There's a lot of competition in the rails shooter market on the wii and unfortunately, this one has one of the weaker brand names attached to it.
outlawauron said:
Not entirely. A good game is a still a good game whether you or I like it. Whether you enjoy or have fun with the game is what's completely subjective. |
So is it possible for somebody to make a very good game that nobody enjoys?
The Ghost of RubangB said:
So is it possible for somebody to make a very good game that nobody enjoys? |
Not really, but it's possible for someone to make a good game that you don't like.
There are certain games or series that I don't like, but I know they're well made and of high quality.
outlawauron said:
Not really, but it's possible for someone to make a good game that you don't like. There are certain games or series that I don't like, but I know they're well made and of high quality. |
Seriously, my favourate game of all time and what I think the best game of all time to be are two different things. My favourate game ever is probably Super Mario World, but I think the best game of all time is probably Ocarina of Time. I know that OOT was absolutely revolutionary and changed 3D 3rd person games, but I just prefer jumping around on a two dimensional plane, jumping on baddie's heads.
dead space fans were put off my console choice
core wii gamers were put off by genre
lightgun fans put off by price point
who exactly are they selling this game to?
nintendo fanboy, but the good kind
proud soldier of nintopia
outlawauron said:
Not really, but it's possible for someone to make a good game that you don't like. There are certain games or series that I don't like, but I know they're well made and of high quality. |
I beg to differ. What one person views as a game's "quality" could easily be viewed by another person as that game's shortcoming.
Example: Metal Gear Solid's emphasis on storytelling could be viewed as a revolutionary breakthrough in how we play games or it could be viewed as a distraction from the real reason people play video games: for the gameplay.
Who decides if a game is objectively good or quality?
"Pier was a chef, a gifted and respected chef who made millions selling his dishes to the residents of New York City and Boston, he even had a famous jingle playing in those cities that everyone knew by heart. He also had a restaurant in Los Angeles, but not expecting LA to have such a massive population he only used his name on that restaurant and left it to his least capable and cheapest chefs. While his New York restaurant sold kobe beef for $100 and his Boston restaurant sold lobster for $50, his LA restaurant sold cheap hotdogs for $30. Initially these hot dogs sold fairly well because residents of los angeles were starving for good food and hoped that the famous name would denote a high quality, but most were disappointed with what they ate. Seeing the success of his cheap hot dogs in LA, Pier thought "why bother giving Los Angeles quality meats when I can oversell them on cheap hotdogs forever, and since I don't care about the product anyways, why bother advertising them? So Pier continued to only sell cheap hotdogs in LA and was surprised to see that they no longer sold. Pier's conclusion? Residents of Los Angeles don't like food."
"The so-called "hardcore" gamer is a marketing brainwashed, innovation shunting, self-righteous idiot who pays videogame makers far too much money than what is delivered."
griffinA said:
I beg to differ. What one person views as a game's "quality" could easily be viewed by another person as that game's shortcoming. Example: Metal Gear Solid's emphasis on storytelling could be viewed as a revolutionary breakthrough in how we play games or it could be viewed as a distraction from the real reason people play video games: for the gameplay.
Who decides if a game is objectively good or quality? |
Emphasis on storytelling is a what you like question. Is the story told well and intelligently, and does it make sense in the realm of the series are objective you can ask Metal Gear Solid. You can't deduct points from Metal Gear because you don't like long cutscenes. That's something that you'll hear different reasons to.
I have the game and I must agree it is good, but what I am COMPLETELY tired of is this "TEST" bullshit. If you're going to make the game for one system or the other MAKE THE DAME GAME.
Perfect example of just making the dame game is Epic Mickey...You don't see Disney saying, "We're making Epic Mickey for the Wii as a test to see if it will sale."
The crap with "test" is what business executives do that want to ride a bandwagon, instead of taking the time to see what appeals to the traditional gamer demographic on the Wii. ESPECIALLY considering that statistics show Wii as the highest cross purchased platform among Traditional gamers...
The Interweb is about overreaction, this is what makes it great!
...Imagine how boring the interweb would be if everyone thought logically?
| woopah said: dead space fans were put off my console choice core wii gamers were put off by genre lightgun fans put off by price point who exactly are they selling this game to? |
Good question.
A good product is marketed like this: "Hey, look at all of these cool bells and whistles that you'll get if you buy [product]! [Product] is awesome!"
Most of the "test games" for the Wii from third parties have been marketed to core Wii gamers like this: "Buy [product] if you want to see more of [product category]. And we swear that the next [product] will be better than this half-hearted effort! All we need are sales of this one!"
Do you see what's wrong with this picture? Third parties are marketing their core-market "test games" to nobody. The only incentive that they present for buying one of these "test games" is to see other games on the core market. They think that consumers (core-market consumers in particular, but also consumers in general) are stupid enough to throw their money away on a product that has no discernable benefit to them except for a vague promise of something better in the future that you'll have to pay even more money for.
Basically, they're approaching the whole concept wrong. If they had released a game that consumers wanted for its own benefits, they would have succeeded. But this "test game" garbage is nothing more than negative marketing, and time and again the sales numbers have shown that it doesn't work because consumers are too smart to fall for it. And then, each and every time, the developers or publishers of the "test game" wring their hands and state, "Look! There's no market for core games on the Wii!"
In reality, they're just self-fulfilling their own dire prophecies.
"'Casual games' are something the 'Game Industry' invented to explain away the Wii success instead of actually listening or looking at what Nintendo did. There is no 'casual strategy' from Nintendo. 'Accessible strategy', yes, but ‘casual gamers’ is just the 'Game Industry''s polite way of saying what they feel: 'retarded gamers'."
-Sean Malstrom
I will be buying this game, but I'll be buying it (well... Santa and his elves will be working on it 
) for Christmas. I'm surprised that the developer commented so early, especially right before the holiday season. Who knows, WaW Wii started advertising later on... maybe EA will wise up and advertise this title as well. It's not too late.
Looking forward to playing it... and Darkside Chronicles. 
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
