaks the rule on metacritic for higher rated games vs sales are the innovative games. They are rated highly but they never sell as well as titles which aren't innovative, but have a similar or lower rating. Also I never said that COD was innovative, I just said that innovation hardly ever pays off. And no, COD WAW Wii was not half hearted.
|
I reject your reasoning again, sir. I apologize. I may be doing that a lot?
Call of Duty is a tired series with a tired image, especially the World War II iterations. Youor idea of a proper core title is a multiplat for the most tired subgenre in the most tired genre in gaming today, when it has no splitscreen multiplayer for the one console where local multiplayer actually matters more than online? Really? You don't see the problem there?
Again: this is hamfisting it. Also: it is half-assing it. World at War is not a top-of-the-line product. It has nice production values, sure, but it is stale, it is a "seen it before" sort of thing, it is wose than the other versions of the game, the multiplayer is neutered, and I could have told you when it was announced that this was a bad idea.
You want a core game on the Wii that's substantially enhanced by the experience? Look at Resident Evil 4. Something like 1.5 million copies sold on a two-year-old port because it's the definitive version of the game substantially improved by being on the Wii.
Equating a rejection of World War II FPSes which are worse than what can be obtained on othr systems cannot be equated with a rejection of core games. To pretend so is lunacy, sir.