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

Forums - Sales - How Pro Evolution Soccer might be the Wii's big weapon in Europe.

Kasz216 on 05 May 2008
bobacob said:
Kasz216 said:
densiyrex said:
let me say this
I normally get football games ( yes I don't play soccer you americans should use american football) on the pc.
But I so bought pro evo wii and love it.

Only if you call Soccer Assosiation League Football instead of Football and give the name football back to Rugby... who had it first... and is where America actually got the name from.

As Rugby was the original Football. (Well many games were called football, but Rugby Football was the first organized offical "football" game.)

Ever wonder why the oldest rugby clubs in the world are called Football Clubs?

It makes more sense for "American Football" to be called Football then Soccer. Since "American Football" is just a variation of "Rugby Football."

The true "owner" of the name if there could be called one.


No Kasz216! football has been around in England for MUCH longe than rugby(1300s i think), Rugby was created in a place called Rugby in England(1800s ish) when they changed a few rules to the football system.

Football is called football because you use your feet, rugby football was called rugby football because people changed the rules of football and started using their hands as well as their feet and it was called Rugby rules football.

It was then changed to rugby Football for short.

Why would they call a game football when the main use of the game revolves around the use of hands? This because its a variation of the football game, like gaelic football and australian rules football.

There is probably an article on the internet about it, sorry to go off topic:P


"Football" had no official rules before Rugby Football and was just a loose collection of random games... often times games that rarely used the foot.

Rugby Football and Assosiation League Football both sprouted from the same "root football" games. Rugby was the first to have widely recognizeable rules that rose up from the mess that was football.

The only difference in what i imagine your refrencing is that the player was able to run foward with the ball. Before then in the Rugby school and many others it was perfectly fine to do things like hand the ball or even pick it up and carry it backwords.

Considering the random rules that often involved rules more common in rugby i can't see how you can claim that Assosiation League Football has more a claim to said ancestor games then Rugby Football.

As far as I can tell they both have equal claim, with the exception that Rugby developed farther sooner and was more popular before the Cambridge rules entered the game.  (which as noted were different from former "football" rules which included a lot of carrying.)



Around the Network
MontanaHatchet on 05 May 2008
stof said:

So far, the Wii's only big selling sports titles have either been the entirely interactive or the Mario featuring arcade type. While Madden, Fifa and WWE Smackdown have seen fairly healthy sales, they're still a far cry from what those games sell on other platforms. Most releases to this point would indicate that while the success of the Wii would lead to sports game sales rising a bit, the system would still largely be a disappointment to the demographics that primarily play such games.

Smackdown

Madden

Fifa

Pro Evo 2008 

Of course, the other versions had the benefit of the holiday season, but then again, if the Wii version is selling inline with the PSP version, then it's not such a large feat.

Anywho, it seems that sports games may once again find a place for themselves with Nintendo. Hey, they might not sell gangbusters like on other platforms, but damnit if we can't once again have a hit like Kobe Bryant in NBA Courtside. 



 

 

bobacob on 05 May 2008

The creation of an official ruling body actually means very little, if you look up the a definition of rugby you will see it decends from football.

The name football came first so it must mean that is the father surely? there were other rules added and just like any other game the rules changed over time. The fact that the rules change doesnt mean that footballs existence gets shifted back a few years.

Football was first played(In england) by people in teams with a pitch in the 1600s before the first official football teams were created, which means that there were some rules in place before hand officially making it a sport.

Just because amatuer and pro football teams were created after in 1800s (just like rugby) doesnt mean anything, i think the first official football team was sheffield wednesday or sheffield united about 1850. The oldest offical rugby club was formed around about 1840-50s. There were many other football teams that recorded scores before official teams, which means that rules must have been created.

The oldest offical scoring of rugby was also later than football about 1860s whereas some london football clubs recorded scores and rules as early as 1600s( im remebering most of this from year 7 history :D i aced the test).

But what does this all mean? absolutely nothing, All i know is football as a game has estanblished rules before rugby, so therefore it existed before rugby which cannot be denied. The official formation of documented leagues and rules can be debated until the cows come home and it means absolutely nothing.



Endure. In enduring, grow strong.

Fonzerelli on 05 May 2008

PES Wii did not have a great start but it is showing great legs in E.U.
The game has been selling close to 50K for the past few weeks.
Could hit 1 M WW and 500-750K E.U is a given.



Heeeeyyyy!!!! <Snap>

Kasz216 on 05 May 2008
bobacob said:

The creation of an official ruling body actually means very little, if you look up the a definition of rugby you will see it decends from football.

The name football came first so it must mean that is the father surely? there were other rules added and just like any other game the rules changed over time. The fact that the rules change doesnt mean that footballs existence gets shifted back a few years.

Football was first played(In england) by people in teams with a pitch in the 1600s before the first official football teams were created, which means that there were some rules in place before hand officially making it a sport.

Just because amatuer and pro football teams were created after in 1800s (just like rugby) doesnt mean anything, i think the first official football team was sheffield wednesday or sheffield united about 1850. The oldest offical rugby club was formed around about 1840-50s. There were many other football teams that recorded scores before official teams, which means that rules must have been created.

The oldest offical scoring of rugby was also later than football about 1860s whereas some london football clubs recorded scores and rules as early as 1600s( im remebering most of this from year 7 history :D i aced the test).

But what does this all mean? absolutely nothing, All i know is football as a game has estanblished rules before rugby, so therefore it existed before rugby which cannot be denied. The official formation of documented leagues and rules can be debated until the cows come home and it means absolutely nothing.


I couldn't disagree more. Before there were any set rules "football" wasn't like the football of today. It had many many rules that were similar to rugby as well.

Rugby went one way... allowing more carrying and use of the hands, assosiation went the other way to restrict carrying far more...

To claim that Rugby is different and assosiation league football is that same "football" that existed beforehand is nothing but revisionist history.

It seems like you need to do a bit more research on the history of football. There is a reason it's called Assosiation Football afterall... because it, just like rugby league football was an offshoot of it's origins.  If you go back and read the history on it you'll see i'm right.

Both Rugby Football and Assosiation Football are forms of established rules for the game of football. It's ridiculious that you try to claim such a heritage as Assosiation Footballs alone.

Just calling it soccer is more appropriate then just calling it football because Soccer is an abreviation of Assosiation. Calling Rugby or American Football Football is no less aprorpriate in any case.



Around the Network
GhaudePhaede010 on 05 May 2008

This game has got to be give more respect. From what I can get, being an American, there are casual sports fans. They prefer Fifa because of the more pick up and play, "arcade" style.

Only the hardcore football fans prefer Pro Evolution games because they are too realistic for their "pick up and play" taste. As far as sales go, here in America, most Gamestop only got around two ro three copies at launch of the game. Now imagine how that might hurt sales? And there was absolutely no advertising. As a matter of fact, where I went to get the game from, the people had no idea it was even planned as a release on Wii.

There is a lot to improve with the Wii version, but lets say 2009 offers the same extras as thee XBOX 360 and Playstation 3 versions (kit editing ect.) then will people still be thinking that the version to play is the one with "limited" controls because the graphics are better? If that were the case, the PS2 versions would not outsell everything.

At any rate, will Wii version of 09 be the best seller? Probably not, but if they do it correctly, and advertise it, then it could end up taking a much larger portion of the market than some of you will give it credit for. And then, in a couple of years, we might see a market shift.

Nobody I know that has played all three versions actually prefers XBOX 360 or Playstation 3 version over Wii version. Screw the graphics, the game play is what is supposed to set this series apart. And this is where the best game play lies, without question.



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000

joora on 05 May 2008

I think that new PES combined with SW: Force Unleashed combined with WiiFit and the rest Nintendo's offerings will make a total onslaught in Europe.

The only puzzle that is missing is GTA game, so now i understand why Nintendo tried to drag Rockstar to Wii GTA developement (Reggie talked about it in one occasion)



.

Ajax on 05 May 2008
Kasz216 said:
Ajax said:

So, you think the PS2 version is the best version because your friends think it's the best?


no not my friends, but veteran Pro Evo players, who also are my friends, but that's secundary, but I actually should ask em about it again though, they might be playing the PS3 version more now (or the Wii version lol)
but who do you trust, guys who play years tournaments for a couple of hundred euro's or some IGN or Gamespot guy?

anywaaayyyyyyy, Konami is doing a good job, and will probably do better and it has potential, but still I say, it won't be people switching to the Wii version, but rather most buyers will be relatively new to the series..

damn what a long post, I wonder if you will even bother reading it lol

 

Actually... the guys from IGN and gamespot.

People who have been playing Pro Evo for 8+ years are going to biased towards the PS2/PS3 control scheme because they are used to it.

A great number of people who have only played console FPS think Dual Analog is better then Mouse and Keyboard when any impartial observer will tell you that Mouse and keypad will destroy dual analog.

To them, even when they try it out, mouse and keyboard seems infeiror because they aren't used to a new control style.

Hell it happens in sports games in the US ALL THE TIME. People with the Xbox version who are used to Xbox controls would always want to play that, people with PS2s always wanted to play the PS2 version, each saying the other was worse, and using a slightly different controller to explain away their sucking.  This is going to be even more prounced when the changes are drastic.

The difference here is that all the Wii version does is add in ways to make passing more accurate. How could anyone say that's bad and be unbiased?

 


ok, your argument I could switch upside down, I can say, how can anyone better know what a good Pro Evo is than guys who have played it for many years? and you also say passing is more accurate, that's great, but besides defending being more difficult, you say ''How could anyone say that's bad (passing being more accurate) and be unbiased'', but no one even said passing being more accurate is bad in the first place.. the discussion was about whether many football game fans would chose the Wii version over a PS3 or 360 version.



''Hadouken!''

Kasz216 on 05 May 2008
Ajax said:
Kasz216 said:
Ajax said:

So, you think the PS2 version is the best version because your friends think it's the best?


no not my friends, but veteran Pro Evo players, who also are my friends, but that's secundary, but I actually should ask em about it again though, they might be playing the PS3 version more now (or the Wii version lol)
but who do you trust, guys who play years tournaments for a couple of hundred euro's or some IGN or Gamespot guy?

anywaaayyyyyyy, Konami is doing a good job, and will probably do better and it has potential, but still I say, it won't be people switching to the Wii version, but rather most buyers will be relatively new to the series..

damn what a long post, I wonder if you will even bother reading it lol

 

Actually... the guys from IGN and gamespot.

People who have been playing Pro Evo for 8+ years are going to biased towards the PS2/PS3 control scheme because they are used to it.

A great number of people who have only played console FPS think Dual Analog is better then Mouse and Keyboard when any impartial observer will tell you that Mouse and keypad will destroy dual analog.

To them, even when they try it out, mouse and keyboard seems infeiror because they aren't used to a new control style.

Hell it happens in sports games in the US ALL THE TIME. People with the Xbox version who are used to Xbox controls would always want to play that, people with PS2s always wanted to play the PS2 version, each saying the other was worse, and using a slightly different controller to explain away their sucking. This is going to be even more prounced when the changes are drastic.

The difference here is that all the Wii version does is add in ways to make passing more accurate. How could anyone say that's bad and be unbiased?

 


ok, your argument I could switch upside down, I can say, how can anyone better know what a good Pro Evo is than guys who have played it for many years? and you also say passing is more accurate, that's great, but besides defending being more difficult, you say ''How could anyone say that's bad (passing being more accurate) and be unbiased'', but no one even said passing being more accurate is bad in the first place.. the discussion was about whether many football game fans would chose the Wii version over a PS3 or 360 version.


I actually think Football fans will keep chosing the PS2 version until they either don't make it anymore or the PS3 is cheaper.

You were saying however which game was "best" which is a different arguement all together.  Games that are worse sell better all the time.  Even when they are multiplatform releases. 



Venji on 05 May 2008

I think what is more interesting is how many Fifa gamers might move to Pro Evo. Maybe the title of this thread should be :

The Wii - Pro Evo's weapon of choice.

I've been playing Fifa since it was out on the Sega Mega Drive and for the first time ever I'm tempted to get Pro Evo as my friends are highly recommending it.



Playing : PC  AOE, DiRT 2, Runes of Magic, Wings of Prey & Planetside 2  

Wii U : Nintendoland, Super Mario U  & Fifa 2013 demo

DS : Guitar Hero : On Tour


Formerly unknown as Vengi

http://vgchartz.com/profiles/profile.php?id=2331