MaxwellGT2000 said:
Like "SEGA took a lot of heat for a bad port and with Sony patched it enough to make it a bit better - mainly load times - but the PS3 version still remains graphically inferior." Sony patched it? You mean the developers that made the game patched it right? Cause Sony patches their games and hosts patches for people, they don't go out of their way to patch a game for a third party developer that put an inferior multiplat on their system Madworld I just don't really believe you've actually played it, your comments are sparce, you're comparing it to a racing game of all things, and calling it 3 hours long... you had to be in a REAL rush to try and beat it if you finished in 3 hours, you're the first I've actually heard of beating it in 3 hours, in fact most reviews and people I talk to average 5 to 6 hours, I'm more likely to believe them over random user on the webz #469, if you could even somewhat make a post that sounds like you played the game then, I could carry on and give some weight to your platform discussion but you calling it a XBLA or PSN title is just a gross over statement, in fact what PSN or XBLA title (not full retail up for download) is over 3 gigs in size like Madworld? Its not and you're just wrong. And overall you're giving so much credit to SEGA and trying to bash Platinum for using 360 as a lead platform, when it's like no shit 360 had the biggest install base in two regions at the time Bayonetta was coming out, a game with a lot of western appeal, and SEGA is supposed to be doing the port to PS3... for being called reasonable you're not being very reasonable here I mean come on man, you're trying to pull the "you're just wanting me to make excuses for them" defense and thats just a lame fallacy, trying to make up some reason to devalue my statements instead of trying to tackle them. Fact - average Wii development costs 1/4 that of the HD consoles according to the guys at EA Fact - many publishers state development costs of the Wii are more in line with last gen consoles which typically broke even at the 200k-250k mark and by the time it hit 500k developers/publishers would look into sequels, from the guys at IGN and was the reasoning behind making De Blob 2, at the time it was just at 500k when they started discussing making a second. Fact - The reason 1m seems the norm for third party sales this gen is their strong support of the HD consoles, EA has come out to say that 1.1m is the typical break even point because of the high development costs, last gen PS2 rarely had these sorts of limitations and so many MANY more publishers and developers were successful even when they were selling 500k copies of a game, look back and I brought up how Wii is more in line with PS2 development. Fact - God Hand didn't do well so making another game in this vein was a bad risk if they wanted full on HD development with all the bells and whistles and sell a million copies Looking at these facts my reasoning is very sound, Madworld was developed on the safer bet and made money and did better than the game that came before it God Hand. Bayonetta sold over that average HD development break even line, even then the project was probably still a bit cheaper than your average product simply because of the smaller staff at Platinum Games and the fact that SEGA handled the port, this was a success on their part. Infinite Space was outsourced to another developer with Platinum Games' oversight, turned out well, and at least broke even. Looking at the facts thats 3 out of 4 projects that you could easily say were a success, and the 4th being released a few weeks ago the towel isn't thrown in yet, Platinum Games made the choices that were most logical to them in their position, and it turned out alright for them. So I say that's good performance and learning from previous projects they can build on that, you really can't get more sensible than that. |
so yeah disagreeing in the sense I'm not on your page, but I'm trying to point out some stuff to you.I'm not factually wrong. SEGA created the port and Sony then worked with SEGA to patch it to fix the slow menu loading and allow you to install the game removing some other slow loads. Platinum delivered a game on 360 only and SEGA/Sony dealt with the PS3 version and patch.
As for the choice they made the wrong one - period. Whatever their reasons producing such a title only for the 360 at that time was a simple act of strange perversity. The clear choice for the title/genre was to be exclusive to PS3 if they had to be exclusive due to small size.
Developing Madworld for Wii was also a similar act of perversity - let's deliver a short, high concept ultra-violent title on the platform with the worst demographic for such a title. Sounds familiar and I guess this choice took place during the same strange phase that saw them put Bayonetta.
Now, with Vanquish they didn't do much wrong - although I'd argue they didn't really nail how to market and differentiate the game.
As for your facts - they refer to PS2 and costs/break evens that are now irrelivent. In this market, a title like Bayonetta should be targeting 1.5 Million plus on HD twins. Vanquish the same. It's that simple. That's the marketplace now. Platinum can make a good, quirky game, but they're going to struggle IMHO with titles like Bayonetta and Vanquish unless they get better at aligning their quirky style to a very, very tough, expensive marketplace.
Clearly you have a soft spot for the developer. I don't. I'm neutral. I looked at the OP, I looked at the three titles I'd played it referred to and their sales and I put forward opinions that I would argue are fully backed by the evidence.
In the end you are putting forward reasons why they might have made bad choices or why they might have seemed reasonable at the time. But TBH that doesn't affect my points - which are hindsight evidence in neutral constructive criticism of where they clearly made poor choices.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
