irstupid said:
we don't know if it is that simple or not. they haven't gave it a chance. do we see Resident Evil 5, or Call of Duty 4, or many other main title games with fan bases already on Wii. (released on time, not ported way later) NO
So we dont' knwo if it will sell. We get the knockoffs, like all those Kingdom hearts crap not 1,2,3. We get the resident evil rail guns, or ps2 ports, or some slapped together mini game. and then they bitch about it not selling. then they come out with some games they think are hardcore such as madworld or that insect game, which without even being released we ALL knew they would't sell huge numbers nad would be niche games. how can they not see htis. |
My guess, even though it's admittedly airmchair psychology, is that they had what they thought was a solid, if broad, idea of what games sold, and that bigger and better graphics and tech were the way to go. The Wii came and threw that off. It sold games that shouldn't have sold. While a few developers did the sensible thing and put some of the games they were used to on the Wii (Ubisoft made Red Steel, which wasn't perfect, but did sell and is getting a sequel), others got this stupid idea that those kinds of games don't work on the Wii.
This could explain the "test" games that weren't really proper tests (Sould Calibur is a fighting game, and you test that market with a fucking fighting game). Something challenged their idea of reality and they just couldn't grasp it.
I hope someone who actually knows about psych or sociology can explain this better.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs