Overall performance of Platinum Games

[MaxwellGT2000]

Reasonable said:

MaxwellGT2000 said:

Uh you said only Bayonetta did alright, then in your second reply you said it was all about how they could have done better in hindsight, and I said that's a cop out.  Can't get much more deliberate than that.  Anything and everything could have been done better in hindsight that's a stupid claim to make, Guitar Hero wouldn't have been milked in hindsight, Tony Hawk wouldn't have had a lame/expensive board in hindsight, Okami on the PS2 could have been delayed for the new consoles and sold a lot more in hindsight.  

The only way you can really look at anything is the here and now... and whats in the here and now is Platinum Games has three games that have made them money, they've improved their sales vs a lot of their last gen Clover products, and they're rated very well.  Not sure what spells success in your book but that's solid to me, sure they could be doing better, but they're not dead in the gutter like so many other developers this generation.

Well, I think you're being totally unrealistic then.

But out of curiosity, given the OP asks what, looking back at their previous games/sales, does one think of their performance, how would you answer without using hindsight?

Would you ignore it's now obvious Platinum were silly to make Bayonetta exclusively for 360 despite the fact a poor port rushed by the publisher sold more than their much more polished 360 version?

Would you ignore they released whay looked/played exactly like an okay PSN/XBLA live title that is short in duration, lutraviolent and essentially a one trick concept as a full price on the Wii?

How would you discuss their performance without hindsight or referring to anything that is now clear with the benefit of history.

I'm curious?

Or should we just say to the OP don't be silly - pointing our errors with the aid of hindsight is a cop out and there's nothing to discuss.

You're avoiding your original argument which is "So far only Bayonetta seems to have done okay - " I brought that up time and time again, and you're going on and on about some hindsight drivel to overlook they've had 3 projects that have done well for them and the forth still has the holiday season before we can call it a success or failure. 

And if you really wanted to get into the hindsight BS I already stated how they made their spiritual successor to God Hand sell five times as much as its predecessor, or hey a game that flew under the radar with no commercials sold 120k on DS which isn't ground breaking but they're not breaking the bank at all there.  

Oh no I'm the one completely unreasonable here lol no you want to say only one project did okay cause of ABC, when called out on it, you go into how hindsight is the only way to somehow give a pass or fail grade to their success, it's complete BS, development takes time, you have to work with publishers especially in the spot they're in they're not owned by Capcom so having a secure publisher that works with them is big.  

You can't know the market before hand, you can't just start development on all these different consoles, a small company can't afford to spread themselves so thin to work on both PS3 and 360, or afford to hire their own team to port to the PS3, so when a publisher offers to port your most expensive project to the other console and you're a new company like they are, you take it, you can't possibly know they'd mess up the port, either way it still sold well even on the PS3, hell the patch they put out not even a couple of weeks later smoothed everything but the graphical advantage out for the PS3 so later buyers didn't even notice an issue if they updated.

Then guess what? They said they transitioned development for Vanquish to PS3 so the 360 can get the port and it'd be much smoother.  

Really though they had two projects do quite well, their DS project did alright, and still have the holiday for Vanquish, that is not unrealistic in anyway, to say it was just alright because it could have been better is just asinine mainly because no matter how much you say it could have been better you really can't prove it, there really isn't any button you can press to go back and test your theory, so what do we have?  

All we have is their work and the sales to show for it, and that's what you have to work with cause even if you think it could have been better you're not in Platinum Games nor SEGAs shoes, it isn't some fantasy land where everyone has all the money in the world to work on a project, or all the best connections to have ads penetrate just the right market, or some psychic to tell you some hitches were gonna come along... cause like I said, just about EVERY game in existence can do better than what it did, what you're asking for is outlandish and unreasonable, though I suspect you're just hiding behind this hindsight argument because your first statement was already a bit out of touch.

-Edit-PS: Did you even play Madworld?  By the way you're talking you just read some reviews, it's not a 1 trick pony, it's got style, a cool story, its completely absurd much like it's predecessor God Hand, and the only reason it's shorter than that title is because they toned down the difficulty in hopes it would sell better, and guess what?  IT DID! Oh and guess what else, when you beat the game you get a hard mode for those that actually did like the difficulty of God Hand and it makes the 5 hour game turn into a 20 hour game, yeah terrible replay value for sure :

Geez and the fact you said it was in line with a PSN or XBLA release is even worse, I dare you to find one PSN or XBLA game that has as much work put into it with top of the line music and voice acting to boot and a good story, you're sounding like Daemon Hatfield from IGN when he claimed New Super Mario Brothers Wii would be a XBLA game like Splosion Man.