dhummel said:
Those games are good but not "must own"s. How can the forth installment of a plot-heavy tactical shooter be a "must own"? Especially when the third iteration sold fewer than 5 million copies with a userbse of over 100 million consoles? Not too many people can pick up MGS4 as their first MGS and play through while understanding the plot, which is one of selling points of the game. As the sales show, less than 25% of current PS3 owners have deemed the title worthy of a purchase anyway. Furthermore, the online component has a medium sized, dedicated following and nothing more. "Must owns" can garner 100-200k per weekend online at any time, like the CoD's do on PS3 and 360 and like Halo 3 still does on occasion. You are confusing personal and critical favorites with mass appeal games that transcend even the gaming realm and draw laymen into the fold.
|
The bolded statement could be twisted in so many ways that I'm actually finding myself amazed with the possibilities. Let's take Super Mario Galaxy for example, which got incredible reviews and is now at about 8 million sales. How can the (too many to count) installment of a plot-thin platformer be a "must own?" We all know that a "must own" title is decided by sales and not quality, so let's look at Super Mario Galaxy. Clearly it's not a must own title since the last major iteration barely did 6 million with a userbase of 22 million. Less than 20% of Wii have deemed Super Mario Galaxy worthy of a purchase anyways. And we all know that high selling, "must own" are heavy on the online. See Wii Sports, Wii Play, and Wii Fit.
