By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales - Looks like GT5's sales performance is making a lot of haters silent..

Kasz216 on 09 January 2011
Dallinor said:
Kasz216 said:
Mordred11 said:

LOL @ people still comparing MK with GT5,the two games have nothing to do with eachother.

It's like comparing Avatar and Inception

 You know, you really set yourself up for a HUGE troll comment there.

Comaping a good movie (Inception) with a bad movie (avatar) that people only like because of it's amazing graphics and effects.

I can understand that is your opinion of the film but who made you the judge of what people like a movie for?

I personally found some of the core ideas in the film interesting, the action was great, the pacing was good and the culture and life of the planet Pandora really allowed for a total suspension of disbelief and a strong engagement with the idea the film presented.

I think avatar was a decent movie, Inception was better, but I liked avatar for more than just it's visual splendor. 

The core ideas of the film were directly lifted from other films who executed them MUCH better.

Furthermore, that's less my opinion, but the general opinion of people as  a whole from what i've seen.

The vast majority of people who like it, like it for the effects.  If you liked it for the Dances with Wolves/Ferngully eque message and various bad but effective ways to get people invested like the "so evil i'm not a real person" character... good for you, but that's not even the majority reason for people who liked the movie.



Around the Network
slowmo on 10 January 2011
Kasz216 said:
Dallinor said:
Kasz216 said:
Mordred11 said:

LOL @ people still comparing MK with GT5,the two games have nothing to do with eachother.

It's like comparing Avatar and Inception

 You know, you really set yourself up for a HUGE troll comment there.

Comaping a good movie (Inception) with a bad movie (avatar) that people only like because of it's amazing graphics and effects.

I can understand that is your opinion of the film but who made you the judge of what people like a movie for?

I personally found some of the core ideas in the film interesting, the action was great, the pacing was good and the culture and life of the planet Pandora really allowed for a total suspension of disbelief and a strong engagement with the idea the film presented.

I think avatar was a decent movie, Inception was better, but I liked avatar for more than just it's visual splendor. 

The core ideas of the film were directly lifted from other films who executed them MUCH better.

Furthermore, that's less my opinion, but the general opinion of people as  a whole from what i've seen.

The vast majority of people who like it, like it for the effects.  If you liked it for the Dances with Wolves/Ferngully eque message and various bad but effective ways to get people invested like the "so evil i'm not a real person" character... good for you, but that's not even the majority reason for people who liked the movie.

What about all those people who watched Inception and went wtf and promptly turned off and consider it crap?  I believe Avatar appealed to far more people than Inception did and the general public as a whole would rate Avatar the better movie imo.

For the record I think Inception is a signficantly better film but I know a lot of people that would disagree with me.



Kasz216 on 10 January 2011
slowmo said:
Kasz216 said:
Dallinor said:
Kasz216 said:
Mordred11 said:

LOL @ people still comparing MK with GT5,the two games have nothing to do with eachother.

It's like comparing Avatar and Inception

 You know, you really set yourself up for a HUGE troll comment there.

Comaping a good movie (Inception) with a bad movie (avatar) that people only like because of it's amazing graphics and effects.

I can understand that is your opinion of the film but who made you the judge of what people like a movie for?

I personally found some of the core ideas in the film interesting, the action was great, the pacing was good and the culture and life of the planet Pandora really allowed for a total suspension of disbelief and a strong engagement with the idea the film presented.

I think avatar was a decent movie, Inception was better, but I liked avatar for more than just it's visual splendor. 

The core ideas of the film were directly lifted from other films who executed them MUCH better.

Furthermore, that's less my opinion, but the general opinion of people as  a whole from what i've seen.

The vast majority of people who like it, like it for the effects.  If you liked it for the Dances with Wolves/Ferngully eque message and various bad but effective ways to get people invested like the "so evil i'm not a real person" character... good for you, but that's not even the majority reason for people who liked the movie.

What about all those people who watched Inception and went wtf and promptly turned off and consider it crap?  I believe Avatar appealed to far more people than Inception did and the general public as a whole would rate Avatar the better movie imo.

For the record I think Inception is a signficantly better film but I know a lot of people that would disagree with me.

I'm not sure how you'd prove that.  At the moment Inception is ahead of Avatar in the User Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic which would seem to suggest the opposite.

Or rather, that Inception is seen as more favorable by those who have seen it then Avatar is by those who have seen it.



slowmo on 10 January 2011
Kasz216 said:
slowmo said:
Kasz216 said:
Dallinor said:
Kasz216 said:
Mordred11 said:

LOL @ people still comparing MK with GT5,the two games have nothing to do with eachother.

It's like comparing Avatar and Inception

 You know, you really set yourself up for a HUGE troll comment there.

Comaping a good movie (Inception) with a bad movie (avatar) that people only like because of it's amazing graphics and effects.

I can understand that is your opinion of the film but who made you the judge of what people like a movie for?

I personally found some of the core ideas in the film interesting, the action was great, the pacing was good and the culture and life of the planet Pandora really allowed for a total suspension of disbelief and a strong engagement with the idea the film presented.

I think avatar was a decent movie, Inception was better, but I liked avatar for more than just it's visual splendor. 

The core ideas of the film were directly lifted from other films who executed them MUCH better.

Furthermore, that's less my opinion, but the general opinion of people as  a whole from what i've seen.

The vast majority of people who like it, like it for the effects.  If you liked it for the Dances with Wolves/Ferngully eque message and various bad but effective ways to get people invested like the "so evil i'm not a real person" character... good for you, but that's not even the majority reason for people who liked the movie.

What about all those people who watched Inception and went wtf and promptly turned off and consider it crap?  I believe Avatar appealed to far more people than Inception did and the general public as a whole would rate Avatar the better movie imo.

For the record I think Inception is a signficantly better film but I know a lot of people that would disagree with me.

I'm not sure how you'd prove that.  At the moment Inception is ahead of Avatar in the User Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic which would seem to suggest the opposite.

Or rather, that Inception is seen as more favorable by those who have seen it then Avatar is by those who have seen it.


No proof its all anecdotal.  All I would say is user reviews online will quite blatantly be hopelessly skewed to a certain demographic.  I'm not here to prove you wrong anyway, I'm just saying there is a large number of people out there who would rate Avatar better than Inception,



Kasz216 on 10 January 2011
slowmo said:
Kasz216 said:
slowmo said:
Kasz216 said:
Dallinor said:
Kasz216 said:
Mordred11 said:

LOL @ people still comparing MK with GT5,the two games have nothing to do with eachother.

It's like comparing Avatar and Inception

 You know, you really set yourself up for a HUGE troll comment there.

Comaping a good movie (Inception) with a bad movie (avatar) that people only like because of it's amazing graphics and effects.

I can understand that is your opinion of the film but who made you the judge of what people like a movie for?

I personally found some of the core ideas in the film interesting, the action was great, the pacing was good and the culture and life of the planet Pandora really allowed for a total suspension of disbelief and a strong engagement with the idea the film presented.

I think avatar was a decent movie, Inception was better, but I liked avatar for more than just it's visual splendor. 

The core ideas of the film were directly lifted from other films who executed them MUCH better.

Furthermore, that's less my opinion, but the general opinion of people as  a whole from what i've seen.

The vast majority of people who like it, like it for the effects.  If you liked it for the Dances with Wolves/Ferngully eque message and various bad but effective ways to get people invested like the "so evil i'm not a real person" character... good for you, but that's not even the majority reason for people who liked the movie.

What about all those people who watched Inception and went wtf and promptly turned off and consider it crap?  I believe Avatar appealed to far more people than Inception did and the general public as a whole would rate Avatar the better movie imo.

For the record I think Inception is a signficantly better film but I know a lot of people that would disagree with me.

I'm not sure how you'd prove that.  At the moment Inception is ahead of Avatar in the User Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic which would seem to suggest the opposite.

Or rather, that Inception is seen as more favorable by those who have seen it then Avatar is by those who have seen it.


No proof its all anecdotal.  All I would say is user reviews online will quite blatantly be hopelessly skewed to a certain demographic.  I'm not here to prove you wrong anyway, I'm just saying there is a large number of people out there who would rate Avatar better than Inception,

You can find large groups of people who will do anything.

Heck, you could find a large number of people who think Bush junior was a better president then Clinton and a large groups of people who think Twighlight is better then Shakespheare. 

I would say the only think you could get people to agree on is that not getting kicked in the balls is better then getting in the balls... but then i'm reminded of sadomasichists. 



Around the Network
Mordred11 on 10 January 2011
Kasz216 said:
Mordred11 said:

LOL @ people still comparing MK with GT5,the two games have nothing to do with eachother.

It's like comparing Avatar and Inception

 You know, you really set yourself up for a HUGE troll comment there.

Comaping a good movie (Inception) with a bad movie (avatar) that people only like because of it's amazing graphics and effects.

Avatar and Inception are both sci-fi,but not in the same sub-genre.Avatar made 3 times more money than Inception,probably where MK and GT5 will also sit when all is said and done.

Avatar was so popular,mainly because the reputation of it's producer,James Cameron,which made a shitload of money with previous movies,especially Titanic and it's effects were enjoyable to watch.That's similar to MK selling,because the reputation of it's developer and Mario,and the fun/enjoy it gives you.

Inception,however,was produced by Christopher Nolan,someone who's made top-quality movies during his career,but his movie wasn't for the casuals,like Avatar was,you had to actually think a bit to understand it.That's similar to GT5,who's been made by PD,a top-quality game-studio,and you actually need some skill to finish the game.

All in all,I think it's a very good comparison.



Hynad on 10 January 2011
Kasz216 said:
slowmo said:
Kasz216 said:
slowmo said:
Kasz216 said:
Dallinor said:
Kasz216 said:
Mordred11 said:

LOL @ people still comparing MK with GT5,the two games have nothing to do with eachother.

It's like comparing Avatar and Inception

 You know, you really set yourself up for a HUGE troll comment there.

Comaping a good movie (Inception) with a bad movie (avatar) that people only like because of it's amazing graphics and effects.

I can understand that is your opinion of the film but who made you the judge of what people like a movie for?

I personally found some of the core ideas in the film interesting, the action was great, the pacing was good and the culture and life of the planet Pandora really allowed for a total suspension of disbelief and a strong engagement with the idea the film presented.

I think avatar was a decent movie, Inception was better, but I liked avatar for more than just it's visual splendor. 

The core ideas of the film were directly lifted from other films who executed them MUCH better.

Furthermore, that's less my opinion, but the general opinion of people as  a whole from what i've seen.

The vast majority of people who like it, like it for the effects.  If you liked it for the Dances with Wolves/Ferngully eque message and various bad but effective ways to get people invested like the "so evil i'm not a real person" character... good for you, but that's not even the majority reason for people who liked the movie.

What about all those people who watched Inception and went wtf and promptly turned off and consider it crap?  I believe Avatar appealed to far more people than Inception did and the general public as a whole would rate Avatar the better movie imo.

For the record I think Inception is a signficantly better film but I know a lot of people that would disagree with me.

I'm not sure how you'd prove that.  At the moment Inception is ahead of Avatar in the User Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic which would seem to suggest the opposite.

Or rather, that Inception is seen as more favorable by those who have seen it then Avatar is by those who have seen it.


No proof its all anecdotal.  All I would say is user reviews online will quite blatantly be hopelessly skewed to a certain demographic.  I'm not here to prove you wrong anyway, I'm just saying there is a large number of people out there who would rate Avatar better than Inception,

You can find large groups of people who will do anything.

Heck, you could find a large number of people who think Bush junior was a better president then Clinton and a large groups of people who think Twighlight is better then Shakespheare. 

I would say the only think you could get people to agree on is that not getting kicked in the balls is better then getting in the balls... but then i'm reminded of sadomasichists. 

Avatar obviously appealed to a lot more people than Inception.  Just take a quick look at the amount of maney it made at the box office and how it keeps making a crapload of it.  Inception doesn't even come close to it. 

"Bla bla bla, but it's all about the graphickzzz!"

So? 

 

It still appealed to people much more than Inception.



jarrod on 10 January 2011
Mordred11 said:
Kasz216 said:
Mordred11 said:

LOL @ people still comparing MK with GT5,the two games have nothing to do with eachother.

It's like comparing Avatar and Inception

 You know, you really set yourself up for a HUGE troll comment there.

Comaping a good movie (Inception) with a bad movie (avatar) that people only like because of it's amazing graphics and effects.

Avatar and Inception are both sci-fi,but not in the same sub-genre.Avatar made 3 times more money than Inception,probably where MK and GT5 will also sit when all is said and done.

Avatar was so popular,mainly because the reputation of it's producer,James Cameron,which made a shitload of money with previous movies,especially Titanic and it's effects were enjoyable to watch.That's similar to MK selling,because the reputation of it's developer and Mario,and the fun/enjoy it gives you.

Inception,however,was produced by Christopher Nolan,someone who's made top-quality movies during his career,but his movie wasn't for the casuals,like Avatar was,you had to actually think a bit to understand it.That's similar to GT5,who's been made by PD,a top-quality game-studio,and you actually need some skill to finish the game.

All in all,I think it's a very good comparison.

This comparison might work if all Nolan's earlier films had outsold all Cameron's... but that's pretty far from the case.  Again, this comparison relies on a revisionist stance, that Mario Kart was the IP heavyweight when in fact before this generation GT was by far the bigger brand.  And there's also the fact that GT used to be big with casuals (you don't sell 10-15 million units of anything in this industry without them)... the reason Mario Kart took off while GT atrophied this generation isn't due to their content so much as it is the machines they released on and thus audiences they had to sell to.  That's the real differentiator this generation, Mario Kart and GT didn't suddenly change design wise... which is why the Avatar/Inception comparison ultimately falls flat.



stopstopp on 10 January 2011
jarrod said:
Mordred11 said:

LOL @ people still comparing MK with GT5,the two games have nothing to do with eachother.

It's like comparing Avatar and Inception.


They're in the same genre (though not subgenre), that's the point for comparison.  

I think there's a bit of revisionism going on though, Mario Kart tends to get retroactively positioned as the heavy weight juggernaut but that's not at all the case.  Before this generation, no Mario Kart had sold over 10m, while every GT had.  This gen we have two Mario Karts over 20m, and two GTs that likely won't hit 10m... it's really been a massive seachange this gen, and more reflective of the overall consumer shift towards Nintendo and away from PlayStation.

Lol wat?

Mario Kart sold over 20 million because of install base alone, on a thriving console. Compared to the others, it isn't all that special, it could even be the worst selling I haven't checked in a while. Mario Kart DS is on an even better selling console, but sold worse. Although handheld attachment rates are responsible for that.

GT on the other hand is in the complete opposite position. Its like it is on Gamecube (although not as bad), but it looks like it will sell 10 million anyway showing GT has some real strength. PSP GT had no chance, that console was way too dead to for it to sell 10 million, plus handheld attachment rates are so horrible outside japan it never had a chance. PSP would have alive, plus twice as big to sell that kind of numbers. It's not GT's fault, it's handheld and PSP's dead platform at fault for that.



jarrod on 10 January 2011
pezus said:
jarrod said:
Mordred11 said:
Kasz216 said:
Mordred11 said:

LOL @ people still comparing MK with GT5,the two games have nothing to do with eachother.

It's like comparing Avatar and Inception

 You know, you really set yourself up for a HUGE troll comment there.

Comaping a good movie (Inception) with a bad movie (avatar) that people only like because of it's amazing graphics and effects.

Avatar and Inception are both sci-fi,but not in the same sub-genre.Avatar made 3 times more money than Inception,probably where MK and GT5 will also sit when all is said and done.

Avatar was so popular,mainly because the reputation of it's producer,James Cameron,which made a shitload of money with previous movies,especially Titanic and it's effects were enjoyable to watch.That's similar to MK selling,because the reputation of it's developer and Mario,and the fun/enjoy it gives you.

Inception,however,was produced by Christopher Nolan,someone who's made top-quality movies during his career,but his movie wasn't for the casuals,like Avatar was,you had to actually think a bit to understand it.That's similar to GT5,who's been made by PD,a top-quality game-studio,and you actually need some skill to finish the game.

All in all,I think it's a very good comparison.

This comparison might work if all Nolan's earlier films had outsold all Cameron's... but that's pretty far from the case.  Again, this comparison relies on a revisionist stance, that Mario Kart was the IP heavyweight when in fact before this generation GT was by far the bigger brand.  And there's also the fact that GT used to be big with casuals (you don't sell 10-15 million units of anything in this industry without them)... the reason Mario Kart took off while GT atrophied this generation isn't due to their content so much as it is the machines they released on and thus audiences they had to sell to.  That's the real differentiator this generation, Mario Kart and GT didn't suddenly change design wise... which is why the Avatar/Inception comparison ultimately falls flat.

You're writing like GT's popularity has lessened while it certainly has not.

It's holding up in one region (Europe) and GT5 most likely won't hit 10m, while GT PSP bombed by series standards.  It's not exactly business as usual for Gran Turismo.

And again, I'm saying the blame should be laid at the platforms, not the games themselves (well, at least in GT5's case, I know GT PSP had some blowback content wise).  GT's popularity hasn't lessened so much as it just doesn't have the sort of massive mainstream audience ready to sell in to that it had on PS1/PS2.