manueldelalas
Time Traveler
TheHeretic said:
Yes, only last year best selling game.
It's not even the best selling game this generation. That's Wii Play for you.
And Wii Fit and Mario Kart Wii will catch it soon if they haven't passed it yet.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official Sept 2008 NPD Results
- Thread starter sonycowboy
- Start date
Yes, only last year best selling game.
It's not even the best selling game this generation. That's Wii Play for you.
And Wii Fit and Mario Kart Wii will catch it soon if they haven't passed it yet.
TheHeretic said:
This is getting very specific now: arguing for single games (or movies) is a fairly broad step away from entire libraries. Using your analogy, it would be more similar to someone who preferred action movies belittling someone who prefers romance. From the perspective of someone who loves action but dislikes romance, obviously the action movie genre is superior to the romantic one, but that doesn't make it objectively better. Similarly, someone who prefers a platform tilted heavily towards the 16-30 year old male demographic (like the Xbox 360) is going to prefer that system, while platforms tilted in other directions would be preferred by other demographics.
Opiate said:
First, excluding a significant gaming group as applying to the Wii automatically makes your attempts at verbiage change incorrect.
With that out of the way, KISS.
Also, the labels apply to the games, not the people playing them. I have put 70+ clocked hours into Fire Emblem Wii (which as anyone who plays Fire Emblem knows translates to 100+ real hours), and really like Wii Fit, Wii Sports, and Wii Play. I am not a kid, old (by your definition), or a woman. I am also not alone. 
The Faceless Master
Member
NeoGAF > Discussions > Gaming Discussion > Official Sept 2008 NPD ResultsTheHeretic said:
Reply to Thread
This is a silly debate.
Obviously Software sells Hardware. A person isn't going to go out and buy a piece of hardware that just sits there and does nothing. They're going to buy it because it does something that interests and/or amuses them, and that is usually a case of Software. People aren't buying Wiis because it's fun to swing their arms around wildly for no good reason, they're buying Wiis because it's fun to swing their arms around wildly and see the software respond in a way that's somewhat realistic.
Obviously Hardware sells Software. A person who owns a Wii isn't going to play Wii Sports, decide they're done and just toss the $250 investment they just made (with the exception of the hardest of hardcore gamers). They're going to look for another experience to provide them with fun using the hardware they already have. Software for hardware they have is going to generally take precedence over getting brand new hardware and making another big investment, then adding software on to that.
To say that one position is ridiculous and the other is pure fact is illogical. Both of them are factually true. If you want to argue, the argument is which has the greater affect, software on hardware sales, or hardware on software sales.
Obviously Software sells Hardware. A person isn't going to go out and buy a piece of hardware that just sits there and does nothing. They're going to buy it because it does something that interests and/or amuses them, and that is usually a case of Software. People aren't buying Wiis because it's fun to swing their arms around wildly for no good reason, they're buying Wiis because it's fun to swing their arms around wildly and see the software respond in a way that's somewhat realistic.
Obviously Hardware sells Software. A person who owns a Wii isn't going to play Wii Sports, decide they're done and just toss the $250 investment they just made (with the exception of the hardest of hardcore gamers). They're going to look for another experience to provide them with fun using the hardware they already have. Software for hardware they have is going to generally take precedence over getting brand new hardware and making another big investment, then adding software on to that.
To say that one position is ridiculous and the other is pure fact is illogical. Both of them are factually true. If you want to argue, the argument is which has the greater affect, software on hardware sales, or hardware on software sales.
TheHeretic
Banned
Opiate said:
Because this isn't a difference of genre. The storytelling, production values and gameplay are all superior in these "core" games. The Wii's library has great games in it, but not as many as the 360. You can write it off as a difference in taste, but you can use that argument to justify any form of media. There is always an objective framework to resort to, and thats the review system.
kame-sennin
Member
TheHeretic said:
If you don't factor in marketing and general appeal, than yes, the Wii audience's buying habits make no sense. Bloom blox had terrible character designs and a poorly conceived marketing campaign. Zak and Wiki just had no marketing. And Metroid Prime 3 is a good example of the facts and you not getting along. MP3 is another long tail game (or long legs, in gaf vernacular). I believe it has passed MP2, and it may pass MP1 by the end of the generation. I will however concede that the 360 audience is far more consistent.
TheHeretic said:
So the Wii is successful because people like the technology it uses, but are uninterested in any actual applications of said technology in the software so far released?
TheHeretic said:
Core games are languishing in Japan, and the consoles that feature core games are languishing in NA - which was my point. Meanwhile, the consoles with libraries that target the expanded audience are selling like gangbusters. Weird. Furthermore, many expanded audience games are on track to outsell any and all of the HD games on individual platforms (if they haven't already) and may possibly outsell their combined platform sales.
TheHeretic said:
Like what? What factors? What factors are people using to pick out software playing machines besides software?
TheHeretic said:
So people buy the console because it looks pretty? People by the console because they like motion controls, but they aren't interested in actually controlling software with motion?
???
TheHeretic
Banned
kame-sennin said:
We aren't on the same page, obviously. People buy a Wii, then buy software to go along with it (obviously). The question is whats motivating people to buy Wii's in the first place, and many here are claiming its the software library. I'm putting forward that people are buying them because of the motion controls, aesthetic, presence in the media, being SD as opposed to HD, and good price point. Any games they subsequently buy will have been a reaction from buying the Wii. Its not an all or nothing explanation (there are obviously people who buy Wii's for Nintendos games) but I think a large volume of people are more interested in the idea of owning a Wii more than the specifics of a software library.
donny2112 said:
But I've already stated that's not what I'm doing. Just as you admit the Wii has a lot of "casual" games but also has "core" games, I'm saying the Wii has a virtual lock on women, children and the elderly, but also has males, age 16-30.
With that out of the way, KISS.
I had considered this, but I don't think it applies. It would apply if the terms "core" and "casual" had were well understood and clearly denoted, but they're not. Many arguments about Wii and "core" games break down rapidly as people insist that Madden is a core game, or Mario isn't now but it used to be, etc. etc. I would argue that 6-7 clear and well defined labels are in fact simpler than 2 labels with nebulous and controversial definitions.
Which seems to reinforce my point, not detract from it. Surely as sales agers we're more interested in who than what?
I have put 70+ clocked hours into Fire Emblem Wii (which as anyone who plays Fire Emblem knows translates to 100+ real hours), and really like Wii Fit, Wii Sports, and Wii Play. I am not a kid, old (by your definition), or a woman. I am also not alone.
This really needs to be stressed, Donny: I am not excluding 16-30 year old males from liking the Wii or enjoying Wii Fit. These are general trends, and demographic breakdowns are inherenly lacking absolutes. Golf, for example, is a sport that is unquestionably dominated by middle aged white men. As a rather ardent fan of the sport, every demographic breakdown I've ever seen tilts heavily in that direction (As in, more than 66% of all players are men ages 30-55 and are caucasian). That doesn't mean that I can't play, even though I'm not part of that demographic. It doesn't make my choice bad any more than it's bad to like a "casual" game even if I'm a "core" gamer.
Similarly, I would state that Wii Fit tilts much more heavily towards the female, age 40+ demographic than nearly any other video games available on consoles today -- in this case, I have no concrete data to support this, but I'll assume you'll agree. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy it, or that you are effeminate for doing so, or anything of that nature. It's simply statistics.
It simply defines the general audience of the game, which is useful information for someone trying to analyze the video game industry. Surely it helps to know who is buying what?
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
The storytelling, production values are different in both documentaries and action movies. You would also do well to note that the special effects employed in action movies are far superior to both romances and documentaries.TheHeretic said:
They're aimed at different audiences with different experiences in mind for said audience. Just because a romance might have no special effects in it at all and a documentary might have neither special effects or storytelling doesn't de-legitimise either.
And no, the review system is far from objective. It was designed with a particular experience in mind and is based entirely on subjective experience as compared to similar products.
TheHeretic
Banned
viciouskillersquirrel said:
The review system is the most objective frame of reference we have. Comparing carnvial games to a documentary and gears ofwar to an action movie is really, really reaching.
kame-sennin
Member
justchris said:
To my knowledge, this is the first time this specific argument has been presented in this thread. It is interesting, but it still does not why the consumer bought the Wii in the first place. It only explains why they continue to buy software, which is fine. The question we are trying to answer is, why did the consumer originally buy the console?
kame-sennin
Member
Opiate said:
But if you stick to core and expanded - with the exception of former gamers for thing like Mega Man 9 and NSMB - the categories are pretty simple. Mario and Madden are clearly not expanded audience games.
TheHeretic said:
Replace Carnival Games with Wii Fit, and it's really no reach at all. And reviews are completely subjective. Further, game reviews are designed for the core audience.
TheHeretic said:
I don't think anyone would argue storytelling and production are superior in, say, Mario Party, when compared to Mass Effect. It's just apparent that most people don't care about storytelling or production value. I don't either, by the way -- there is something we disagree on. I think the best game I've ever played is Chess, and that has no story whatsoever and can be emulated on an Atari 2600 with ease. You apparently consider storytelling and production values important; others might prefer games that focus on social interaction or random action (for example, Mario Kart frequently rewards those in last place more than it does those in first. I do not like this, but it is clear that others prefer this aspect and enjoy the roller-coaster effect it produces).
In other words, you have a genre like minigames that focuses on social interaction and random behavior, against a genre like WRPG, which focuses on production values and storytelling. Some people prefer the former, some the latter.
While I think this has some merit -- I don't want to suggest that objectivity is completely meaningless -- again, I think you'll find that the video game review industry isn't nearly as well respected as its counterparts in the film, literature, culinary or other mediums, for a variety of reasons that would require an entirely new conversation taking up even more pages. Even on NeoGaf (a forum which would presumably be the core constituency of such critics) there is a great deal of distrust in game reviewers.
If you'd like to continue to discuss the merits of the video game review industry, I'd be happy to, but I'd prefer to do it by PM, simply because that's such a long conversation that it would clot this thread even further.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
I could compare Carnival Games to (say) childrens' movies, the "Jackass" genre or the movie musical if you like. The point stands. They're meant to provide different experiences and there's often little to no common ground or audience overlap on which we can make a useful comparison between the two.TheHeretic said:
The review system is not universal or objective by any means. Some base scores on pure entertainment value alone. Others use metrics such as graphics, sound or length to justify their final scores.
justchris said:
I did for the most part. Of course I bought it knowing I'd most likely ebay it later. Still..I bought it, played a bit of Wii sports, played through Zelda and RE4 then looked around and saw nothing of interest appearing (and the third parties not offering anything of interest either). So I sold it. That was back in May 07. Even now I don't see anything that has me keen on buying another Wii.
I did just rebuy a 360 after getting rid of mine a year or so ago. Part of it me being keen on Fable 2 and part of it being my frustration with games that appear on XBLA than don't appear on PSN.
TheHeretic
Banned
Opiate said:
You seem to be under the impression that I automatically label any minigame collection as a bad game. This isn't the case. Bad minigame collections are bad games. Bad WRPG's are bad games. We discern the difference via reviews.
There is such a thing as a AAA minigame collection, but there are more AAA first person shooters than AAA minigames.
We could have cleared this up many posts ago, I never picked up on this part of the argument.
Hcoregamer00
The 'H' stands for hentai.
Redd said:
Holy Crap, get out of my head, GET OUT OF MY HEAD.
Sushen said:
I feel the same way about the red rings, but I have a feeling that the Jasper will alleviate most of the design problems that plagued the console. At least I am hoping so because I don't intend to wait for another hardware revision.
TheHeretic said:
Look at the "party" genre on metacritic -- there are quite literally 0 games in the genre that have ever scored 90+ (and only one higher than 85).
So our choices are twofold: either no game ever produced in the genre has ever been extremely good, and the legions of people who have played and preferred these in the last two years are all wrong, or there is an inherent bias in the review system against these sorts of experiences. I would argue the latter is more likely.
Can you name a AAA minigame collection, please? I do not ask this sarcastically, as I'd honestly be curious.
Son.Ralph.Funk
Member
schuelma said:
So the Wii has caught N64 LTD in less than two years.
TheHeretic
Banned
Opiate said:
Why are there more terrible teen comedies than good ones? Because talented directors and actors would rather work in more respected genres. If you want to claim there is a bias in the system (and i'll concede there may be) the onus would be on you to show how scores didn't correlate to quality. The minigame collection genre is loaded with crap, make no mistake.
Opiate said:
Any number is greater than 0, so my statement doesn't demand that I actually name one. The Super Monkey Balls on the GC were great games, you could also make a case for the Warioware series. I don't know if those are AAA games because i'm not big on the genre, the point is I don't designate games as crap because they are party games.
Opiate said:
I think you're trying to say that the PS3/360 core audience is largely hardcore video game players who are typically males age 16-30, and the Wii's main advantage over that audience is its vastly stronger appeal to every other grouping to go along with the hardcore video game players who are typically males age 16-30. What comes out is this.
Opiate said:
With no mention of 16-30 year old males/hardcore video game players also having that opinion which can be easily inferred as you believing that 16-30 year old males/hardcore video game players would not have that opinion.
Opiate said:
Possibly. Those labels would not include "women," "kids," or "the elderly," however.
Opiate said:
First I've heard of it. It sometimes comes out in discussions, sure, but all the evidence is either suspiciously myopic or purely anecdotal. As such, it isn't a well-made foundation for discussion.
Opiate said:
By shifting the verbiage to people groups, it becomes very easy to appear to be pigeon-holing an audience unless you painfully repeat all possible groupings again and again. I'm willing to believe that you didn't intend to imply that 16-30 year olds weren't a significant part of the Wii audience, but it was sure easy to infer it from your phrasing.
Opiate said:
I do agree that it seems to be strongly female leaning, but I do not agree that it is typically 40+ women buying it. To state that it has more appeal with women 40+ than "nearly any other video games available on consoles today" is true, but it misses the more important picture that it is appealing to a lot more people groups than just women 40+.
Again, I find it more useful to look at the game instead of the presumed buyer.
Opiate said:
If we could know that with the certainty that we know the sales numbers, it'd be interesting to see. However, I haven't found that to be the case.
Lostconfused
Member
TheHeretic said:
Hey if the christian church and other faiths can do it, why not you right.
TheHeretic
Banned
Lostconfused said:
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
Lostconfused
Member
TheHeretic said:
TheHeretic said:
Translation: I think it exists, take my word for it.
TheHeretic
Banned
Lostconfused said:
I never claimed a AAA minigame collection exists, so that doesn't even make any sense. I said "there is such a thing as a AAA minigame collection", whether or not one has been made or not is irrelevant, one COULD be made.
TheHeretic said:
Although you worded that horribly that actually makes some sense. If you have a grading scale for something, and let's say you give one game a 7/10, then there must be some way to improve on the game so it earns an 8/10 or a 9/10 or even a 10/10. The fact that such a scale exists implies that it is possible to create a game that is perfect, otherwise there's no point in having that kind of grading scale.
Lostconfused
Member
Well again according to you one could be made, there is absolutely nothing that suggests that its actually true.TheHeretic said:
Also if we look at. "There is such a thing as a AAA minigame collection, but there are more AAA first person shooters than AAA minigames."
Thats another vague nebulous statement, there are more possible AAA FPS games that might ever exist than AAA miningame collections that might ever exist, how did that one come about?
Unless people just use it as a reference tool and not an exact quantified measurement of an objects worth. How would you rate yourself as a human being on a scale of 1 to 10? Its a bit silly to take these things so seriously.Gaborn said:
Edit: It also depends on what you mean by AAA.
Lostconfused said:
well, actually I'm probably between an 8 and a 9, but I've had quite a few people tell me I'm a 10 in bed... anyway though, I don't think it's that anyone's taking grading scales too seriously, just that it's possible to make a "perfect" mini game collection given time and effort put into it. If you gave a mini game collection the same budget as say Halo 3 do you really think it'd suck JUST because it was a mini game collection?
TheHeretic
Banned
Lostconfused said:
You are starting to sound like an overzealous first year philosophy student. Theres nothing vague about that statement because it is based on aggregate review scores: its a matter of math.
If you want to talk about the inherent problems with giving something a scale theres an appropriate outlet, its not here. A review score isn't a "measurement of an objects worth" at all, so in that appopriate outlet i'd start with actually knowing what a review is.
Lostconfused
Member
TheHeretic said:
I was talking about the replies that you made. Namely that its possible for a AAA minigame collection to exist even if one doesn't at the moment and that makes your previous statement true. At this point i am just interested in what you meant by AAA.
TheHeretic
Banned
Lostconfused said:
AAA = aggregate review score of over 90%.
Conversation should have ended there, becuase that is an incredibly dumb statement, and in his context is factually untrue. Fans of Epic movie are also fans of Airplane, and will tell you that one is clearly superior to another, so what is the damn point?TheHeretic said:
There is no proof, no basis that the wii is selling well for any other reason than it's library. The Heretic, Gitaroo and Wrika can bitch and cry all they want, but they can't disprove the facts.
TheHeretic said:
There are multiple definitions of AAA.
It was originally used to denote that a very high relative budget had been applied which some time ago usually meant a game ended up with a good score.
Some consumers (based on the above correlation) have unknowingly changed the definition to refer to aggregate review scores as you suggest.
So, a AAA minigame collection can exist under one definition, and not under another.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Regulus Tera said:
Now you're just being mean. He said "best selling game within a time period," and it's clear that he means September of last year.
TheHeretic
Banned
Mario said:
I know that, but mine is the only way you can come to a universal agreement about the issue. I'd call Uncharted an AAA game even though technically it scored like 89% on Gamerankings.
TheHeretic said:
I think this argument has some merit. However, I do want to point one thing out.
While it's difficult to know what is defined as a "teen comedy," I'd add that there are some movies that fit this (vague) description that do well: Knocked up, for example, was one of the top 5 rated films of last year, and other sophomoric comedies that year (such as Hot Fuzz and Juno), also received "universal acclaim," which starts at 80 for films but 90 for games. Which is by itself another indication of the game criticism's corruption: why do games start at 90 for "universal acclaim" while movies, television and music start at 80? Because so many games receive 80+ that it would look absurd otherwise. There are 27 movies released this year that have a metacritic score over 80. There are 153 games that reach that same milestone.
I point this disparity out (that is, the disparity between teen comedies and mini games) because there is a large difference between "not very often," as with teen comedies, and "never" as with mini games. As in, absolutely never, ever. 0 games in the mini-game genre have ever achieved "universal acclaim." I absolutely agree that a tendency for some genres to attract more top tier talent is possible, if not likely. But never? Literally 0 times in the history of video games? That seems much less plausible.
TheHeretic said:
While I agree that Uncharted is an AAA game I think saying 90% and above makes a game AAA is a bit misguided. Occasionally there are games that critics are very divided on and it's really a matter of liking a certain set of critics opinions more highly than the aggregate. I mean, not that I'm saying the aggregate is wrong necessarily, but an AAA game is something, to me at least, that is extremely enjoyable and engrossing to play, it's one of those "must own" experience for a decent number of people.
Therefore to me if there is 90% or above, OR if there is enough high scores and enough low scores that the game offsets to about 85% (That's a sign to me more that people have stylistic objections that lower scores, people that REALLY like the style of a game are going to give it higher scores than people that don't, No More Heros, 83 on MetaCritic, Boom Blox, 85, and Zack and Wiki, 87 all are examples of this phenomenon to me) to me that can qualify for an AAA game still.
mr_bishiuk
Banned
Crisco said:
"hanging on" is selling 110k a month (or 50%) less than your competitor now?
Your level of delusion is well... scary
Ash Sparrow
Banned
I cant wait till the PS3 enters my price range
Sony give me my PS3 slim cheap, it'll catch ya back ip in sales
Sony give me my PS3 slim cheap, it'll catch ya back ip in sales