dhummel said:
Actually I just chose to ignore your sarcasm. Clearly Galaxy is not a must own title because most Wii owners do not feel the need to own it. There are plenty of absolutely great games that are not must owns. Think of the PC - Total annihilation is not a must own, yet it no doubt one of the best Strategy games I have ever played. It sold poorly in comparison to SC, despite glowing critical reviews, and thus the gaming community deemed SC instead of TA the "must own" of 1997. A must own game does not mean a game meets some set of abstract standards that automatically give it the title. Must own games are defined by their reception, partially critical reception, but more importantly user's perceptions, which we see most evident in whether or not they purchase and continue to play a game. Furthermore, a must own game compels people who would have passed on playing the game or system to reconsider due to wide recognition of the game's superior gameplay, presentation, and fun factor. A must own needn't be simply the highest selling game for a system, because perhaps the game only attracted current owners of the system (albeit a high p[ercentage (25-20 atleast) and thus did not become a must own. MGS4 and Mario Galaxy cannot be said to have done these things. MGS4 in particular failed to attract even a sizable portion of the PS3 community, a fact that would have been apparent from the get go had anyone bothered to see the sales reception MGS3 received, which, while large, definately indicated a niche market and not something on the scale of GTAIII or the original Halo for Xbox. Must have games are rare - uber rare, as in if you are lucky there will be one franchise per system per generation that meets that qualification. The only one this generation so far to meet that standard is Halo 3. Perhaps, if KZ2 attracts enough people that would normally pass on the game and also manages to convince people to buy a PS3, KZ2 can slowly gain the title of must have. NES - Super Mario Bro SNES - Super Mario World Genesis - Sonic 2 (maybe?) PS1 - FFVII PS2 - GTAIII N64 - Ocarina GC - none GB - Tetris Xbox - Halo: CE 360 - Halo 3 PS3 - none Wii - none |
So basically, a must own game is judged by its attach rate? Wow, this is just getting bad. Most Wii owners didn't buy Galaxy. Hell, most 360 owners didn't buy Halo 3 (attach rate is less than 33%, smaller than Halo 2). Again, I'm arguing that a must own game is judged by quality, and you believe it's by sales. I think you're confusing must own with "killer app" or even "AAA."
Next you go on to say that a must own game is decided by how long people will be playing it? Would you tell someone to avoid a must see movie just because it's not as long as other films out at time? Obviously one could play a game through a second time, as well as watch a movie multiple times. But that could still be done regardless of quality (even ignoring that quality is subjective). I keep reading your second paragraph and ending up confused. If we're arguing attach rates (which is really stupid, by the way), then Wii Play beats out any other non-bundled game this generation. It's the "must own" game of our time. That's right, Wii Play. Yet I'm not seeing you mentioning it anywhere, not even in your strange chart.
My list (not including bundled games, sorry):
NES - Super Mario Bros 3.
SNES - Tough one. I would say Donkey Kong Country but that's personal taste speaking.
Genesis - Sonic the Hedgehog
PS1 - Final Fantasy VII
PS2 - Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
N64 - Super Mario 64
GC - Super Smash Bros. Melee
GB -Pokemon Red/Blue/Green
Xbox - Halo
360 - Halo 3
PS3 - Metal Gear Solid 4
Wii -Wii Sports
My list is simply what I would refer to as flagship games, or the games that gave the systems the images they hold currently. There wasn't really a point to that list, I just felt like having some fun.
