I could be wrong, but didn't SS sell quite a bit more in the first 10 weeks than TP?
Food for thought: Shove an apple in your brain
... Compare total sales of game released for 6 months against one released for over 5 years, make no mention of time frames or do a comparison using time frames.
I'm sorry why are people even responding to this post? Would people respond to a topic that said '' Why did Uncharted 2 soar and Uncharted 3 flop?'' ''Why did Gears of war 2 soar and Gears of war 3 flop?''
Are we simply ignoring the fact time exists? ''Why has GTA4 soared and GTA 5 flopped? No copies sold? That's dreadful! ''
Unfortunately we don't have the GC sales in week form but the first 10 weeks of SS destroyed the first 10 weeks of TP Wii.
Here I will make a helpful note for us. After 5 years and 6 months Zelda TP was at 6.49m on wii and 1.59m on GC. Now after 5 more years we can come back and do a comparison of total sales at the 5 and a half year point.
I think the most important factor is simply the point it released in the Wii's lifespan. It's pretty much released near the end of the console gen whereas Twilight Princess had the advantage of releasing when Wii was very much in demand. Of course, there's also the fact that Twilight Princess has had ages to sell whereas SS was released a few months ago. I still haven't bought it yet! Simply have too much other stuff to play.
| Joelcool7 said: Wiibox I never finished the campaign of BlackOps I was not impressed and put the game down after only about 20 minutes. I hated WaW with a passion, I had bought it without trying it first and ended up trading it in within a week because it was just so terrible. I experienced lag and certain hills couldn't be climbed up or over a log. It felt like invisible walls all over again. After WaW I decided never again to buy a CoD without playing it first. BlackOps was alright but I was not impressed enough to give it much more then 20 minutes, it wasn't the historically accurate old style CoD I loved back in the day nor was it the somewhat realistic modern day shooter of MW. Seriously the game was not a serious game it was like taking Hollywood and trying to make a game. Lacked substance! BattleField3 admittedly could have had a better campaign. It had several issues but it was a far superior shooter in almost every way. MW3 didn't even get more then five minutes of my time. I saw the campaign and was sickened so I played a fifteen minute or so multiplayer map. Realized this is nearly the exact same dang game I played years ago. Game play was stagnant and Activision reused tons of assets. MW3 belonged in the 39.99$ bargain bin launch day I really feel sorry for the developers who worked their asses off and were left with a product that wouldn't even make the top 3 shooters of the year. HomeFront and BF3 were twice the game MW3 was, I blame Activision not Infinity Ward. Also the poser gamers are also to blame. The ones who only care about graphics, blood nudity and hardcore mature crap. These gamers are leading the industry into producing lower and lower quality garbage. Talked with my manager at EBGames and later Play N' Trade to get their opinions on the subject. They both were unanimous real gamers are a dying breed. Today you don't get gamers who actually like games you get posers who want eye candy who want to play 5-20 minute sessions who really could care less about a quality campaign. The Play N' Trade manager put it best. Today a gamer wants to buy Call of Duty so he can bring his friends over and pretend he's cool for a few hours. Half of the gamers buying games today even touch the single player campaign he said, because they aren't actually interested in a game. They are interested in constant explosions and beautiful cutting edge graphics. They are interested in having friends over and looking cool. These are not gamers. They are posers I met a gamer a while back who didn't even know what Modern Warfare was. I was in the game store asked a customer "What did you think of ModernWarFare3'. "Modern Ware Fare?" , "Ya you know Call of Duty?" , "Dude I love Call of Duty" , "What did you think about Battlefield3" "..... Who makes Battlefield again is that a PC game I don't play PC games". I nearly slapped the shit out of the guy. Its idiots like that they are destroying our industry. Why does a sub par game like CoD:MW3 outsell games like HomeFront/BF3. Why are amazing games like Rayman Origins dying while the next GTA will clean house? There is something wrong with this picture! |
Thats all well and good, but couldnt the same be said for the JustDance/WiiFit crowd??
| RolStoppable said: 1) Unlike Skyward Sword, Twilight Princess uses an artstyle that is widely accepted for the Zelda series. 2) TP is the better game. 3) TP released during a favorable period of time while SS did not. TP could sell to the OoT fanbase as well as lapsed gamers who came back to Nintendo because of the Wii. SS is simply a Zelda game for diehard fans. Everyone else doesn't need long to decide that it isn't a game for them. |
I wouldn't argue that TP is the better game. TP has SS's flaws without SS's tremendous redeeming qualities, on the whole, the worse game.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
When did selling over a million become a flop?
| zippy said: In my opinion skyward sword is the better game, and i prefer its graphical style over TP (windwaker still being my favourite zelda graphics). Too many dark and dingy games these days, i welcome a game with a nice colourful pallette. SS controls piss all over the control scheme of TP which really were just tacked on motion controls for the Wii launch title. That saying TP is a great game still, it has just had more time to sell, plus Wii was selling a lot of systems and breaking a lot of records back then too. |
I agree. ZSS is a a better game, the art style is way better than TP and while I consider TP an amazing game, ZSS excels at everything.
Menx64
3DS code: 1289-8222-7215
NNid: Menx064
I actually think Skyward Sword sold very well, considering it's a pretty controversial Zelda game.
While not as controversial as Wind Waker, there are quite a few things that make this game unappealing to the core crowd/Zelda fans
- The water cooler art style is definitely a huge turnoff for a lot of Zelda fans ( There are still fans out there that continue to hate toon link)
- WM plus is required to play the game, adding an extra $20 cost to the game
- Motion controls are probably the most controversial part of this game. we all know how much so gamers hate motion controls.
Add the fact that it was released for toward the end of the Wii's lifespan and that the Wii is pretty much dead and the average core gamer hates the system.
To me it's sold very well in such a short time period. I honestly think it will pass 4 million units by the end of the year. Which would be very good for a Zelda game.
I'm an advocate for motion controls, Nintendo, and Kicking freaking Toad to the Moon!
3DS Friend Code - 0860-3269-1286
SS has sold better, but TP sold for longer.
SS will reach 5mil, ending up around the same as Phantom Hourglass. But it's released too late in the console cycle, required Motion+ (which likely put some off), and second Zelda games on a console never do as well as the first.
The sales reflect the state of the Wii market more than SS as a commercial failure or success.
While I don't doubt that there were quite a few former Wii owners who actually bought or borrowed another Wii to play SS, the reality is SS was released in the late twilight years of the Wii, after it had lost most of its relevance.
Still, it just goes to show despite all that SS had going against it (late cycle release on a dead/dying platform, mediocre Zelda game, questionable art direction, motion plus controls), it still sold 3 million copies and will serve as a very respectable capstone for significant games on the Wii.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
