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

[Tanakh]

Actually, not really. The PS1 was a reasonably priced console that managed to use a technological innovation (three dimensional graphics) to appeal to a demographic who had never had any interest in the SNES or MegaDrive systems, and managed to convert millions of non-gamers into gamers by including easily approachable, non-hardcore titles like Spyro and Crash Bandicoot.

Quote or I find this VERY hard to belive. The PS1 had several advantages, a more varied library compared to the N64 (from which i only remember first party titles tbh) and the easiness of pirating come to mind.

But 3D and casual titles? Those are probably the only 2 things that the N64 did better.

 

[Joriss]

I don't pretty much care about the whole launch business but I have to admit that I got a gamecube when it was released and the games I got with it, were games that I played till the end of it.

 

[Treblaine]

>implying


But seriously, PS1 may have launched with crap, but it launched in 1994! That's 3 years before N64 had a global release.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

How does the Gamecube not make it into a discussion like this.

Honestly, Nintendo's been fucking this up for years, and they were the ones who used to give you blockbusters with their freaking consoles. The Vita has had a pretty miserable launch as well, and it arguably still doesn't have anything whatsoever worth having the console for even now.

 

[PunkRex]

Gamecube is on top.

Thus it was and always shall be.

 

[Tanakh]

The N64 didn't come out until two years after the PS1. The PS1 was the first console to wow people with three dimensional graphics. Before then, gaming was perceived in mainstream culture as being a Nintendohard 2D shoot-em-up/beat-em-up hardcore hobby. There was no casual audience. If you were into gaming, you were pretty much hardcore by default. Sony's PS1 was the console that first stretched beyond gaming's typical hardcore demographic, by offering friendly looking, easy to get into games like Crash Bandicoot and Spyro. The reason those games sold the millions they did was because they appealed to people who were put off by difficult-to-master games like Super Mario, and offering them something more forgiving and more colourful instead.

Not just that, but the PS1 specifically targeted non-gamers in the way it used genre titles to appeal to different demographics. If you were a fan of motor racing, all of a sudden you could get a PS1 and play the likes of Gran Turismo and Rally Cross, games that offered some of the real thrill of being a race car driver. My dad was a huge motor racing fan back in the day, and he played the original Gran Turismo for exactly this reason. If you were a fan of fishing, you could pick up a copy of Reel Fishing II and travel the world's seas catching exotic fish. If you were a football fan, you could pick up FIFA and play all those wonderful teams and players you had previously watched on Match Of The Day.

The PS1 was absolutely instrumental in the way it brought in demographics outside of the traditional 'hardcore' gaming one. Sure, hardcore gamers bought the console too, and there were plenty of 'core' games for them. But just as many bought the console for the non-traditional, easy-to-get-into titles it offered. Hell, many people bought it just because it meant they could have a CD player in their living room, and a CD player that played trippy, pretty to look at visuals during songs to boot.

And no, the N64 didn't do casual titles better. The N64 was simultaneously blessed and cursed with having a woefully small library of games that happened to be made up of stone-cold classics. The likes of Ocarina Of Time, Super Mario 64, Goldeneye etc are some of the best games of all time. However, they could not in any way be classed as 'casual'. Very few games on the N64 could be classed as casual at all. It was a 'core' console, blessed with a small but legendary selection of 'core' titles.

Humm yeah... no, seriously no.

1 - The N64 was released year and a half after the PS1. Which is actually a big diference, the ps 1 only had 1 xmas cycle of advantage. It was the first 3d console, yeah, but looking only at launch titles his graphics were way worse than the arcade scene of the time.

2 - You are saying the PS1 was attractive at lauch due Crash, Spyro, GT? Those games came 2-4 years into the console life, and in their first iterations spyro and crash had worse graphics than the casual lineup that the N64 had. Heck, the first crash can't hold a candle against mario64 in level design, and if anything spyro is one of the games that mario64 influenced the most.

I also disagree with your casual/hardcore appreciation, i really don't see how spyro is casual but mario64 isn't, or how GT is casual but Golden Eye or mario kart aren't. But unlike what i posted earlier, that is not a factual mistake, and if you want to call them that then i guess you can say the PS1 is casual friendly and the N64 was not. At any rate i would point out that if you read your argument it is not that "the PS1 was casual" but more like "the PS1 had a wide library that offered good games for ANY kind of person while offering quality innovative graphics", and as that it has very little to do with the Wii.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, I wouldn't put much faith in this because of the simple fact that it was admitted they lacked key data on participants like the Playstation, yet still ranked them. It's also notable that you have to consider the business climate of the time, there was a lot of anti-PSX rhetoric to begin with because it was made by Sony and was competing with more established brands at the time, though it wound up defeating them. I think it's launch lineup probably got slammed in reviews for that reason. While I don't believe it's around anymore right now, I think some games like "Battle Arena Toshinden" and "Tekken" were both around for the PSX launch, had huge followings to begin with, and influanced gaming as a whole (within the fighting game arena especially, which was more popular then). Also you'd have to also obtain lists of Japan-only games for that one, as one of the big problems with Sony's consoles has always been a lot of their best games never getting US releases.

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

What no Sega Saturn launch data.. oh wait ahem never mind.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

That's quite surprising seeing so the PS1 and Sega's ineptitude with promoting the Sega Saturn pretty much led to their demise in the console market.

I'm actually surprised the Xbox 360 is so high. I love my 360, but apart from Gears Of War I can't say there were that many games that grabbed me straight away.

 

[dmase]

It seems to me this is biased data tinkering. I wonder if he included the Japanese release titles of which both Nintendo and Sony would have had. Another thing is longevity Gamecube had excellent games come out but did they have enough good games come out over the subsequent years that where good? I'd say no, example two: The Dreamcast it doesn't matter if you make an excellent game centering around your most beloved characters if you can't make it work over the long haul.

If releases where going to be judged I'd take number of consoles sold opening week compare it to the size of the market then measure again in 6 months compare the increase. A good opening week doesn't set the tone for a release it's over the wholes.(unless of course your talking about the ps3 in which case it can take up to 3 years to hit your stride.)

 

[Treblaine]

snip

It's not the most relevant comparison as back then N64 had a HUGE distinction from other consoles that is not distinct between WiiU and other HD console today:

Cartridge games.

It didn't matter how it started, the cartridge was a bet that ENDED IT!

CD media was so much cheaper, for such larger capacity, and even more considering discs could be hot-swapped for extra long games or even the first DLC as with GTA: London.

You'd struggle to get games like Metal Gear Solid onto N64, you just couldn't fit all the audio or music.

Square completely dropped development of any Final Fantasy on any Nintendo console as soon as the PS1 became apparent as an option.

I also remember the price differences between PS1 and N64, THEY WERE HUGE! £50 back in the mid 90's was balls crazy price, that's back when the exchange rate was $2 per £1 so $100 per game and add 15 years of inflation on top of that.

PS1 games were regularly £25, I still have some ancient jewel cases with the stickers still on them.

I think that might explain also why there was more third party support for Playstation while at the same time Sony invested a lot in 1st party games development. Nintendo didn't so much have good first-party development, it DEPENDED on it. And unlike in PS2/Gamecube generation far more publishers seemed to skip Nintendo console and jsut release their game on disc on PS1 (and PC).

 

[QuadFish]

Oh my goodness sweet Jesus... really? Really? This is what we're considering news now?

The Escapist isn't exactly Encyclopaedia Grammatica. This website doesn't demand the kind of bibliographic exactness you find in academia and readers don't expect it. Regardless of the holes that exist it's a fairly sound statistical approach; you take all the data you have available and you average and range it. Even with subjectivity and error margins in individual reviews, this kind of approach is effectively averaging almost every online launch review score ever. It's reputable, reliable data (a lot of calculated data from reasonable sources). Its conclusion (if a little badly worded: "had worst launch games" is misleading) only says that average launch scores were worst for the WiiU and that is perfectly valid. I totally understand what you mean about holes, but you're picking out what basically amount to minor deviations with that amount of data to go on.

Regardless, even the biggest worry in that list (if you ask me), the older entries like the PS, doesn't mean the whole graph is worthless. It just means you take what it says about the PS with a grain of salt. It's not a yes/no question.

And last of all, so what? No consoles are judged in the long term by their launch lineup. The PS3 was a fairly bare, highly overpriced system when it first came out and look at its performance now. Even if you believe that the WiiU launch titles aren't that great, it won't matter a few months from now. This little graph isn't that damning in the long run, even if it were 100% accurate.

 

[Olas]

Sarah Labeouf huh? Any chance... ah screw it nevermind.

Only proves that beating a dead horse and making mario 25 doesnt actually work.
then again, people still buy it, so what the hell, why not abuse stupidity of userbase?

Except the WiiU only has one Mario game, and it has higher scores than most other games on the launch list, and might just be the [a href="http://www.spike.com/events/video-game-awards-2012-nominees/voting/best-wii-wii-u-game"]best reviewed game for the WiiU[/a][footnote]I know the VGA's are bullshit, just take it under consideration is all I'm saying.[/footnote] so far.

Meaning were it not for the first Mario launch title since Mario64[footnote]Luigi's Mansion is not a Mario game and if you think it is you're a moron.[/footnote], the WiiU's score would probably be lower right now.

 

[Strazdas]

Sarah Labeouf huh? Any chance... ah screw it nevermind.

Only proves that beating a dead horse and making mario 25 doesnt actually work.
then again, people still buy it, so what the hell, why not abuse stupidity of userbase?

Except the WiiU only has one Mario game, and it has higher scores than most other games on the launch list, and might just be the [a href="http://www.spike.com/events/video-game-awards-2012-nominees/voting/best-wii-wii-u-game"]best reviewed game for the WiiU[/a][footnote]I know the VGA's are bullshit, just take it under consideration is all I'm saying.[/footnote] so far.

Meaning were it not for the first Mario launch title since Mario64[footnote]Luigi's Mansion is not a Mario game and if you think it is you're a moron.[/footnote], the WiiU's score would probably be lower right now.

Frankly i find all the mario praise strange. the first game was ok. it was fine to play during the breaks in school. thats about it. other games just kept getting worse. how can anoye still put it into high scores is beyond me. but to each his own i guess.

 

[Verlander]

I reckon that attitudes towards the consoles have a significant impact on how the games were scored, as opposed to quality of the games themselves.

Both Wii's already had a ton of negativity around them when they were launched, and the Playstation wasn't cared about at all (success came much later). Initially, the games were reviewed harshly. In retrospect, the Wii and Playstation launch titles probably aren't up to much either, with the Playstation hitting it's stride much later, and the genuine dislike for the Wii - meaning that the grades are low. By contrast, I'd argue that the top 3 consoles (maybe even top 4) were quite eagerly anticipated, and as a result were graded more generously.

Then there is the competition at the time, how expectations have changed over the years, when the console was released in position to it's direct competitors (all of which probably contribute to the position of the PS3). I'd say it's safe to argue that this is a console popularity chart based on game reviews. Let's not even begin with the source of the data, whose gradings are inconsistent at best...

Instead of looking at this chart, think of it like this: WiiU, launched only a few weeks ago, already has Mario, Call of Duty, Batman AC, Fifa and it's own newest IP, which is a decent survival horror (of all things). Oh, and it's standard brand of party nonsense for the rest of the family. How many consoles launched with that level of line-up, or covered so many bases this early in? All of the above are incredibly popular games, with a clear level of quality. Ah well, haters gon' hate.

 

[Verlander]

Actually, not really. The PS1 was a reasonably priced console that managed to use a technological innovation (three dimensional graphics) to appeal to a demographic who had never had any interest in the SNES or MegaDrive systems, and managed to convert millions of non-gamers into gamers by including easily approachable, non-hardcore titles like Spyro and Crash Bandicoot.

Quote or I find this VERY hard to belive. The PS1 had several advantages, a more varied library compared to the N64 (from which i only remember first party titles tbh) and the easiness of pirating come to mind.

But 3D and casual titles? Those are probably the only 2 things that the N64 did better.

The N64 didn't come out until two years after the PS1. The PS1 was the first console to wow people with three dimensional graphics. Before then, gaming was perceived in mainstream culture as being a Nintendohard 2D shoot-em-up/beat-em-up hardcore hobby. There was no casual audience. If you were into gaming, you were pretty much hardcore by default. Sony's PS1 was the console that first stretched beyond gaming's typical hardcore demographic, by offering friendly looking, easy to get into games like Crash Bandicoot and Spyro. The reason those games sold the millions they did was because they appealed to people who were put off by difficult-to-master games like Super Mario, and offering them something more forgiving and more colourful instead.

Not just that, but the PS1 specifically targeted non-gamers in the way it used genre titles to appeal to different demographics. If you were a fan of motor racing, all of a sudden you could get a PS1 and play the likes of Gran Turismo and Rally Cross, games that offered some of the real thrill of being a race car driver. My dad was a huge motor racing fan back in the day, and he played the original Gran Turismo for exactly this reason. If you were a fan of fishing, you could pick up a copy of Reel Fishing II and travel the world's seas catching exotic fish. If you were a football fan, you could pick up FIFA and play all those wonderful teams and players you had previously watched on Match Of The Day.

The PS1 was absolutely instrumental in the way it brought in demographics outside of the traditional 'hardcore' gaming one. Sure, hardcore gamers bought the console too, and there were plenty of 'core' games for them. But just as many bought the console for the non-traditional, easy-to-get-into titles it offered. Hell, many people bought it just because it meant they could have a CD player in their living room, and a CD player that played trippy, pretty to look at visuals during songs to boot.

And no, the N64 didn't do casual titles better. The N64 was simultaneously blessed and cursed with having a woefully small library of games that happened to be made up of stone-cold classics. The likes of Ocarina Of Time, Super Mario 64, Goldeneye etc are some of the best games of all time. However, they could not in any way be classed as 'casual'. Very few games on the N64 could be classed as casual at all. It was a 'core' console, blessed with a small but legendary selection of 'core' titles.

I'm staying out of the conversation mostly here (don't have much to say), but I remember the Sega Saturn wowing people with 3d graphics. People ignored the PS1 for a fair while because the snobs of the time couldn't get their heads around Sony making a games console. The Saturn was released (marginally) earlier too.