Resident_Hazard said:
I would like to add the following caveats: 1. Countless games going for photo-realism end up suffering. Unique art styles tend to sell games, and often have. Borderlands, for instance, managed to set itself apart in large part due to it's unique art direction. Vast numbers of Wii games have sold millions with graphics that are anything but photorealistic. 2. You're right on this one. Gamers are all-too-often close-minded buffoons who prefer buying sequels (or endless Square-Enix or Nintendo remakes) over original titles. I, personally, go out of my way to support more unique titles--even if they fall a little short of AAA-status or quality. 3. MadWorld is, essentially, a beat-em-up, which is far from being an unconventional genre. This, and it's offshoot style--hack-n-slash titles--have been staples of video games since the 80's. Double Dragon, Splatterhouse, Final Fight, Streets of Rage, old TMNT games. For the modern era, you can't say that this "genre" isn't successful since both Ninja Gaiden and God of War fall easily into it. I love this style of game, personally. I've always loved beat-em-ups. What hurts MadWorld in this is the somewhat cumbersome positioning of the camera during gameplay as opposed to God of War or Splatterhouse (which despite reviews, I felt was a really fun title). But seriously, it's no different from Ninja Gaiden, God of War, Conan, Splatterhouse, Devil May Cry, etc. Mash buttons, beat up countless bad guys, perform finishers. In MadWorld, the finishers were the whole point. 4. I think gamers complaining about short length of games these days are either kids that don't know what it was like in the "good ol' days," or jaded gamers who don't know how good they have it. Most games from the 80's and early 90's, when they could be finished (as in, when they had an end), weren't that long. Contra takes about 20-25 minutes. Donkey Kong Country 1 takes about 2-4 hours. Vectorman takes about an hour and a half with enough skill. Like I said earlier in this thread, more and more, I'm liking somewhat shorter games. That means I can get my enjoyment out of them, finish them, and earn my Achievements and be able to move on without one game draining all of my free time. New Splatterhouse, Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin, Left 4 Dead, etc--these are all short games that are a lot of fun. MadWorld could've used some bonus modes to keep it going, and more variety. As for repetitive? Most games are repetitive to a point. Metroid Other M was repetitive nonsense from start to finish. Run through boring corridor, mash shoot button. 5. The Grand Theft Auto franchise found immense success sans multiplayer. Devil May Cry, Dead Space, Dead Rising, Portal, Ninja Gaiden, Bioshock 1, God of War, Metroid Prime 3, etc, etc. Your fifth point doesn't really carry much weight since multiplayer alone has no bearing on whether or not a game is successful. Does it help Super Mario Galaxy? Hell no. Did it help Metroid Prime 2? Pppff! Out of all my games, I've purchased maybe two games (out of over 650 spanning 30 game systems) with multiplayer being the focus. And the joke was on me for one of them, since Crackdown didn't actually have a single-console multiplayer mode, so I played it by myself the whole time anyway. Borderlands remains the only game of this generation that I bought primarily for the multiplayer so my girlfriend and I can play it together (and we do). For that matter, games with an overly-heavy emphasis on multiplayer may not fare so well--like that somewhat idiotic revamp of Shadowrun. Would multiplayer have helped MadWorld? Maybe--but multiplayer on the Wii generally means "family game time" since Nintendo once again dropped the ball on online gaming. So, in this regard, having better multiplayer probably wouldn't have done much of anything for the game. |
I don't doubt that games can be successful while having one or two of these "Problems", but as you add more and more the likelihood of success becomes smaller and smaller; and certain combinations are more problematic than others.
Being a game that has a short single player experience and no significant multiplayer means that people will not see much value in buying it new, and will hold off buying it used or simply rent the game. Individuals who do buy the game are probably going to lend it out or sell it used because they have no reason to hold onto it. Certainly, there have been successful third party games without significant mutliplayer modes, and there have been successful third party games without long single player campaigns, but how many successful third party games (for any platform) have there been without significant multiplayer modes or long single player campaigns?
In the past there were many games that could be finished in a very short period of time, but the brutal difficulty level of most of these games meant that there was still value in these games. Many classic NES and SNES games could be finished in under 30 minutes or an hour, but it usually took several weeks of playing to even complete the game; and several more weeks of playing before you mastered the game to beat them in these time lines. In most modern games there is little challenge and you perform a series of tasks to push forward the storyline; and a videogame which you can complete in a weekend is a poor value for most gamers.
A videogame that is a new IP, has a distinctive art style, and is not a clone/copy of a popular game is also a very dangerous combination. Certainly, it works for some games (and has worked very well for a select few) but gamers often want to know whether they will like a game before they buy it; and the more difficult it is for them to determine that the more likely the game is to struggle to find sales. Okami, Killer 7, and Jet Grind Radio are (probably) the "classic" examples of this; but when you see this combination together games tend to be far less successful than their quality would suggest. Certainly, Madworld was not a completely foreign concept to most gamers but that isn't necessary; all that a game needs to be is different enough that it intimidates its potential audience.
Ultimately, my point isn't to trash Madworld (or Sega for trying with Madworld) but it is more a statement that Madworld has a lot going against it to be successful on any platform. You can see my point by listing all of the games that have been successful in the past 2 generations that are a new IP from a third party publisher that have a distinctive artistic style, a short single player game, and no significant multiplayer.
