HappySqurriel said:
Personally, I see publishers/developers blaming the platform for a games poor sales is (effectively) like a professional sporting team blaming "The Referees" for failing to make the playoffs ... Certainly the platform can have an impact, but countless decisions they made in the production and release of the game all have a much larger impact. Off the top of my head, here are the reasons I think Madworld struggled
1) Art Style. From Okami to Killer 7, countless games that create a non-photo realistic art style end up suffering. Potentially, down the road, a couple of big breakout hits with their own style will change this; but (for now) pushing a distinctive style is a good approach to have an unsuccessful game.
2) New IP. Across all platforms, most of the most successful third party games have been a sequel to an established IP; and most of the successful new IPs have been one of the best games of the year and had a massive marketing campaign.
3) Unconventional Genre. While there are elements of Madworld's game play which are similar to some popular games, I don't think there is a game that has ever been like Madworld which has been successful.
4) Short and yet highly repetitive game. After I completed Madworld I thought that the reviewers were not harsh enough on this title because by the time you were getting close to the end of the game it was getting pretty boring. To make the game (much) more enjoyable at its length it needed (nearly) twice as much to do in the game, and to make the game really a worthwhile purchase it needed (about) twice as much game play.
5) Insignificant local multiplayer and no online multiplayer. Look at the most successful games on any console and notice that the majority of these games have multiplayer modes which are as important (or more important) than their single player game.
If these factors remained unchanged it is unlikely that the increase in sales Madworld would see by being released on the HD consoles would compensate for the increased development cost.
|
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.
