Hanlon's Razor is how some people see the Wii, the DS and even HD games.

[LordTheNightKnight]

Hanlon's Razor is simply "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Now while I wouldn't go with it never happens, I would say that the root problem developers, gaming press, and many people online have with the Wii is plain, old ignorance about what sells with video games.

Not with what they like in games, but with what sells. These people have been more or less a community (or at least a community of communities), and they have spoken more with each other than outside this group about what they like about games. Now I repeat, what they like about games is not the issue here. The issue is they think what they like about games is what makes a game sell to the mainstream, whether it's Wii owners or those who buy the mainstream HD games.

Basically, these people think elements A, B, and C sell a game, when elements X, Y, and Z sell a game (all these elements vary of course). So when developers make an HD game, they focus loads of money on A, B, and C, while often including X, Y, and Z just because they are expected, or even they are told to by their bosses.

The result is that the HD games are praised for A/B/C, and the reviewers and developers don't get that X/Y/Z actually sold the game. Take the reviews of Grand Theft Auto IV praising the "living, breating, immersive world" versus the ads showing the hero running around wreaking havok, just like the other 3D GTA games. In short, reviews aren't why those games sell. Despite how developers court high reviews, it's confusing correlation with causality.

So when Wii and DS games come out with only X/Y/Z, developers and gaming press are flustered that they sell. Those game don't have A/B/C, so they should be flops. Even the Wii and DS games they don't like but don't sell are for reasons other than those people think (they hate Wii Music for being a casual game and for the E3 2008 presentation, as if the mainstream even knew about E3).

Also, the A/B/C elements are often things related to processing power, or even some that are not but these people somehow think they are (thinking it's the tools more than the talent), and that even trying those on the Wii involves some tricks.

Then their Wii games focus so much on A/B/C, that X/Y/Z are almost forgotten. The result is praise for the games, but sales that are niche.

So since they think A/B/C sells a game, and those games have those elements, they can't see why their games didn't sell instead other than the audience didn't like the game. And the games with the opposite sell, and they can't see the appeal witout A/B/C.

It's not the audience. It's developers and gaming press having the wrong notion of what sells a game.

This is why I think High Voltage Software is worth of praise. While some developers didn't even have great reviews but mediocre selling "core" games (Deadly Creatures) and still blame the audience, HVS has actually talked to fans and gotten what they did wrong. Like the other people, they focused on A/B/C on The Conduit (gotta get the graphics and effects), and now they are including X/Y/Z in Conduit 2. Now I don't know if they can pull it off, but this is the lesson the more talented developers need to learn.

Now the DS is sometimes an exception (Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days feels like a KH game, and sold very well because of that), but some games, like GTA Chinatown Wars, suffer from the same problem. And the arguments over why it should have sold show the full, lack of understanding of these people when it comes to why a game sells.

They think the elements of critical praise,  userbase, M rating, critical praise, and a brand name sell a game. Thus they were shocked when Chinatown Wars didn't tear up the charts. I already discussed the critical praise part, so there are the others.

Userbase is simple if one actually does some research. Userbase so far only has a relation to total software shipments. In short, it only raises all the games being sold, not any individual game. Those game still have to sell themselves. You will see varied sales for loads of video games on all systems. Applying them to just the Wii and DS doesn't make their audience wrong. It shows those applying those haven't paid attention to the history of game sales.

M rating still has to be coupled with a game that appeals to the mainstream. If the mainstream knows about the game, but doesn't want it, the rating means squat.

Finally, there is the thought that "It has Grand Theft Auto in the name, so it should have sold". This is the brand name fallacy, where people think brand names alone sell a product. Now while some people buy brand names no matter what, with the mainstream, a brand name sells because of what people think the brand name offers.

Now it does make people avoid off-brands, but again, it's not because of the brand name itself, but because they think the off-brand doesn't offer what they like from the brand name. Take Saint Row 2. It has the same feel of a 3D GTA game, but without the brand, it sold just a fraction of those games (fortunately still enough for a third game). Or take the Zune to the iPod. Even if the Zune has better specs, it's an off-brand, so it sells a lot less. This is also why a lot of us feel the Move is going to be a tough sell unless Solny can set the games apart from Wii games. The mainstream won't see the specs of the sensors, or the HD graphics (which are part of A/B/C)*. They will see an off-brand Wii.

Now brand name can raise awareness of a product, but that only helps sales a little. When a product with the brand name doesn't offer what made the brand name a hit, people won't buy it. New Coke is the most famous example, but with gaming, the same applies. I could go the extreme with the CD-i games using Zelda and Mario, but looking at the wacky spinoffs buy the same developers shows that brand names can only sell a game so much. Mario spinoffs are often hits, but the sales usually pale in comparison to the main games. And even when they are hits, those games still have to stand on their own to reach mainstream appeal (Mario Kart being an obvious one, which made its own brand name).

So Chinatown Wars could have been a hit, but only if it offered what the 3D GTA games offered**, or stood on its own. It did neither, so blaming the audience for not going for those reasons make the reasons wrong, not the audience.

EDIT: And just in case someone brings it up, this isn't from Malstrom. This is stuff I looked at on my own. You can see in his blog he barely discusses HD games.

* I mean graphics in terms of detail, not art direction. HD graphics need good art direction or the graphical detail won't matter.

** COP The Recruit showed 3D graphics can be pulled off, and as for all the buttons 3D GTA games use, that is what the touch screen should have been used for. Switching radio stations, activating deactivating missions, switching weapons, and other things would be mapped to parts of the touch screen.