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

[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.