Kirby is "Not" A Flop... Update: Rainbow Curse Showing "Balls" :)

[Samus Aran]

tbone51 said: Samus Aran said: Kirby and the Rainbow Curse is still a bomb to me because those resources could have been spent much more wisely. Just because it's a 2D platformer doesn't mean it doesn't take time and manpower to make. Yoshi's Woolly World has been in development for a long time and Good-Feel is about 70 men/women strong. Keep in mind that Yoshi's Woolly World is also being co-developed by Nintendo SPD (the levels are all designed by a Nintendo employee). That should give you an idea about how long it can take to make a 2.5D platformer. And let's be honest here, a home console game where you can only look at the gamepad and not the TV was a dumb idea. Making a sequel to the least succesful Kirby game was also very dumb. Who ever made these decisions should probably be fired. "Kirby and the Rainbow Curse is still a bomb to me because those resources could have been spent much more wisely." ⇒No offense but we aren't talking about preferences here. SM3DW bombed to some people because they wanted SMG3 right? No. It didn't bomb at all, you dont have to like the game. Opinions are opinions (same goes with those that hate on DK:TF because it wasnt Metroid), but this isnt what the discussion was about. Super Mario 3D World sold over 3 million copies at retail. It obviously didn't flop. It gave birth to a spin-off that was developed in less than a year (and the team was working on the next 3D Mario simultaneously) and sold over 600k retail copies already (undertracked on vgchartz). Kirby has what? 160k copies sold right now? That's not good for any retail game. If HAL Laboratory made a traditional Kirby platformer it would have sold better. If they made a 3D Kirby platformer I think it would have sold even better than the traditional Kirby platformer. And if they made a new IP I also think it could easily outsell Kirby and the Rainbow Curse.     And let's be honest here, a home console game where you can only look at the gamepad and not the TV was a dumb idea. Making a sequel to the least succesful Kirby game was also very dumb. ⇒Well this opinionated to but your post does makes sense and i agree to most of it. That said just because something is least Successful doesn't mean it did bad. Ex: Why make Mario+Luigi RPG sequels when Mario Party (well used to)/Mario Kart do so much more? Same goes with F Zero everybody wants vs MK (both racers) Mario & Luigi: Dream Team sold over 2 million copies. If Nintendo made more Mario Party games instead of diversifying their library then Mario Party's sales would plummet. The same argument can be made for Mario Kart. It's a much smarter strategy for Nintendo to only make one Mario Kart per gen and make dlc for the remainder of that gen. That DLC will probably make them more money than if they would make a second Mario Kart on the same console.   Who ever made these decisions should probably be fired. ⇒ Fire Nintendo for trying to make a budget game to fill ths gaps! Seriously though, this game doesn't look like it cost too much to make, Kirby games are Known for being low budget with good sales...   This game doesn't look cheap, a lot of work were put into these graphics and level design. People are severly underestimating how much it can cost to develop 2D games. Read some of the Yacht Club blogs about the development history of Shovel Knight. That said it isnt a bomb at all. Sold wise Its easily over 200k Sold in US+Japan so factor in rest of NoA and its between 225k-240k SOLD, which obviously mean shipped numbers are definitely over 250k+ right now. Like i said a month ago, this game will have legs. 52k First Month to 58k next proves my point and example of this is Triple Dluxe (42k debut month and 350k+ sold by years end) Kirby Triple Deluxe was a smart decision, the game actually looks kinda cool. Kirby and the Rainbow Curse wasn't a smart decision however.