Topic: Game Journalism

[Stratos]

I try to reinforce positive behavior in 3rd parties by buying good 3rd party games. I hope that enough people do that so the publishers are encouraged to do better. Sega has made a profit from their core titles they say and EA seems to be getting the hint about the COD titles considering Modern Warfare Reflex is the most awesome FPS I've played on the Wii to date. Each title is getting better and better. No More Heroes 2 is a testament to devs paying attention to the titles we support.

[Deguello]

This thread feels like negative reinforcement. I see a lot of complaining and finger pointing at the mistakes and bad decisions of third-parties, but it seems like whenever they do something right, it is either ignored, or passed off as something nobody wanted, or deemed unacceptable because of other games the company released.

The issue really isn't whether or not you or I think they are heading in the right direction.  It's low-info gamers and customers that don't have time to  or just don't want to research games, from, say, Activision because they know they're garbage, or they just look like garbage on the shelf.  The skittishness of buyers for their serious efforts is also due in part to their previous bad games.  Would you buy a car from a guy who sold you a lemon, twice?

And just because you made one good game, doesn't mean all past sins are erased, just like acing the final test will never pass you in a class where you failed all the other tests and never did any homework.

This paints the audience as being impossible to please, which gives no incentive for third-parties to try harder.

It's one of those things where they probably should have tried harder in the first place.  When you tick off a customer in any industry or commercial enterprise, you are going to have to work that much harder just so you can get his attention again.  You can't go from bad to adequate and expect people to line up for it.  Heck just look at the amount of criticism for games Nintendo has to put up with, and these are the guys who try the hardest.  Did they think their rail shooter spinoff wasn't going under the same scrutiny?

What they need is encouragement.

What they need is to make better games.  They want a group therapy session after making a bad game?  Are they having problems with their self-esteem?  Seriously?

Like it or not, the Wii is something completely different marketed towards a different audience, something that third-parties simply aren't used to.

Which audience would that be? (hint: not casuals, their games aimed at them didn't sell.)  How come Nintendo's regular games do alright?  Where is this magical casual audience that was assuredly there?

This thread is like Gordon Ramsay telling a guy to his face why his cooking is bad and why nobody wants to come into the restaurant, and all he hears in return is "You're making me feel negative, and you're hurting my self-esteem."  What the hell would anybody say to that?  Do they want a cookie?  I heard a lot about the "pussification" of games and gamers recently, but I never thought it would come to the "pussification" of entire game companies.  Jeez Louise!

EDIT: I will say that I do appreciate them trying harder, and do intend to buy their better efforts (I do have quite a number of third party games, after all.)  But when they cop that whiny attitude about their own self-applied plight or when they blame everybody else at the first sign of failure or trouble, it really saps any sympathy I might have for them.

[Kairon]

I commend all the hardcore gamers who aren't letting internet vitriol ruin their ability to enjoy great games.

However, as pointed out before, this Wall isn't so much affecting us, the small contingent of proactive and educated gamers, it's affecting the vastly larger audience of non-crazy-internet-researching game players. THAT's the mass audience of Wii owners that third parties need to reach out to and capture, and that's the audience that Nintendo has obviously had good relationships with seeing the continueing evergeeen sales of their titles, even two+ year old ones.

[Mop it up]

And just because you made one good game, doesn't mean all past sins are erased

That is true. However, just because they've made bad games doesn't mean the good ones should be overlooked or passed on or deemed "not enough" which is the general tone I get from this thread. I also feel as if certain games are being deemed bad just because they do not appeal to most of the people who frequent this website. I do agree third-parties at this point could be putting in more effort, but where I disagree is the method of handling the problem.

It's one of those things where they probably should have tried harder in the first place.

This is one point I don't understand. Looking at this from a business perspective, would it have been such a wise decision to support the Wii from day one? The Wii has a completely different development architecture, is marketed at an expended audience, and is a successor to a low-selling, last place console. What company in their right mind would invest billions into a venue when the results were completely unknown? Now, maybe, MAYBE, after the first 12-24 months and it become apparent that the Wii was a hit, perhaps some third parties could have tried giving it some of their franchise games to see how they sell. But I can still see how this could be viewed as risky, as the market is still kind of an unknown. So it makes sense that they stick with the "safe" development for XBox 360 and PS3 because that's what they are used to and their games do have a higher chance of selling.

What they need is to make better games.

I'm afraid I read this statement as "What they need is to make games that appeal to me and my ilk."

Which audience would that be? (hint: not casuals, their games aimed at them didn't sell.)  How come Nintendo's regular games do alright?  Where is this magical casual audience that was assuredly there?

The audience? Everyone. Mostly though, the Wii marketing focused on people who have either never played games, or never had much of an interest before. However, I don't think that this is a new trend for Nintendo. I feel they have always been this way. Ever since their inception, Nintendo has released lots of relatively simple games aimed at a wide audience, of people from all age groups. With the Wii, Nintendo has finally found the massive success that they've been pursuing ever since the NES.

Nintendo has always done things differently and that's why they've always had trouble courting third-parties.

But when they cop that whiny attitude about their own self-applied plight or when they blame everybody else at the first sign of failure or trouble, it really saps any sympathy I might have for them.

I do agree that third-parties could have handled this situation better than what we've seen. Unfortunately, what they may need is a helping hand rather than a brigade of people pointing out every little fault. When someone from a foreign country is trying to learn English, would you point out every little spelling and grammar mistake and tell them they suck and aren't putting in effort, or would you commend them on what they got right and tell them you'd like to see some improvements? Which method is more encouraging?

[Kairon]

I think there's an essential difference between some of Nintendo's games.... I mean, look at Metroid Prime 3 and Mario Kart. Third Parties should be trying to capture and earn the trust of all the people who bought Mario Kart, but DIDN'T buy Metroid Prime.... I mean, I'm not saying a Mario kart clone, those are tough to do, but some different games that appeal to that same segment of at least, what, 18 million gamers?

[Mop it up]

Do any third-parties know how to do that, though? Is that a type of game that they have experience creating, or would want to play themselves? I think what many third-parties need is time to adjust to the Wii, and also incentive. People need to give them both.

[Kairon]

Do any third-parties know how to do that, though? Is that a type of game that they have experience creating, or would want to play themselves? I think what many third-parties need is time to adjust to the Wii, and also incentive. People need to give them both.

I think that's reasonable. The Wii changes up so much conventional wisdom, so that's not unexpected.

Though there are, what, 56 different third party titles that have shipped a million units on the Wii worldwide? You'd have to figure that they're getting some idea by now of what things matter to gamers.

[Mop it up]

I thought of another question. Do the people who own Mario Kart Wii WANT another game of a similar type?

Using myself as an example, having that one game is enough for me, I have no real desire for another racing game. That's the reason why I passed up ExciteBots when it was released, and didn't buy it until I found it on sale. It actually stayed sealed for about a month before I played it, and now that I'm done with it, I've gone right back to Mario Kart.

[Kairon]

Yeah, I don't think a direct Mario Kart clone is the way to go. But I'd like to think that you're looking at a demographic 18 million strong (people who bought Mario kart, but not metroid Prime) who show a clear interest in games (Mario Kart is a real game, thank you very much), so the question is, how do you address their needs?

[Mop it up]

That's a tough question. ExciteBots is a vastly different type of racing game than Mario Kart and I still wasn't interested enough to buy it at full retail price. Are you asking if third-parties can create a game which appeals to these people that isn't a racing game? Because if that's the case, I have no idea what kind of associations to make in order to determine what kind of games everyone who purchased Mario Kart and not a game like Metroid Prime would like (I have Metroid Prime 3 so I guess I don't fit into this demographic...). I'm sure third-parties have asked similar questions and had real trouble coming up with answers.

[Kairon]

That's a fair criticism, but I think it's at least a starting point. It's funny, we never had the same problems on the PS2 when that vast demographic was being served.

[UncleBob]

The PS2 didn't have a super-strong first party that all the third parties felt they couldn't compete against.

[Deguello]

That is true. However, just because they've made bad games doesn't mean the good ones should be overlooked or passed on or deemed "not enough" which is the general tone I get from this thread.

Nobody is saying that you should overlook them, just why they are being overlooked.  Don't know where you got the idea that this thread's original intent was a call to boycott third parties.

Looking at this from a business perspective, would it have been such a wise decision to support the Wii from day one?

Yes it would have, obviously.  I think from seeing that massive line at E3 2006 could have probably tipped them off that it was going to be a big hit and should have seen the potential.  But especially after it rocketed to the top in 2007 and basically began to outpace everybody they should have changed their entire approach.  They needed to have the kind of foresight to read trends.  But instead, they read wrong on a "casual boom," and read wrong on Wii made a bunch of garbage, and more's the pity.

I'm afraid I read this statement as "What they need is to make games that appeal to me and my ilk."

No.  Most of their games get horrible reviews AND sell basically nothing despite it.  Commercial and critical failures = bad games, period.  They needed to have made better ones, and marketed them way better.

The audience? Everyone.

So the "completely different audience" the Wii is aimed at is "everyone?"  And all those casual games failed, right?  So everyone hates casual games right?  Just looking at the games Nintendo has published, I'm just not seeing all this difference.  Sure the Wii itself might have been marketed initially, through commercials, showing off the new motion controller and showing people having fun and all that, but that doesn't mean that's the entire userbase.  Which ones did most of the third parties focus on though?  The non-existant "Casual Market."  And they were cranking out some 20 games a year, not realizing these games were killing their reputation and flooding the market.  Only a few sold well in the early years, and virtually none sold well at all in 2009.  Any that reached a modicum of success were squarely in the $20-$30 impulse range. 

They've treated this "new audience" (i.e. everybody) like idiots thinking they'd buy all this cheap crap.  When it all failed, the cocky attitude turns to sourness at people who proved smarter than they thought.

Unfortunately, what they may need is a helping hand rather than a brigade of people pointing out every little fault.

All the constructive criticism was given for years prior to this.  When they started pointing fingers at others is when the constructive criticism stops.  You can only tolerate so much.

When someone from a foreign country is trying to learn English, would you point out every little spelling and grammar mistake and tell them they suck and aren't putting in effort, or would you commend them on what they got right and tell them you'd like to see some improvements? Which method is more encouraging?

All have tried the latter.  It didn't take, they didn't improve, and when they fail again, they blame the teacher, the language, the country, etc.  These walls are simply showing that their mistakes are their mistakes, not anybody else's. 

The constructive criticism is to make better games, market them better, and stop acting like you know what the "Wii audience" wants, when it's pretty clear that they don't.  Fans have been saying that here.  Customers have been indirectly saying it by not buying their shovelware.  Besides, nobody is "blasting" third parties by simply posting their entire libraries and noticing that most are pretty bad and commercial failures to boot.  It's just a mirror to the truth, what your average customer sees when he looks at a Wii game rack.  He apparently thinks most third party games are crappy too.

[Invincible Donkey Kong]

Third parties need to step it up considerably in quality if they want to have a competitive edge against our own games.  We aren't going to "feel sorry" for their lack of effort and step down our own quality just to appease their weak selves.  If you **** in the pot then it's only right you're stuck eating it. 

[Mop it up]

Nobody is saying that you should overlook them, just why they are being overlooked.  Don't know where you got the idea that this thread's original intent was a call to boycott third parties.

I try to look at things in a positive way, and there's no way this thread is positive. The opening line contains the phrase "So here's some fresh, steaming negativity."

I think from seeing that massive line at E3 2006 could have probably tipped them off that it was going to be a big hit and should have seen the potential. But especially after it rocketed to the top in 2007 and basically began to outpace everybody they should have changed their entire approach.  They needed to have the kind of foresight to read trends.  But instead, they read wrong on a "casual boom," and read wrong on Wii made a bunch of garbage, and more's the pity.

Would have been a big hit with whom? Nintendo talked about blue ocean this and non-gaming that, I don't see where third-parties would have gotten an indication that their existing franchise games would sell on Wii. Most of the types of games Nintendo creates are pretty different than what third-parties produce, and the Wii hardware is vastly different than other systems that third-parties are used to. The ones who tried emulating certain popular Nintendo games like Wii Sports and Nintendogs didn't work out to well because those people probably didn't want to create those games, or at least didn't understand what people look for in those games. Sticking with what they know (XBox360 and PS3 development) seemed like the best course of action for them, and I don't blame them. I'm not so sure third-parties would have reached the Wii audience if they tried, but that's just me.

So the "completely different audience" the Wii is aimed at is "everyone?"  And all those casual games failed, right?  So everyone hates casual games right?  Just looking at the games Nintendo has published, I'm just not seeing all this difference.  Sure the Wii itself might have been marketed initially, through commercials, showing off the new motion controller and showing people having fun and all that, but that doesn't mean that's the entire userbase.  Which ones did most of the third parties focus on though?  The non-existant "Casual Market."

I don't see much evidence of a non-existent "casual" market when Nintendo's top-sellers are things like Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and their traditional relatively simple games like Mario Kart Wii and New Super Mario Brothers Wii which I would argue have always been aimed at the "casual" market (including many of Nintendo's other franchises). I think you may be underestimating the knowledge of the "casual" market. If those third-party games are bad, the casuals stopped buying them, and stuck with Nintendo because they know their games are quality.

I'm sure we could debate over exactly who makes up the majority of the Wii audience, and there's probably no way to know for sure. Myself, I think it is pretty different than the people who own an XBox 360 and PS3, and the typical games that third-parties release on those systems would find lessor sales on Wii. See Call of Duty as an example.

The constructive criticism is to make better games, market them better, and stop acting like you know what the "Wii audience" wants, when it's pretty clear that they don't.

I agree with this. However, personally, and unfortunately, I believe it will take longer than three years. I also think the industry could use some fresh faces, the types of people who enjoy games like Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Just Dance, and all of those such games, and would actually WANT to create such games. We might not see much change without this, as the Wii doesn't seem to be a platform that third-parties want to develop games for. Oh well, it could be their loss more than ours, I should think.

[UncleBob]

Can someone define "casual" to me?

Because, as someone who sells video games, I can say people of all creeds have purchased NSMBWii.  I've spoken with all kinds of gamers (and non-gamers) that have bought it, played it and loved it.

To say NSMBWii is a "casual" title is crazy.  It's just a great game that *anyone* can love.

Why can't third parties come up with something like this?  Instead of spending 10x$, 10xTime, and 10xPeople making 10 games of lesser quality that only sell a small amount, why not take all that time, money and effort and create a great game that appeals to everyone and sells crap tons in the process?

Now, I don't expect third parties to churn out NSMBWii-level games non-stop (my wallet couldn't handle it!) but less focus on quantity and more focus on quality.

[Mop it up]

Honestly, I don't know what a "casual" game is. I actually took it to mean a game which just about anybody can play and enjoy. These are the kinds of games that Nintendo creates, as they always have. Third-parties tend to create games for the "hardcore" gaming mood, ones that you have to invest a lot of time into to get the most out of it, and where experience with games makes it easier to play. For someone who's never played a game before, I wouldn't pop in Halo 3, MGS4, GTA4, etc., and hand them a controller.

[Ymeegod]

"No.  Most of their games get horrible reviews AND sell basically nothing despite it.  Commercial and critical failures = bad games, period.  They needed to have made better ones, and marketed them way better."

That's not the case with the WII---and that's the main problem.  Games like Ubisoft's Just Dance got crap for reviews yet it's their best selling game.  Vrs No More Heroes 2 (88 avg score) which didn't even sell 40K during it's launch week.  Hardcore games simply don't sell, even Big N own hardcore games haven't done much as someone pointed out Excite series, FE, or the BW.  Even last gen on the GC, Big N couldn't push alot of it's hardcore games out the door, ED anyhow or what about Geist?

What's selling besides Mario?  Music games or fitness ones and that's just about it.

[Peachylala]

That's not the case with the WII---and that's the main problem.  Games like Ubisoft's Just Dance got crap for reviews yet it's their best selling game.  Vrs No More Heroes 2 (88 avg score) which didn't even sell 40K during it's launch week.  Hardcore games simply don't sell, even Big N own hardcore games haven't done much as someone pointed out Excite series, FE, or the BW.  Even last gen on the GC, Big N couldn't push alot of it's hardcore games out the door, ED anyhow or what about Geist?

Here's the problem with what you posted, those games are no where near close to the triple A quality that Nintendo's top studios make. To me, these are good but not great games, but Geist? Seriously? That game was utter failure. ED's hype basically killed it, along with the lack of advertising. (promised a 60+ hour game, lasted fifteen tops)

What's selling besides Mario?  Music games or fitness ones and that's just about it.

Pro's Nintendo Wall of Fame says hi.

[Ymeegod]

Might want to take a better look at nintendo's wall because alot of those games didnt break 1/2 million mark.  ED was rated at 90ish, Geist was rated 80ish which is higher that any of the Fits, Sports, or Mario knockoff games yet they didn't sell even though it was the same publisher. 

[KDR_11k]

This thread is like Gordon Ramsay telling a guy to his face why his cooking is bad and why nobody wants to come into the restaurant, and all he hears in return is "You're making me feel negative, and you're hurting my self-esteem."

Human psychology makes just flaming somebody an ineffective way of having them actually change but unlike Mr so-called Ramsay we're talking about gigantic multinational megacorps, not individuals.

[Stratos]

"No.  Most of their games get horrible reviews AND sell basically nothing despite it.  Commercial and critical failures = bad games, period.  They needed to have made better ones, and marketed them way better."

That's not the case with the WII---and that's the main problem.  Games like Ubisoft's Just Dance got crap for reviews yet it's their best selling game.  Vrs No More Heroes 2 (88 avg score) which didn't even sell 40K during it's launch week.  Hardcore games simply don't sell, even Big N own hardcore games haven't done much as someone pointed out Excite series, FE, or the BW.  Even last gen on the GC, Big N couldn't push alot of it's hardcore games out the door, ED anyhow or what about Geist?

What's selling besides Mario?  Music games or fitness ones and that's just about it.

Most people do not check review sites for scores before buying a game. A lot of the big sellers sell by word of mouth. Legit word of mouth, mind you, like the people who talk in their MOPS group or at school. Forum word of mouth is much weaker I would argue. So if No More Heroes 2 has a lot of internet buzz but no one is talking about it at work or school or at your other activities then it's not going to get momentum.

Also, Wii is slow burn. So NMH2 will perform fine in the long run.

[Deguello]

That's not the case with the WII---and that's the main problem.  Games like Ubisoft's Just Dance got crap for reviews yet it's their best selling game.  Vrs No More Heroes 2 (88 avg score) which didn't even sell 40K during it's launch week.

I'm starting to agree with BlacknMild.  There's only so many times you can repeat the point of the thread before you're sure people who don't get it are ignoring you on purpose.  I meant better gameS (plural) in the sense of the majority of their schlock.  Sure No More Heroes 2 got good reviews.  But their reputations for making games like that was tarnished by Cook Wars and and Tely Addicts and Cosmic Family that most customers rebuffed.  That's the point.

Besides I wasn't even talking about that game, I was responding to Mop saying that a lot of these games just "weren't for me" when it's pretty clear that, since they were commercial failures as well as critical failures, that meant THOSE games were bad games.  And since most of those were the games they published for years, it DOES have an effect on word of mouth for that company.  Cue No More Heroes selling poorly, because regular consumers think UBISoft makes a bunch of crap, which they do.

Might want to take a better look at nintendo's wall because alot of those games didnt break 1/2 million mark.  ED was rated at 90ish, Geist was rated 80ish which is higher that any of the Fits, Sports, or Mario knockoff games yet they didn't sell even though it was the same publisher.

Amazingly, half a million is still more than all these casual third party disasters.  And why is Mario discounted so flippantly, as if he hasn't been in a string of high quality games since the beginning of time?  Is he "casual" now?  How can Zelda sell 5+ million on Wii?  What about Smash Brothers' 9 million?  Is that a "Mario" game because he's in it? 

Just Dance is performing well because it's a budget title in a familiar genre for Wii owners, because DDR has been somewhat of a small success on the Wii.  But if you think this is "the answer" for third parties, you are making the same mistake they did all those years ago, when they thought "casual games" were the answer.  It's still not out-performing Nintendo's marquee titles.  So if UBISoft cranks out a sequel in the next 4 months they are going to wonder where the "fickle" Wii audience went, the ones who bought a budget title during Christmas.

[KDR_11k]

That's not the case with the WII---and that's the main problem.  Games like Ubisoft's Just Dance got crap for reviews yet it's their best selling game.

Do crap reviews really mean something? These reviews are often written for the "hardcore" audience. What, the HC don't like Just Dance? No ****, they aren't the ones buying it by the million either. Most if not all game review sites are focused on hardcore gamers who want to play games in marathon sessions and their scores are meaningless to the expanded audience. Look at Wii Sports, review average around 75 but it's a fucking killer app if there ever was one. It was so good that people bought the system over it! It's not because these people are easily impressed either or those 95+% average titles on earlier or competing consoles would have impressed them even more.

Look at what these "casual" gamers say AFTER buying the game. You know what they're saying about Just Dance? They love it! Averages 4.5/5 stars after over 40 reviews with almost none below 4 stars! Want to see real shovelware? Try Big League Sports, review average 1 star after 6 reviews with only one giving 2 stars.


EDIT: Those are user reviews on Amazon

[ShyGuy]

I saw Spyborgs for $10 at Gamestop yesterday and I was tempted to get it.