Sega: MadWorld and Wii Were a "Mismatch"

VGFreak1225

New member
Dec 21, 2008
135
0
0
It doesn't help that Madworld got maybe one commercial that I saw on TV once, and that it had to share that commercial with The House of the Dead: Overkill. Meanwhile I saw multiple airings of the Bayonetta commercial every day for several weeks after the game was released. One thing I hate about many Wii developers is that they make games like Madworld that have a mainstream appeal, but don't spend time marketing them. Madworld was no exception.

I bought Madworld for $50 and felt that it was largely justified. Not only did I get to support Platinum Games and mature Wii development, but I played that game much more than I expected. Gameplay-wise there was a lot of room for improvement, but I still had a lot of (albeit fairly shallow and guilty pleasure-esque) fun with it nonetheless.
 

Skops

New member
Mar 9, 2010
820
0
0
Despite the fact that it is REALLY short ( my end playtime was 2hrs 58mins) MadWorld was fun. And the Soundtrack was something added on to most of my playlists.
 

The Austin

New member
Jul 20, 2009
3,368
0
0
cousinletsgobowling said:
can someone tell me why they dont port to it too ps3 and xbox please?
Because Sega is retarded?

Anyway, this definitely deserves a "DUR DUR DUR!!!"
 

UberNoodle

New member
Apr 6, 2010
865
0
0
And the irony is that most of the poeple that desire such 'mature' games aren't technically 'mature'. There are scores of mature gamers on Wii, and they don't care if a game is bloody and violent. Sega seem to be confused between the ratings word 'mature' and what the word actually means. If they go to where the 'mature gamers are', perhaps they will end up making some very immature games for them.
 

Sporky111

Digital Wizard
Dec 17, 2008
4,009
0
0
I think that it wasn't a failure, I just think that it was too-little-too-late. If more mature games had been released early on in the Wii's life, it would have opened the doors for a mature audience to buy the console.

As it was, they waited until the Wii was already established as a "casual console" and no mature gamers were left to take the risk on the console, because they likely already had a PS3, 360, or PC.
 

Gildan Bladeborn

New member
Aug 11, 2009
3,044
0
0
SavingPrincess said:
You could make Final Fantasy XIII on the Wii if you significantly reduced the graphics... significantly; but the core game remains the same. This is just justification for poor sales and pinning the blame on people outside his department.
...Right. Yes, I suppose you could certainly do that. It would be commercial suicide, but you could - the Final Fantasy series (which I don't play or have any vested interest in mind you, just to make that clear up front) spent a great deal of time being a Sony exclusive. Fan(boys)s actually booed when the X-Box version came up at a public event. But even ignoring that silly aspect of the franchise target audience (which is oddly enough partially justified by the real disparity in quality between the two editions of the game thanks to horrible compression on the X-Box in all the cutscenes), if you were going about making the latest Final Fantasy title for the Wii, unless you only plan to make it for the Wii, you're going to be offering them a product that might as well be subtitled This is the worst edition[sub]TM[/sub].

This is the problem with a great many would be 'hardcore' projects and the Wii - the X-Box and PS3 are on (roughly) equal footings, hence why a lot of titles throw in maddeningly exclusive bonuses for buying one or the other (which is pretty much like tossing chum into shark infested waters judging by how fanboys react), but if a game comes out for all three current generation consoles, the Wii version pretty much always gets the short straw. People, gamers included, are shallow - we like shiny things. If you make your game aiming at the hardcore gamer demographic a Wii exclusive, you're still going to be competing with the other console platforms (as the press, other gamers, etc are all going to compare your game to others on those platforms and yours won't be as shiny) and limiting your potential sales as well because now it's an exclusive title.

True, Sega is covering it's ass because those games, while competent enough, just weren't all that great, but their failure in that arena illustrates the core issue - what the Wii needs aren't just cut-back versions of titles that would normally see release on another platform, because the target audience are the people who own those other platforms now. It's not enough to make an FPS title that's "good, for a Wii game" like Conduit, the bulk of your existing audience consists of people who own a Wii but barely ever use it (thanks to the bulk of Wii games being uninspired waggle-fests). A Wii-exclusive FPS that is necessarily not as shiny as the ones on other consoles isn't really going to convince them to plug the Wii back in.

What the hardcore gamer demographic is really looking for isn't just low-budget clones of the sorts of games they can already play on the other consoles now, but good 3rd party Wii titles that capitalize on the systems 'gimmick', rather than shitty casual games that exploit it for a cheap buck (which sadly describes most 3rd party titles for the Wii).

There is certainly a market for more mature titles on the Wii, as lots of 'hardcore gamers' own Wiis and would love reasons to actually use them, but a developer looking to create one needs to make something unique and compelling, because you can't market your title using the "look how shiny it is!" angle so very many games use now, and if it's the exact same type of experience your audience could have on another system only it would look much better, have more enemies on screen at once, etc if it wasn't on the Wii, well that's pretty much doomed to commercial failure from the word go - the Wii has an insane install base in part because large numbers of non-traditional gamers own them, but they're not your market.

If, on the other hand, your development studio likes pushing the graphical envelope and creating titles that test the limits of what the more powerful consoles can render, they probably have no business making games for the Wii - they'll only feel constrained, and their efforts could be better spent making games for those platforms where 'hardcore' titles aren't novelties.
 

Gladion

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,470
0
0
SavingPrincess said:
Let's get one thing clear, the only thing that the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 have over the Wii are higher res graphics and hard drives... neither are required for making a game fun or responsible for "limiting creativity."
This is a common mistake made by many people. Shiny graphics is only the most obvious change better hardware brings us, by no means the only.
You give the example of FF13. Fair enough, you're probably right on that one, especially since it's pretty much just another JRPG by Square - nothing especially resource-demanding outside the graphics department.
Reducing it to that is not right, though. If you watch Making-Ofs of games or read interviews with programers, you will very frequently hear "yeah, technical limitations were the problem with this or that game mechanic". For example, I recall the God of War developers say they wanted to make a level where you had to climb several collapsing pillars to get to Pandora's temple while Cronos was walking around (or something like that). They had to cut it because of technical limitations ("That would've taken forever"), so they replaced it with a 20-second cutscene. With God of War 3 out there, they actually managed to make those moving levels, as well as Naughty Dog did with Uncharted 2 - it would not have been possible without better hardware. Those levels are also not only shiny things you slap on your game and say "look at that, si teh lookz awesum!!!11" - when I borrowed my friends' PS3 and played those games I was really impressed by what those people had put together there and I could for the first time say "yup, this is next-gen".
Physics, level design and AI are the things that get improved the most by better hardware. They're just not that much shoved in your face as graphics.

Oh yeah, OT:
I bought MadWorld and I liked it a lot, but then again, I am one of the eight people on this world who bought Shadow of Rome on the PS2 and loved that, too. So it's not my fault your game failed :(
 

WhiteTigerShiro

New member
Sep 26, 2008
2,366
0
0
So what's Sega's answer to the success of No More Heroes? Did it ever occur to them that maybe Madworld just wasn't that great of a game despite what the Metacritic score says?
 

KDR_11k

New member
Feb 10, 2009
1,013
0
0
So what IS the platform for a shallow stylized gorefest? Direct to DVD movies?
 

Timbydude

Crime-Solving Rank 11 Paladin
Jul 15, 2009
958
0
0
To author: For what it's worth, The Conduit was rated T.

I absolutely LOVED MadWorld, but I want to see such a good developer succeed too. If they're not making money on it, it's much wiser to move to a different system.
 

Ossum

New member
Apr 19, 2009
307
0
0
Sorry, it wasn't because MadWorld was too mature for the platform. It was because MadWorld had a very flat learning curve and interest curve. Once you do the tire/road sign combo, the train thing, and the whip bad guys into objects thing, there really isn't much else to do.

The game didn't have enough in it to get popular, nor was it marketed heavily enough.
 

Onyx Oblivion

Borderlands Addict. Again.
Sep 9, 2008
17,032
0
0
a third-person shooter person shooter
Is that a typo, or are you telling us we shoot people in third person?

Good, the Wii had its chance for more "real" games, and the fans blew it. Now, Platinum can work on Bayonetta 2. THEY'D BETTER!
 

Rack

New member
Jan 18, 2008
1,379
0
0
I can't imagine Madworld would have sold much better on 360/PS3 unless it was a significantly better game. Madworld was alright but it was really difficult finding room for it amongst everything else that was available at the time. If Platinum thought they could have made a much more engaging title with the more powerful systems and cleaner controls (which they certainly did with Bayonetta) though I think they may be right.
 

Kyrian007

Nemo saltat sobrius
Legacy
Mar 9, 2010
2,610
686
118
Kansas
Country
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
I'm just really sick of the wii-hate out there. When it came down to the decision on which console to spend my money on, I chose Wii. Not ps3, not 360, but Wii. One reason, price. I'm not ashamed to admit that I didn't want to spend $700 for a machine that would be much less in a year or so. And would break in the meantime. Nintendo has always been more stable than other consoles. I've never had to get more than one, and they all still work. Over the years I've had 2 genesis, they both are now broken, 1 dreamcast (it does still work,) 4 Playstations (bad lazers on all 4, feel fully justified in my copy of epsxe,) 3 playstation 2's (more worn out lazers,) 2 xboxes (stopped reading discs.) I have since bought a 360, and guess what... red ring. When it comes to getting long lasting value, Nintendo is the only business in the running. All you get with other companies is shoddy, un-tested, incomplete junk. I'll buy it when it gets cheap, cheap like their merchandise. Until then I'll leave the 360s and PS3s to the rich folks who can afford to throw money away, and kids spending their parents money and not their own.
 

justblues

New member
Jan 11, 2009
61
0
0
PTSpyder said:
Sad part was, everyone in the world perdicted this outcome, except for sega and nintendo.
So true while these games showed promise many of us looked at the titles and thought ..it'll never work.