These games are failures because they're not very good. They still sold OK because they had a lot of marketing and there's not much else worth buying outside the Mario/Zelda/etc superhits.
| ICStats said: These games are failures because they're not very good. They still sold OK because they had a lot of marketing and there's not much else worth buying outside the Mario/Zelda/etc superhits. |
Not true. ARMS and Labo are well received. And the Switch already has tons of games worth buying outside first party.
Ka-pi96 said:
No. I'm saying the people within Nintendo capable of making a better game were busy and all that was left was the new/not so good staff and that was the best they could do. |
So they chose to make a sub par game because they didn't want to wait. There is always the choice of not doing something, you know. And if anyone can afford to not do something, it's Nintendo.
If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.
FarleyMcFirefly said:
As far as I know, not a single Fire Emblem game has hit even 3 million, yet they release spinoffs, remakes and new games as if it was a "high class IP". |
Fire Emblem is a long running series of critically acclaimed JRPGs, it already has its legacy and committed fanbase. I don't see how anyone could ever compare that to something like Arms.
If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.
TheMisterManGuy said:
They aren't bad games at all, they're simply more niche than Nintendo's other Switch games. Also, don't be surprised if you see ARMS again. |
No they were bad games and not close to the standard people expect from Nintendo games, none of them deserve a new entry, that's not to say a new entry couldn't be great but the standard of the first doesn't set high hopes. I would compare these games with Knack, sold great but playable at best. If they could increase in quality like Knack 2 then great but as it stands theyre just not good games.
vivster said:
Fire Emblem is a long running series of critically acclaimed JRPGs, it already has its legacy and committed fanbase. I don't see how anyone could ever compare that to something like Arms. |
Arms has to start somewhere. For people to say they won't be surprised to never see a sequel when it has sold very well for what it is. Arms has sold more than most Fire Emblem games. In time it has the potential to leave a legacy.
1doesnotsimply
| TheMisterManGuy said: It's a trend I've noticed a lot with Nintendo's new concepts on Switch, whenever it doesn't do Mario Odyssey, Breath of the Wild, Smash Ultimate, or hell, Wii Sports numbers, it automatically is deemed a failure, even before official numbers and expectations come out. 1-2 Switch? Failure (sold 2.69 million), ARMS? Failure (Sold 2 million), Nintendo Labo? Failure (Sold 1.4 million in its first few months, and has seen sales boosts during the holiday season, so it's probably at 2 million already). The only exceptions to this rule are Snipperclips, which was eShop only in its original run, and Sushi Striker, a game that actually failed. 2 million is not a failure, at all. You may not like these games, but they have an audience, and are some of the Switch's best selling titles. Do people honestly think Nintendo expects everything to catch on like Splatoon or have the same audience as it? Or is it because these IP are reminiscent of the filthy Wii era, and thus, need to hold them to the impossible Wii Sports standard to justify their argument? Also if ARMS and Labo were such failures, why does Nintendo keep promoting them regularly? |
I actually have not come across anyone calling these games a failure before. Some people in this thread have decided to take it on themselves to justify the point, but I am not sure they know what they are talking about. The games have flaws, true, or they may not like them, but that has no bearing on whether or not they are sales failures.
If anything, considering how these are fairly low tier games and still sold millions make them successes.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
betacon said:
No they were bad games and not close to the standard people expect from Nintendo games, none of them deserve a new entry, that's not to say a new entry couldn't be great but the standard of the first doesn't set high hopes. I would compare these games with Knack, sold great but playable at best. If they could increase in quality like Knack 2 then great but as it stands theyre just not good games. |
You may think they were bad games, but that doesn't make them objectively bad. You don't need to pass your opinion off as fact.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
