HappySqurriel said:
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.
|
There was a lot going against MadWorld and you are correct in that. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, any developer or publisher these days that's daring enough to put anything on the Wii has a lot against it--most notably, the snobbishness of all-too-many Nintendo fans. People who have damn-near single handedly supported the company since the N64 to just before the Wii hit the mainstream. Look at some collections on here from some of the worst Nintendo fans--collections awash in Nintendo-published, Nintendo-developed, Nintendo-owned titles. I'm reasonably certain that I'm a minority in Nintendo fans as the bulk of games on my Nintendo systems are 3rd party.
I do think one thing we've both illustrated here is a large-scale close-mindedness among gamers towards games that are new and different. I have to admit, you gave a decent challenge: New title, long short single player campaign, no multiplayer, and successful? To be fair, though gimped, MadWorld does have a multiplayer mode to it. It's just lame as all hell. I would say Splatterhouse if anyone else was buying it. But Splatterhouse is a game where I'll point out that I think gamers pay too close attention to some reviewers. I can't figure why this game has such awful reviews, especially compared to a game like Ninja Gaiden II on the X360 which has such great reviews, or the generally good reviews of Metroid Other M. I walked away absolutely hating Other M and Ninja Gaiden II has left a sour taste in my gamer mouth not likely to be washed away. I mean, that game was all "mash the X button, mash the Y button" over and over and over with some truly asinine boss battles (I was killed several times in less time than the game took to load the fucking boss battle). Ninja Gaiden II was like... well, let's go with Scarlett Johannssen. Super pretty, but ultimately shallow and vapid, and (if you've ever heard her sing), god awful and asinine. Having a storyline that hit damn near all the worst cliche's of gaming didn't help things either.
Splatterhouse, meanwhile, I found to be a truly fun experience, if a tad short. I had a couple frustrating moments, but overall, I had a total blast with it. The beat-em-up action was never as brainless, or grossly obtuse, as Ninja Gaiden II's moronic combat system. In fact, there was more depth to Splatterhouse as enemy characters often required different strategies to challenge defeat them. Some guys had to be charged, some guys deflected charges, some couldn't be touched physically, some required hit-n-run tactics, some took careful finnesse as they could lop your head off with a single swipe. Ninja Gaiden II's gameplay for pretty much every single enemy? X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X. Sometimes with jumping. But Ninja Gaiden II gets rave reviews, while Splatterhouse gets crap. (I think part of it is a misunderstanding that the Splatterhouse franchise was supposed to be like a tongue-in-cheek B-movie of a game and some people simply don't get it.)
Gamers need to have more open minds, and they need to be willing to give new games a chance. I'm of the mindset that there should never be annual releases of any game franchise (including sports games) because it ultimately dillutes quality and creativity and buries creative titles beneath the mediocrity of "guaranteed sales."
Ha, if you're talking games that had a lot up against them, Killer7 has got to be, if not President of that club, then Treasurer at the very least. I bought that game. I thought it had some problems, but the eerie atmosphere was just awesome. The story never remotely made any sense.
The first two games I can think of offhand that are short, single-player experiences, and unique titles are Pikmin and Luigi's Mansion. Both received criticism for their length. It's probably different for everyone--as it should be--but I don't think there is one standard about a game's length pertaining to quality or enjoyment. The new Splatterhosue is short, again, but I enjoyed it much more thuroughly than any part of the much longer Ninja Gaiden II or overall lukewarm Metroid Other M. I think what I've really come to think is that... I don't like Team Ninja.
