[QUOTE="Madmangamer364"]
Not a single game on that list is what would be widely considered a "must-have" game, and I'd be willing to wager that the majority of those games wouldn't do much better on any other console.
Games don't have to be "must-have's" to sell well, if that was the case there would be five successes per generation and the industry would be dead. Considering those kinds of games ARE doing better elsewhere, I don't see what you're basing that assumption off of.
I never said a game HAVE to be a 'must-have' game in order to sell well, but to make a valid point here, it takes more than a list of games that didn't sell well and just run away with it thinking that the argument is won, especially when it's as subjective as this one. The truth is that the nature of this industry means that anything less than a "must-have" game is subject to not meeting expectations, and none of those games can deem itself as that or even a "big" game in a lot of cases. Futhermore, where on the other systems are you seeing Dawn of Discovery, A Boy and His Blob, Madworld, or even Dead Space: Extraction as a retail game, let alone seeing them sell well? Likewise, look at a game like the first No More Heroes, and you'll discover that that game didn't do any better with its HD remake than it did with the Wii version. Most of the games you've listed are either parts of genres or game types that have more successful brands or are games that simply aren't very popular to begin with on the other consoles. That's why I highly doubt any of the games you mentioned would do any better.
The Wii isn't an anomoly when it comes to game sales, but rather a system that boasts a consumer base that is now considered 'different', which as a result, proves to be a more challenging system to develop appealing titles on. 15-20 years ago, the Wii's target demographic wouldn't be considered so difficult to attract, but with the majority of high profile non-Nintendo titles being games that target a very specific group of gamers, the Wii doesn't offer such the luxury of being a system where the same kind of games can consistently become million-sellers. What's more is that I don't think many of the Wii's most successful games would be quite as successful on other platforms, so the system shouldn't be knocked for having games that don't fit the mold of its audience not selling well. That's like putting down fans of romance movies for not buying a crude R-rated action flick.
But the market IS THERE and has been proven in the titles that actually got marketing and publicity. Monster Hunter Tri, Goldeneye 007, Epic Mickey, Black Ops, De Blob 1, No More Heroes, Force Unleashed 2 (sold almost as well as the HD counterparts), and several others are there showing that there are those who buy these kinds of games. The problem is that the primary Wii audience (aka the kinds that dont search game forums for good games) doesn't know about these sorts of games unless they are explicitly told about it, and the numbers back that up.
The funny thing about your remark here is that I agree with part of it. If you actually market a game, you may have success with it. This much I've been saying for years now. :P That aside, I think it's still safe to say that the Wii market does consist of a broader group of target consumers. And quite honestly, it should only be considered a negative if you're making the same kind of games all of time targeted at a narrow demographic *hinthint*. That doesn't mean that you can't sell a high-profile FPS on the system and see positive results, but those who have taken such a route expecting similar results to what they would get on the HD systems have been disappointed, to say the least. Even the likes of Monster Hunter Tri and Epic Mickey didn't have explosive sales, despite the pre-release exposure those games received, and they pale in comparison to to the top selling titles on the Wii. Furthermore, you're just not going to see big-name franchises like Madden or Call of Duty have the same success on the Wii as you would elsewhere. Once again, it has nothing to do with the market not existing at all, but rather that market not being even close to the dominant focal point of the Wii's success, which is totally contrary to what the industry has expected the past couple of gens or so.
When it comes to the whole "not all good games sell and some bad games sell well" arguement, I think that's something most people that keep tabs on the industry would agree with. However, the danger of this debate is that the level of subjectivity is simply too great to get a definite and true conclusion out of the matter. Ultimately, we all have "bad games" that we may enjoy and "good games" that we may never want to experience... or at least "good" and "bad" in the eyes of the industry, which is not the 'be all end all' authority of what defines a good and bad game. What can be said about the Wii is that most of its high-profile games have not only been successful, but successful beyond anyone's expectations, such as the Wii Fit games and New Super Mario Bros. Wii. Obviously, there's something about those games that stand out to the average consumer, and while many can say it's quality, I doubt that even that is the only defining factor.
This I completely agree with as it goes back to my previous point, these games are high-profile. Back in the SNES days I heard how great DKC2 was through word of mouth and advertising, and this is basically how the general Wii audience is finding games now. They see Wii Fit plastered on walmart banners, and new super mario brothers displayed all over game cases, and they sold well. The same thing with a new IP like Epic Mickey, it was plastered everywhere and advertised, and it sold millions. Again, the market is there, they just have to be explicitly told about the good games because they dont seem to find them on their own.
Sure, high profile games have a chance of selling better, but isn't that the case with any product, let alone video game and video game system? If that's the case, what exactly about the Wii is an anomoly? If anything, the Wii has proven that there is room to be a little "unconventional" when it comes to making successful games in the current video game industry. Wii Fit, Wii branding aside, wasn't something that was guarnteed to be a hit, and yet, it managed to outshine even the biggest of HD multiplat games at the end of the day. Even with its marketing, that was clearly something unforseen. New Super Mario Bros. had the obvious appeal of being a Mario game, but the thoughts of a 2D platformer with multiplayer that didn't feature online play being one of the fastest selling games ever? Had you said that prior to the Wii's launch, most experts would have wanted you to have been 'checked out'. And even still, you have titles Just Dance and Carnival Games, despite not being the most well-respected titles in this industry, finding a more-than-respectable commercial niche on the Wii that they probably would have never found elsewhere. Even without the big names to back something up, you ultimately need to discover what you're trying to appeal to and do so to the best of your ability. Only a handful of Wii games truly accomplished this feat, but the results were usually extraordinary.
Simply put, publishers and developers didn't do a good enough job in identifying what should have big Wii games. To make matters worse, you had developers like HVS insisting that making the same games that were commonplace on the HD consoles was the way to go, even in the face the games that became mega-hits on the Wii that didn't touch the very genres or styles they were making games for. The sad thing about it is that developers wanted to follow the examples of companies like HVS more than they wanted to make the next breakthrough hit following the blueprints Nintendo had already made. That's not the Wii's fault, nor should that be considered and anomoly of any sort, unless you want to look at developers when it comes to try to search for a userbase that's not already obviously there when make a game for a particular system.
Most of the games I listed in my previous post were completely unique games made especially for the Wii, using unique controls or art styles to appeal to the general Wii audience, yet they didn't sell. I'm not sure what other games you're even talking about with following HVS, because the few games that have been ported from the HD twins have done well either critically or commercially.
You're trying to tell me that a game like Madworld was made to appeal to the average Wii owner? The same Wii owners that bought Mario Kart by the truckload? Most of the Wii games you mentioned were an attempt NOT to follow the mold that was set by the console's success, and even in spite of the "uniqueness" of those games, they didn't take full advantage of the Wii system nor those who actually own the system. As time went on, developers because less interested in developing top-tier Wii games and more interested in just finding out if the Wii had a large enough 'mature' audience to adopt the same direction that was so easy to support (and easily supported) elsewhere, regardless whether or not those games took full advantage of the Wii's abilities or not. When publishers/developers are using games like 'The Conduit' to gauge whether or not they should support the system (and there were quite a few that claimed to do so at the time), something is clearly wrong, especially when the likes of games like Super Mario Galaxy are there and developers aren't inspired to make games of that level of quality and appeal at all.
WreckEm711
alot of 3rd party games sell really well on the Wii though :?
Log in to comment