I thought McShae's review was pretty good. He pointed out the problems with the game, but still praised it pretty heavily. Given what I've been hearing about the game's occasionally screwy AI, I'm more concerned about those 10/10 scores than McShae's 8.
@YearoftheSnake5 Exclusivity kills software sales, that's why. And developers are in the business of selling games, not hardware. The sole purpose of exclusives is to sell hardware. Nintendo's hardware isn't selling, even with the promise of exclusive IPs. If their hardware doesn't sell (and its not) the software doesn't sell. To keep their IPs relevant, people need to actually play them. And they can't if they're exclusive. The problem with Nintendo's approach is that the hardware isn't selling. If it weren't for that, your argument would be valid.
@Icepick_Trotter I don't think there's much room for debate on it. Developing games is expensive, and publishers need to sell to as many people as possible to make a profit. Exclusives only really benefit console makers. MS and Sony are basically asking devs to take a hit so that they can use the exclusives to sell hardware. It's not a good deal for developers in the long term. Look what happened with Mass Effect, for instance--there's huge pressure to go multi-platform for successful franchises. And if Naughty Dog had been able to sell Uncharted on the 360, they probably would have increased their sales 75%. That's a tough pill to swallow for developers.
Maybe there's a good argument in favor of exclusives beyond just selling consoles, but I haven't heard it yet.
I agree with this. Nintendo could triple or quadruple their software sales by releasing on other platforms, and they hold on to significant IPs that are languishing now on a console platform that just isn't selling in significant numbers. The Wii sold a lot of consoles, but not much software aside from first parties. Their current hardware simply isn't compelling--or it would sell.
I have no doubt Nintendo will hold their current course, because they're damned stubborn. They don't want to admit what everyone seems to know, now--that the WiiU has been a failure, and is unlikely to sell enough units to draw third-party investment. Their IP, despite being fantastic, just isn't enough to draw people to the WiiU. Hardware-wise, they don't seem to understand the current American market in games. They used up a lot of goodwill with casual and non-traditional gamers with the Wii. Many of those buyers aren't going to pick up another console. Ever. And they didn't buy games. But Nintendo will continue pretending that its hardware is good, when it's not.
I'm no fan of the franchise. Though I played the original on the PC, I played Halo 3 for the first level, never played multiplayer, and haven't played any of the other games. That said, I'm not sure what this means, other than that Halo fans seem to be splitting their hours between a few different games in the franchise. I'm not sure this foretells some sort of collapse in interest as some other critics of the franchise seem to be saying. Halo seems like any other franchise--after three games, people seem to want a more substantial shake up than what Halo 4 actually offered. And that probably won't come until the next-gen consoles arrive.
It's a shame. Sounds like a $30 game for me. I had high hopes, but wondered about the depth of the combo system, and about the nature of the world. Sounds very claustrophobic, and not what I was hoping for. I'll still probably pick it up--it may be my last new franchise this gen--but I'll probably hold off. Maybe it will do well enough to warrant a more expansive sequel, but somehow I doubt it. :/
@Gr3gSolidus @ernelson1976 @bledsoe45sbc @LindBergh2007 @Dannystaples14 That's because gamers as a general rule are entitled, spoiled brats that are impossible to please. At some level I feel bad for the PR people at Sony and MS. Because they have to deal with us.
ernelson1976's comments