vonboysp said:
archbrix said:
axt113 said:
archbrix said:
Wii Sports and the like did push hardware; it STILL doesn't mean their big three lineup isn't strong.
If the word "casual" offends you, too bad. Let's use "wider" since you seem to prefer it. Many, many people who bought the Wii are people who fall into the "wider" category. People that , as you admitted yourself, are not core gamers. People who bought it on a whim, many of which hardly use it anymore. People who are grandparents who like Wii bowling. People who play every long once and a while with their kids. In other words: PEOPLE WHO PLAY CASUALLY! Sound better? Less idiotic, perhaps? I never said this was a bad thing; not in the least. No they would not be interested in Mario 64. But Mario 64 did more than deliver a "3D star hunt". It delivered a new era of gameplay and showed that Nintendo could gracefully transition great gameplay into 3D. That impressed people whether they were fans of the direction the game took or not. I personally prefer most of the 2D Mario games myself, and now that the "wider" market has embraced the Wii, great games like NSMB will surely sell much better. But in 1996 Nintendo started the N64 off with a bang by adapting to the market instead of just releasing another 2D Mario which would have largely gone unnoticed at the time. Super Mario World came with the SNES, but Super Mario World 2? Despite being one of my favorite games ever, it definitely didn't sell anywhere near what Mario 64 and Galaxy have... there's your clue.
Sony opposed to what the wider market is looking for? Because PS1 and PS2 didn't sell squat, right? Do YOU hear yourself? I won't argue against Christensen's points simply because I do agree with a lot of what the man says. Doesn't mean Move and Natal couldn't surprise us, but I'm not holding my breath either. And I never stated I "trusted" the analysts; I NEVER did, as I was sure Nintendo would regain their #1 spot in the market. Why? Because I DO understand the market. Do You?
|
Wrong, still weak, doesn't move hardware is weak
Its not offesnsive, its stupid, because it shows you really don't ge the market. Not core means they value different things than the core, they don't care about HD graphics for example. No 3D mario, mario 64, merely closed off the market, alienating those gamers who were fans of the Super marios, I know I never enjoyed the 3D marios like the Super marios.
Going unnoticed, lol, are you listening to yourself, Mario 64 never sold close to what those 2D marios you think would have gone unnoticed did, like I said, you don't get marketing, study business a little first.
Sony just sold to more markets, and to larger populations, they didn't expand the market, and they still won't with move or NATAL
|
Study business a little first? Why don't you try studying grammar and spelling first... then maybe you'll "ge" the market yourself.
Yes I am listening to myself, but obviously you're not. Did you not read my example? SMW2 sold NO WHERE NEAR what Mario 64 did. Why? Because at that time 3D design was in. I know it and Nintendo knew it too. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, hiding behind the opinions of Christensen and people who actually do know what they're talking about in hopes of sounding like you have a clue yourself...
|
do you even know what smw2 was? it had a baby mario in it, and you played as the yoshi. the gameplay was vastly different from the first smw. there was more of a focus on collecting things, which was a precurser to the star hunting 3d marios. when the game game out, many people complained that it was not the same, and that it strayed too far from mario. it wasn't a mario game, it was a joshi game. it didn't sell not because it was a 3d mario, but because it wasn't a mario game at all.
to compare this to shooters, the earlier marios were like shoot-em-up fps's, while this new game was a stealth fps. it was vastly different, and many people did not like it.
|
