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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What is a bigger Franchise? God of War or Animal Crossing?

ZenfoldorVGI on 25 June 2008
weezy said:
I would think someone would buy a console for Animal Crossing rather than an action game I rank 3rd behind Ninja Gaiden and Devil May Cry

I'd say that's a given. I mean, critically there is a lot of hubbub behind GoW but I've never actually met anyone who just goes crazy over it. Then again, I hang around with an older crowd.

I'd guess there is a fairly large audience for Animal Crossing, and I would also speculate that if everyone and their uncle didn't already own a Wii, a few people would buy one to play AC on. The console only cost 250 bucks, so it's not like they are selling a kidney to buy it.

 



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Around the Network
DarkNight_DS on 25 June 2008

God of War PSP: 750k
God of War 2 PS2: 2.11 million
Animal Crossing GC: 2.98 million
God of War PS2: 3.2 million
Animal Crossing Wild World DS: 9.47 million

AC released on a console and had very decent sales, it's sequel had stellar sales.

God of War launched on a console as well and had very decent sales, it's sequels have had less then stellar sales. In fact the game looks to be in decline sales wise.

AC is like crack for those who love the game, people still play it constantly. GoW is a great game which gets played and put back on the shelf.

Looking at the sales of AC you can predict that the sequel for the Wii should amass at least 3-10 million or more in sales.

Looking at sales of GoW you can predict that a sequel will most likely sell somewhere between 750k-3.2 million copies. Since the game has seen a decline in sales and would be releasing on a system with a much smaller install base you'd assume it'd sell closer to GoW 2 then GoW1.

Arguing on personal opinion about how great a game is in a thread about which franchise is bigger is pretty silly. It's quite obvious which game is the bigger franchise.



Prepare for termination! It is the only logical thing to do, for I am only loyal to Megatron.

trestres on 25 June 2008

AC is way bigger than GoW, just look at the attach rates for each game and consoles where they were released.

Besides there's a lot more games sold on the AC franchise than games sold on the GoW franchise.

AC>>GoW



Proud poster of the 10000th reply at the Official Smash Bros Update Thread.

tag - "I wouldn't trust gamespot, even if it was a live comparison."

Bets with Conegamer:

Pandora's Tower will have an opening week of less than 37k in Japan. (Won!)
Pandora's Tower will sell less than 100k lifetime in Japan.
Stakes: 1 week of avatar control for each one.

Fullfilled Prophecies

shams on 25 June 2008
JiaJia said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:

God of War sucks man. I'm sorry, but I've been more than clear about my feelings for the franchise. Block puzzles, and mini-games, with weak combat. The game relies on its excellent narrative to cover up for shoddy and boring gameplay.

Even if Animal Crossing sucked(I've never been a huge fan, but I would be wrong to say that it "sucks" it's just not my favorite game), it would have to suck pretty hard to be worse than God of War.

I have my right to this opinion, because as I said, I've been outspoken against this horrible series MANY times before. The games are just godaweful. DMC, Ninja Gaiden, Rygar, and even the Spiderman open world games gave me more entertainment. IMO, God of War is without a doubt the most over-rated series of games ever made, eclipsing the Halo franchise, which actually had at least one good installment.

Mediocre.

 

Ironically no one here gives a crap what u have to think ... get a new hobby ... Gow > you ... period.

Hey there Mr Troll. If you are serious about posting here long term, please improve your manners - AND read the forum rules. Insulting other users does not wash well.

Start with a 2day ban, and lets see it not happen again.

 



Gesta Non Verba

Nocturnal is helping companies get cheaper game ratings in Australia:

Game Assessment website

Wii code: 2263 4706 2910 1099

soccerdrew17 on 25 June 2008

i think that ac really just resonated with the exact nintendo crowd. GOW on the other hand is a small franchise, but it blew everyone away.

more important to its console-gow
bigger franchise-ac
system seller-tie, might lean ac



my pillars of gaming: kh, naughty dog, insomniac, ssb, gow, ff

i officially boycott boycotts.  crap.

Around the Network
Galaki on 25 June 2008
*bleu-ocelot* said:
Hanheld games generally lean toward every little kid out there.

 

Damn them! Why are they making me, little kid, working full time?

I need a parent or two to buy me games :(



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

Kasz216 on 25 June 2008
Bodhesatva said:
DMeisterJ said:
Kasz216 said:
Basically if you didn't get the last post.

With Roger Ebert. He knows what makes a good kids movie, he knows what makes a good drama movie. He's gone to school on this very subject.

Adam Seizler might know what makes a good FPS and what makes a good action game. He doesn't know what makes a good JRPG because he hates JRPGs. Even then he might not know what makes a good FPS or Action game and is just feeling through it based on how much he likes it rather then basing it off anything outside of just his own expierence with games.

I get it, I see your point. But that's the point of using an aggreate review site, rather than one reivew. As even if they are in the bunch, there are people in the bunch that can appreciate Video games as a whole.

But if no one in the bunch does appreciate videogames as a whole, you are correct. But that's a pretty serious generalization to say that not many, if any at all don't appreciate videogames as a whole.

Of course, this is only true if that aggregate is selected randomly and distributed equally, which they are not. A much large distribution of game reviewers are white, male and young (20-35) than would be seen in the general population. I would argue their games tastes are more homogenous as a result, and as such, an aggregate isn't worth a great deal more than a single case. That is, if the review criterion are as stated (which apparently we all agree, they are).

As a side note (not directed at DMeisterJ), I notice many people's stance on the value of reviews oscillates: when a game arrives that [Person X] loves, and that game gets a 7.5, the person goes into great detail to explain why the reviewer is wrong and corrupt and the whole review process needs to be scrapped. But then, as soon as a conversation like this pops up and metacritic is once again on their side, they immediately bring up that Game X has a 2.4 better metacritic average than Game Y. Pick a side, please: either reviews are relevant (which can be argued), or they are not (and the same applies here). You cannot discredit reviews and then recredit them whenever it suits you. I've seen this method applied across all strata, be you Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft fanboy.

I believe they are relevent but only when comparing games within genres.... moreso genres that are favored by males 20-35.

Even then there is some level of scruitiny to be applied to where i'd really like to see more then a 1 point difference on a 10 point scale before i consider something definitly better.



Kasz216 on 25 June 2008
DMeisterJ said:
RolStoppable said:
DMeisterJ, remember the good old times when I told you that you actually made progress and became a better poster? I still remember it like it was yesterday. Maybe because it was yesterday.

Anyway, you are screwing up big time here.

ROFL

How am I screwing up?

Every single one of those posts was taken out of context, and two of the posts he picked weren't even talking about actual reviews of MGS4.

But like I said, I'm done.

Edit - I've stated on numerous occasions that GTA IV was definitely reviewed too high, and Halo 3. Two games that I play to this day. So there goes that theory.

You just proved Bod's point there... as you are saying those two games are reveiwed too highly... and those two games just happen to be games that would highly appeal to the male (25-30) demographic. 

Note: I used to speak Latin.  Took two years of it.  I suck at learning new languages though... so i forgot nealy all of it as soon as i stopped using it.  Which was like... immediatly.  Dead language and all.



DMeisterJ on 25 June 2008
Kasz216 said:
DMeisterJ said:
RolStoppable said:
DMeisterJ, remember the good old times when I told you that you actually made progress and became a better poster? I still remember it like it was yesterday. Maybe because it was yesterday.

Anyway, you are screwing up big time here.

ROFL

How am I screwing up?

Every single one of those posts was taken out of context, and two of the posts he picked weren't even talking about actual reviews of MGS4.

But like I said, I'm done.

Edit - I've stated on numerous occasions that GTA IV was definitely reviewed too high, and Halo 3. Two games that I play to this day. So there goes that theory.

You just proved Bod's point there... as you are saying those two games are reveiwed too highly... and those two games just happen to be games that would highly appeal to the male (25-30) demographic. 

Note: I used to speak Latin.  Took two years of it.  I suck at learning new languages though... so i forgot nealy all of it as soon as i stopped using it.  Which was like... immediatly.  Dead language and all.

Yes, I'm saying that GTA IV and Halo 3 were scored too high.  Bod said that people only say that games they liked were under-scored.  If he believed that what I said about MGS4 was about it being underscored, it also goes the other way.



*bleu-ocelot* on 25 June 2008

This thread is stupid.Comparing AC and GOW is inane.Where's the apples and oranges post?