Data Implies Wii U, Wii, and PS1 Had Worst Launch Games

[Sarah LeBoeuf]

Data Implies Wii U, Wii, and PS1 Had Worst Launch Games

A look at average console launch window review scores puts the GameCube on top.

How do you decide which console has the best launch games? You could get into the fanboy arguments that have kept the console wars going for decades, or you could, you know, do some math. Gamasutra [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/183560/Sizing_up_a_history_of_hardware_launch_review_scores.php#.UMuNK4WmAhc] decided on the latter approach when looking back at launch window games from 1995 to the present, averaging Metacritic and Gamerankings review scores to break down how each console delivered. The results are in the graph, listed from highest average review scores to lowest; as you can see, the GameCube comes out on top, with the original PlayStation dead last.

There are some other factors to take into consideration, such as the number of games that came out close enough to the console to be considered launch games, and the amount of review information available for each console. Gamasutra's Matt Matthews stated that he was "rather liberal" in regards to the Nintendo 64, which launched with only two games; for that console, he included every N64 game that came out in 1996. And though the PlayStation is on the bottom, Matthews mentions that there wasn't a whole lot of data available for Sony's first console.

Despite ending up at opposite ends of the review score spectrum, the GameCube and PlayStation had nearly the least amount of launch games (even with all of the 1996 titles counted, Nintendo 64 had the fewest). The PlayStation 2 had the most launch games, followed by the Wii U and Wii. One could argue that the graph represents a decline in quality of Nintendo-published consoles, but that's not necessarily true. Even though the Wii is near the bottom of the score chart, it also has a wide range of scores that goes up past 90%, and the Wii U data is still being collected, since the console just launched about a month ago.

As someone who has followed the launches of nearly all of the systems present here, either professionally or as a fan, it's interesting to look back at console launches from the last 17 years and see just how those early games stack up against each other. Within the next year or so, we could be looking at this information again with launch information from the next Xbox and PlayStation consoles.

Source: Gamasutra [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/183560/Sizing_up_a_history_of_hardware_launch_review_scores.php#.UMuNK4WmAhc]

Permalink

 

[NLS]

I'd say it's a bit too early to count in the WiiU's launch titles, given that we're about a month after release now, yet the Nintendo 64 is counted in with ALL the games of 1996.

 

[BrotherRool]

The 360 had a tight launch from that graph, or were there just not many launch games? Because they've got absolutely no bad, only matched by the Gamecube. Also shocked by the shovelware for the PS3, is that Genji: Day of Blades at the bottom end? Ah no it's Mobile Suit: Gundam.

As graph criticism, (because critising a graph where the makers will never see it is helpful) it would have been nice to find a way to show more detailed weighting (maybe dots for each game?), for example, from what I can work out, Mobile Suit: Gundam was twice as bad as the next PS3 launch game, so the long tails for the PS3, Wii U are probably the result of one game with the rest being in the 50-60 range that the others are. I guess the dot kinda of hints at that, but you can't tell if some of them were just consistently good or had a lot of highs and a lot of lows. Dots would help people see the number disparity too and that'd be new data and allow them to interpret this stuff a bit better. (The PS2 had 30 ish launch games compared to the PS3's 12ish) It wouldn't look so pretty though

EDIT:

I'd say it's a bit too early to count in the WiiU's launch titles, given that we're about a month after release now, yet the Nintendo 64 is counted in with ALL the games of 1996.

Launch is launch. The N64 was the only console allowed to break that rule because of a pitiful start. Otherwise if it doesn't appear in the first month it's not really a launch title (which really should be available from launch =D)

 

[lazarus1209]

To add to Jeffers points - the numbers don't remove outliers when figuring averages, don't account for number of available titles, and most importantly, don't account for number of available reviews.

There are also intangibles that aren't considered, such as the "Awe" factor some games induce due to the simple leap in technology. The Wii U didn't offer much (if any) "Awe Factor" in terms of graphical fidelity, while something as simple as Madden 06 on the 360 was much more awe inspiring.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I know many people like to slag on metacritic/gamerankings as useless pieces of garbage, but I think they're fairly reliable if what you're looking for is a broad overview of how a particular game stacks up. I really find this story quite hilarious considering how many sources were absolutely over the moon about how awesome the WiiU launch line up was going to be. And, given how great the PSX line up ended as the system aged, how little launch line up really matters in terms of the overall quality of a system.

 

[BrotherRool]

I know many people like to slag on metacritic/gamerankings as useless pieces of garbage, but I think they're fairly reliable if what you're looking for is a broad overview of how a particular game stacks up. I really find this story quite hilarious considering how many sources were absolutely over the moon about how awesome the WiiU launch line up was going to be. And, given how great the PSX line up ended as the system aged, how little launch line up really matters in terms of the overall quality of a system.

As it happens, this data does show a bad launch for the Wii U, but an average score is generally a bad way of assessing the value of launch titles, say the PS60 was launched with 3 games with 99% metacritic rankings and then 12 shovelware titles. It would have a 'bad launch' but actually no-one cares about shovelware, because you just don't buy the game. They do care about the number of high quality titles and just how good they are but if they're satisfied on that front, no amount of bad launch titles will remove that satisfaction.

If I wanted to get a metric of it, I would remove all games from below a certain metacritic point (probably 80%) and then just straight up count the number. Maybe giving an average (amongst those top titles) as well to try and account for truly breakout titles (For example, Halo in it's incarnations was a console buyer for a lot of people).

To be fair I don't think the maker has made any claims about his graph. It's just a collection of data and it's up to us to interpret it

 

[Atmos Duality]

It's all fairly meaningless, given that popular opinion and "success" (financial) does not equate to the opinions of critics.

Also, review score scaling isn't universal, especially for that time frame.
There was a time where 50% meant "average" or "recommended" for some publications, rather than 70% or 80%.

To be fair, that's the only data one could use for an article like this.
To be even more fair, this proves the article is basically bullshit and a waste of effort.

 

[smearyllama]

I'm actually not all that surprised about the PS1. The system did launch with Bubsy 3D, after all.

 

[Mr. Omega]

Now while I love the WiiU, and while there are a lot of great games coming like Rayman Legends and Pikmin 3, I will admit the actual Day 1 launch was pretty weak.

That being said, yes, basing all this on Metacritic pretty much instantly makes this whole thing a waste of time. Ignoring how inconsistent it is regularly, trying to use it to gauge the launches of retro consoles nails the coffin shut.

And really? Worse than the PS3? I loved the PS3 as well, but it's launch was awful.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Not to be smug, but I clicked on this thinking that the Gamecube would be close to or at the top of the list. That system had some really quality launch titles: Rogue Squadron 2, Pikmin, Luigi's Mansion (pretty low rated at the time, but still a fun game), and Wave Race. Wave Race and Rogue Squadron 2 could easily edge their way onto my personal favorite games ever made.

 

[bjj hero]

Further proof that the Dreamcast was just awesome and ahead of its time. I loved that console in a way Ive not loved a console since.

 

[Evil Smurf]

why did'n't the WiiU launch with a Zelda game?

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I would very much like to see a similar chart detailing the launch window for handheld consoles. No matter how bad the Wii, U and PSX launch were, they can't compare to the VB or 3DS launch window.

 

[Beautiful End]

I don't know how much I trust that study but alright, I'll play.

To me, I'd say the original Xbox had a very tight line of launch games. Halo was there, though, and that kinda carried them through. (Yeah, I know there were a couple of other good games)
On the other hand, the same could be said of the PS1. The both had good, original games that just...felt right. To me, the Wii and WiiU have games that could potentially be good but they always go back to the same thing.

Example: Skyward Sword. The game could have been great if it wasn't for the weird motion controllers that feel unnecessary half of the time. On top of that, the game is reaaaaaaaaaally easy for a Zelda game. Granted, it's not like Zelda games are meant to be extremely hard but they're not ridiculously easy either. So I feel like one of Nintendo's mistakes is making a bunch of casual games, even the ones that are not meant to be casual.

It's funny; Nintendo offered me most of the toughest games I've ever played when I was a kid and it seems like those days are long gone (I'm also not saying there are no tough Nintendo games nowadays, mind you). But hey, that's my opinion. I could be wrong so don't grill me because of that.

 

[velcthulhu]

That doesn't seem like a very useful measure of launch quality to me- I would care how many good games there were, not what the average quality was. I don't have to buy the massive piles of shovelware that fill out most launch lineups, but they drag down the average. These data will only be reflective of your experience if you buy the same number of games at each launch and select them entirely at random.

 

[BrotherRool]

The Xbox 360 generally had better launch titles though...

The Wii U does have good titles such as Nintendo Land, Super Mario and a bunch of games that have been ported over, but then these are just ports, another mario game and a far improved Wii Play.

The Xbox 360 had GREAT titles such as Amped 3 and Kameo: Elements of Power and Perfect Dark Zero.

You are both taking the study way too seriously. Launch titles don't determine how good a console is. They're generally quite bad.

There have been some amazing launch titles and some launch titles have saved a system and launched franchises. Halo, SSX, Timesplitters, Soul Caliber, Motorstorm, Project Gotham, Resistance, Ridge Racer, Wipeout all got their start as a launch. Also a little game called Super Mario Brothers =D

And then you have stuff like Panzer Dragoon, Super Mario N64, Super Mario World, Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Tetris owes it's popularity to a gameboy launch.

But a bad launch doesn't destroy a system as the PS3 eventually ended up proving. Also another reason the data is bad is, the best way to get some good review scores guaranteed at launch is to be a late console and just have loads of already published good third party games. The Wii U's average would have been even worse if it didn't have loads of the best PS3, 360 titles shoring it up