Mr Puggsly said:
jarrod said:
greenmedic88 said:
jarrod said:
greenmedic88 said:
When a port of a 2 year old game sells better than the original did, that means something. I won't venture to say what it means, but generally speaking, that's not normal. |
Indeed!
[PS2] Monster Hunter G (Capcom) 232,239
[Wii] Monster Hunter G (Capcom) 236,020
...clearly, this must mean something!
|
Monster Hunter IS better suited for the Wii market.
By the same assessment, games like NMH are better suited for the PS3 and Xbox 360, without even lumping both platforms together and claiming it sold over 2X as much for a 2+ year old game.
Isn't this what most people have been saying here?
At least those who aren't trying to shift the argument to claim that a couple of ports cost more than the original game, making the original a better commercial success, making it better suited for the Wii platform?
|
And games like Monster Hunter? High budget, big brand, brutally difficult, densely complex, definitively hardcore, co-op based online games? Those are inherently better suited to the Wii market? Really?
|
I would say the Wii hardware is better suited for online gaming than the PS2. Considering the Wii comes with networking hardware and data can be saved on SD cards.
It wasn't until 2004 when they made consoles with networking ports but then they removed the friggin hard drive support. Its a shame Sony dropped the ball with Online gaming for the PS2.
|
Monster Hunter doesn't demand mass storage (ie: SD cards, HDDs, etc). It's dlc (quest, armor, weapons) could've been done easily on PS2 memory cards (and was).
Monster Hunter also didn't release until 2004, which was when the PS2 started coming with a network adapter built in.
