| oniyide said: @aielyn LMAO my argument is absurd? but you cherry picked two games that were LATE ports to some WIi games LOL. PLease. Madworld? that game has been selling for five bucks on AMazon, NEW for over two years now, it selling 700,000 copies is nothing to be proud of especially when some people on this very website were swearing it would sell 1mil? Same goes for Conduit it was supposed to sell 1mil plus, not even going to get into the sequel. which sold much worst than any of the HD games you mentioned. Madworld and Conduit werent put on PS360 cause those games are bland, why play Madworld when you can play DMC, GOW, hell that new Anarchy is getting better reviews, Conduit? There are way better FPS on HDs, if people didnt buy that crap for their WIis what makes you think they would buy it for PS360 which has too much FPSs if anything. COD still sold less than 360 which you are trying to downplay, what about the rest of the COD games on WIi? They just sold worst over time. What about the bunch of other games that sold better on HDs, Spiderman, Both Star Wars Force Unleashes, A few Legos, Dead Rising, Bully Schlorship edition, Rayman Origins, just about all the sports games, IE Madden, Fifa, Tales of Graces (just the Japanese sales) a few games did well on WIi and thats just about it a few, unless they were dancing or exercise. BTW COD isnt a fair comparison, but games that were ported 1 to 2 years later are? No doesnt work that way, ill keep using COD as long as people keep using old ports. |
I didn't cherrypick anything, I demonstrated the absurdity of YOUR cherrypicking. Even you admit that MadWorld and Conduit were bland games, and that's why they weren't put on the PS3 or 360. So why are they good examples of why the Wii isn't a good market for such games? In other words, you just demonstrated the absurdity of your own argument by explaining exactly why those two games didn't sell massive numbers. And for the record, I couldn't give half a hoot how many copies people on vgchartz said they thought those games would sell.
And I'm not trying to downplay CoD3 sales on 360 at all. The point of giving that example was to show that Wii versions were capable of selling similar numbers. I wasn't trying to claim that the Wii was the optimal platform for FPS games, just that the platform should have been competitive on the FPS front. And again, my whole point is that you cherrypick examples, and I make the point by intentionally picking counterexamples. After all, if someone were to say "the sky is always blue", and I then pointed to the sky during sunset, it wouldn't make sense for that person to go "but you're cherrypicking the time of day!" - I disproved the claim by providing a counterexample. I don't have to show that counterexamples are more common than examples, only that counterexamples exist.
I like how you mention Dead Rising as an example. Yeah, that's DEFINITELY a fair comparison, considering that it was a late port that sucked arse. Meanwhile, Force Unleashed on Wii was comparable to on PS3 and 360, as was Rayman Origins and Spider-Man 3, most of the LEGO games did best on the Wii, the Wii did particularly well on Tiger Woods, Grand Slam Tennis on Wii far outperformed GST2 on PS3 and 360, and Rockstar's Table Tennis did better on Wii than 360. Tales of Graces F for PS3 had added content (thus it's not a fair comparison).
Let me emphasise this again - the problem is that you cherrypick, and then when someone points out the absurdity of your cherrypicking, you then bring up arguments against their counterexamples that apply just as well in reverse. People like you keep bringing up games like Dead Rising, Dead Space, Modern Warfare, etc - they were late ports. And why do you get to use Wii exclusive games (that you, yourself, admit were dull games) as proof that there's no market on the Wii? Why don't we then get to use equivalent examples on the 360 or PS3 to prove that it has nothing to do with the Wii, and everything to do with the game itself?
When you have a reasonable argument to make, I'll listen.
