| JWeinCom said: "Uhhh....No? and Uhhh.... Does it matter? 2D games were also availabe on the Gamecube like Four Swords, MegaMan and such so why would Metroid fans back then waste their time on Fusion and Zero Mission if they could have gotten the game on a superior console with a 3D Metroid game (Prime 1 and 2). You can keep pushing the remakes don't sell narritive all you like but even back then most young gamers had never played the original Metroid and even those who did, prefer Zero Mission over the original. There is more demand for remakes and remasters these days than actual new games so you need to take that argument somewhere else." I have absolutely no idea what MegaMan and Four Swords have to do with this... I bought Fusion and Zero Mission because they were different games, and playing Prime on the Gamecube in no way prevented me from enjoying them. I've no idea what this has to do with remakes selling. Of the top 10 selling games of this year, 1 is a remake. Of the top 100, 20 are remakes. So, no, there is not more demand for remakes and remasters. Stop making claims that do not conform to reality. At any rate, remakes simply do not tend to sell as well as the originals, and tend not to sell as well as original entries from the series particularly on the 3DS. You can compare Metroid Fusion to Zero Mission, Alpha Sapphire to Sun and Moon or X and Y, Mario and Luigi Superstar Saga to Paper Jam or Dream Team, Dragon Quest 11 to 7 or 8, Yoshi's New Island vs Woolly World, Mario Party Island Tour/Star Rush vs Top 100, and Fire Emblem Awakening/Fates vs Echoes. The only time we see a remake outselling a comparable new entry) is with Zelda Ocarina of Time outselling Link Between Worlds, although Majora's Mask did not. Although you could argue that those aren't really comparable. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it's not an argument, or a narrative. It is a fact. Remakes sell less than original entries on the 3DS. Maybe you don't think they should, but they do. "An interview doesn't change the fact that the game originally underperformed on it's release date, once again, you can fall back and say it released during the end of the Super Nintendo but by that time a new IP came out which became one of the best selling Super Nintendo games ever DKC and it got 2 sequels on the same system. The fact that Metroid Prime was outsourced to a western studio says enough about Metroid as a failing franchise. It's thanks to Miyamoto that we got the Prime games cause not even it's co-creator Sakamoto cared for it." You claimed that Super Metroid's sales led to Nintendo not making a new Metroid game for 8 years. The interview directly contradicts that. Will you admit that your statement was wrong? "Yes, you're comparing it to other games that sold relatively bad cause according to you that makes SR's sales not bad anymore but you've missed the fact that it's the worst selling of the bunch and besides that it only outsold Fed Force in it's own series' history so this means that it's one of the lowest selling Metroid games ever. I mean, i get it, you think selling below 500k is a still a good number just cause it's a remake on a handheld system... let's forget the fact that it had a 3 year long development and got great scores which means lots of care went into it. Well, i'm positive most people here can agree that it failed even VGchartz awarded SR as the number 1 good game nobody played last year so i don't know what else you need to understand that it failed. Mediocrity is okay for you, not for the rest of us." No. I'm not just comparing it to other games that sold relatively bad. I'm comparing it to other games that are similar. Because this is how we evaluate things. Any form of evaluation that's worth anything involves comparison. 500K is not a good number. It's not a bad number. It's just a number. How do we determine if this number is bad or good for this situation? I'd say by comparing it to similar titles. All of which btw as I've already stated, set franchise lows, just like Samus Returns. Which btw is not the lowest selling of the bunch. That goes to Wario Ware Gold. Similar titles have been selling around 500K. And this has not stopped Nintendo from releasing more of them. Yoshi sold 500Kish and its spiritual prequel is on its way to the 3DS. Mario and Luigi sold around 500K, and its sequel is heading to the 3DS. That seems to indicate that these sales are enough to make these kinds of games profitable, enough to warrant continued investment, and in lines with Nintendo's expectations. If these are bad sales, I would find it hard to explain why Nintendo keeps releasing more of them. I've given you tons of data explaining why these sales should be considered, good or at least acceptable. Your counter argument is basically "well I say they're bad and I bet other people would agree". And data beats opinion every day. So, I'll ask again. Do you have an OBJECTIVE criteria for what makes a game's sales good or bad? Or is it just based on whatever you feel like? |
OK dude you don't have to quote my post only to then copy and paste certain parts of it and add it to your posts... It makes your post unnecessarily long and tiresome to read. It's not like I stealth edit my posts if that's what you're trying to prove.
I have no idea why I'm still responding to you, as you first wanted me to explain why I think SR failed I've already explained why I think that it does a few pages back then you disagree which is fine but then you want me to explain a whole different subject and you just go on and on.
This is not about Four Swords nor Megaman they were just examples of a bigger picture... The Gamecube was around the GBA days like the WIiU was and Switch are around the 3DS days. So it's perfectly normal to expect a 2D Metroid game on a handheld system, even in it's last years. Thats probably why Nintendo decided to release it on their handheld system.
This thread is not about remakes selling better or worse than original it's about SR selling below 500k and even so nobody remembers or cares for the original game.
I'm not wrong about Super Metroid underperforming, IF Super Metroid was a success Metroid 64 or another 2D Metroid would've happened sooner with or without Sakamoto. Nintendo makes the decisions not the developers go look up the interviews if Sakurai (just an example, please dont make the whole thread about this) was informed about Brawl and if he wishes to continue to work on Smash. What Metroid got after 8 years was a western studio who had yet to prove themselves, says a lot about how Nintendo felt about Metroid doesn't it?
Do I need to explain to you why a 4/10 is a bad score? I hope not. Cause your question to have an "objective" view on a first party core game with a 2/3 year development selling less than 500k is anything but good. Common folks in this thread argue as to WHY SR SOLD BAD they're not going up and down left and right to make its sales look like a succes like you're doing. Of course we've come this far and you admit that SR's sales are "acceptable" to you because others performed just as low.
We didn't get a Metroid game for a long time after Super and we didn't get a Metroid game for a long time after Other M see where I'm going? This series has been struggling to be successful with previous entries and we're lucky it's not gotten cancelled yet. Of course you can keep saying that SR is a success, you choose to live in a bubble not me.
