How would you define a flop?

[Reasonable]

Bokal said:

Reasonable said:
For me flop is relative to the game and how well it achieves certain metrics versus reasonable expectations for its sales/critical/market reception

So for example I'd judge something like Flower very differently from Killzone 2 and wouldn't use the same measurement all the time (i.e. 1M sales to be a hit).

I think the true flops tend to be obvious - titles that looked promising, review poorly, get poor online notices, sell poorly vs similar titles and general stink up the gaming universe.

I do notice that since the 360/PS3 fight started (and Wii went in a different direction) lots of people are falling over to claim 'flop' with the most tenuous of justification.

So if it makes money, reviews okay and finds an audience its not a flop IMHO.

I don't think reviews should matter...

Heavenly sword got pretty bad reviews(79 on metacritic), even if it was a great game, and sold 1.35M in the end... I don't consider it a flop...

Same for Mirror's edge or WWE smackdow vs raw 2009... Metacritic is full of such exemples...

I still hate metacritic...

 

 

I meant general consensus.  I know games (and films as another example) are about money in many cases, but I want a good game/film and rate a good/great title higher than a better selling piece of crap.

Of course, with reviews things get subjective, but I think Heavenly Sword reviewed okay really.  Personally if I use a site like metacritic I ignore obvious outliers - i.e. if say 75% plus of reviews are 80% and there are some really low reviews I usually discount them as a taste issue.  If the majority of decent review sites (and more general internet gamer reaction) can agree a game is very good then I'm happy with that.  Both metacritic and to a lesser extent Gamerankings have flaws - but then there are many flaws with game reviewing in general IMHO so its a given some of that is also going to pass over to such aggregation sites.

I think reviews are also interesting to consider when games seem to underperform for strange reasons.  For example great games like Grim Fandango, Beyond Good & Evil, ICO, etc. that all underperformed on first release yet were all fantastic games by any measure.

Mirror's Edge, going OT for a moment, is a good game with a great idea, but the execution was a little wanting I think and many reviews fairly pointed this out.  Even with practice some moves, elements really were just too unintuitive and led to player frustration.  Also they needed a stronger core story and a broader set of gaming mechanics IMHO.  Not shooting (although sadly I bet that's what they go for with the sequel) but probably more stealth/exploration/detective work mixed in with the high adrenalian chases.

So don't think a specifc review per se, more the critical reception of the game.  Was it a classic?  Did it redefine the genre?  Half Life is a good example of this from way back on PC - that title totally re-wrote the rule book on FPS, became an instant (and deserved) critical hit and is still being copied today.