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

Forums - Gaming - Against the Industry (Malstrom)

Avinash_Tyagi said:
Torillian said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
God of war, uncharted and SOTC, ICO are not classics, ten years from now no one will be playing them

Climbing into your time machine made of bullshit again I see.

I will remember SotC and Ico forever, they were an experience that will stick with me, the fact that I don't play them everyday doesn't change this.  Just because you have never seen what's great about these games doesn't mean they aren't classics.

You may remember them forever, but you are a minority, people who come into gaming ten years from now aren't going to want to play them.  People still enjoy playing games like the NES Mario's and Zelda, Starcraft  is a game that people who never played it years ago think is fun, even though its more than ten years old, these games are iconic, and can keep on brining in new people, regardless of their age.

That's just one definition of the word. God of War is most definitely a classic. Ico would be a cult classic.



Around the Network
Avinash_Tyagi said:
The market has judged them better, see this is the flaw of many they think they are smarter than the consumers, no, that is foolishness

And what the market chooses is heavily based on their information about them.  Not to mention that a person buys a game before knowing its quality.  You don't get to play through a game in its entirety and then purchase it or not based on your experience, that's not how things work.  Purchasing a video game just proves that you think it will be worth it, not that it actually was.  I bought Earthbound completely by accident, and yet it was one of my best purchases at the time, now on the other hand I bought Afro Samurai with complete foreknowledge and still regret it.  How are all these consumers learning about a game's quality before they get to actually play it?



...

So you are saying that the ratio of good games to bad games back in the NES days were better than today's?

That would be an interesting topic, and one not clearly won. Especially since there was an absolute deluge of shit on the NES.



This topic stopped being about Maelstrom, didn't it.



Torillian said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
The market has judged them better, see this is the flaw of many they think they are smarter than the consumers, no, that is foolishness

And what the market chooses is heavily based on their information about them.  Not to mention that a person buys a game before knowing its quality.  You don't get to play through a game in its entirety and then purchase it or not based on your experience, that's not how things work.  Purchasing a video game just proves that you think it will be worth it, not that it actually was.  I bought Earthbound completely by accident, and yet it was one of my best purchases at the time, now on the other hand I bought Afro Samurai with complete foreknowledge and still regret it.  How are all these consumers learning about a game's quality before they get to actually play it?

If that were true, then why have Mario and Zelda sequels sold millions, because people loved the first games so much that they wanted the sequels, they became popular because people loved the earlier games and it has continued to this day, if they were bad people would have stopped buying



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Around the Network
JaggedSac said:
So you are saying that the ratio of good games to bad games back in the NES days were better than today's?

That would be an interesting topic, and one not clearly won. Especially since there was an absolute deluge of shit on the NES.

The word ratio was never posted by me, however one cannot deny that the NES has many, many classic games



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Avinash_Tyagi said:
Torillian said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
The market has judged them better, see this is the flaw of many they think they are smarter than the consumers, no, that is foolishness

And what the market chooses is heavily based on their information about them.  Not to mention that a person buys a game before knowing its quality.  You don't get to play through a game in its entirety and then purchase it or not based on your experience, that's not how things work.  Purchasing a video game just proves that you think it will be worth it, not that it actually was.  I bought Earthbound completely by accident, and yet it was one of my best purchases at the time, now on the other hand I bought Afro Samurai with complete foreknowledge and still regret it.  How are all these consumers learning about a game's quality before they get to actually play it?

If that were true, then why have Mario and Zelda sequels sold millions, because people loved the first games so much that they wanted the sequels, they became popular because people loved the earlier games and it has continued to this day, if they were bad people would have stopped buying

So then games that keep their sales up over the series are deemed great.  And therefore since SotC sold more than Ico obviously Ico was a great game. 


And yes, it proves that the games weren't awful, but doesn't prove that they're the best.



...

haha
avinash, earier you said you were proving mals point, but you're not.

Mal is saying that games are being designed to make money, and aren't being made correctly, as a classic. But according to you, classics are ones that make money.

Drop the shovel m8



If being a Malstrom fan means being a pessimist, believing that yesterday was better than today, and thinking that the gaming industry is nothing but doom and gloom, it's the last thing I would ever want to be. The reason people are still playing Mario and Zelda is because there's a market these days for retro fare and nostalgia. Gaming has expanded vastly since the days of the 3rd and 4th generations, and a lot of people newer to the market want to catch up on classics. But I think you'll discover that in the end, retro sales are nothing compared to modern gaming.

I'm not playing any games from ten years ago, unless I happen to rediscover a game that I thought was awesome that long ago (Starcraft, Final Fantasy 7, Super Smash Bros, etc.). There's no way of saying modern games won't be played 10 years from now, because we're not living 10 years from now. Then again, as I always say, Avinash's signature predictions say it all.



 

 

Torillian said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Torillian said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
The market has judged them better, see this is the flaw of many they think they are smarter than the consumers, no, that is foolishness

And what the market chooses is heavily based on their information about them.  Not to mention that a person buys a game before knowing its quality.  You don't get to play through a game in its entirety and then purchase it or not based on your experience, that's not how things work.  Purchasing a video game just proves that you think it will be worth it, not that it actually was.  I bought Earthbound completely by accident, and yet it was one of my best purchases at the time, now on the other hand I bought Afro Samurai with complete foreknowledge and still regret it.  How are all these consumers learning about a game's quality before they get to actually play it?

If that were true, then why have Mario and Zelda sequels sold millions, because people loved the first games so much that they wanted the sequels, they became popular because people loved the earlier games and it has continued to this day, if they were bad people would have stopped buying

So then games that keep their sales up over the series are deemed great.  And therefore since SotC sold more than Ico obviously Ico was a great game.


And yes, it proves that the games weren't awful, but doesn't prove that they're the best.

Actually, no it doesn't, see Ico and SOTC don't sell, people don't buy those games anymore, starcraft on the other hand still sells, constantly on the charts



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)