Zero Punctuation: Super Mario 3D World

[Nazulu]

Snip

My points are weak?I'm the one who produced solid figures to back up my theory.I'm not the one basing my opinion on things I've seen on youtube.People saying they want something on Youtube means jack shit and starting a thread on this site proves exactly fuck all either.Remember "Operation Rainfall" the fan campaign to get certain titles published in the USA.Well one of those 3 titles "Pandoras Tower"(a pretty solid game by all accounts)went on to sell a measly 80,000 copies stateside despite the apparent demand so as you can see people whinging on the internet doesn't always equate to actual sales

You know what I'm done.Believe what you want to believe buddy

Good. I knew you would have nothing as soon as I exposed to you that numbers only showed what sold and not what people think.

I'll make a thread later about those games we brought up, if you're interested.

What people think doesn't matter, what they do does. Businesses typically look at action divorced from intention and draw conclusions from there.

You might say: "He drives unsafely, therefore he must want to get in an accident". Of course that individual does not want to get in an accident, he could have any one of one hundred reasons to be driving in such a manner that in his mind excuses his unsafe transit. But that doesn't matter. His actions WILL lead to an accident, therefore he must desire an accident.

Consumers do not buy a product, therefore the consumers do not want that product. A good business will then go on to explore the reasons why a consumer might not want the product, but in the face of repeated failures they will cease production, because no one wants it.

Too simple thinking again, and big businesses want to get into peoples heads too don't forget.

It does matter because it CAN sharply boost sales, and they do try to find out what the 'word' is every now and again, and they have responded before. I have no idea how you could conclude by saying it doesn't matter, that's just poor thinking and will give them no reason to make new franchises either.

Businesses get into peoples head by telling them what to buy via marketing. If that doesn't work, demonstrated by low sales, then the product either needs to be pushed harder or abandoned. That is what businesses are doing by trying to find out 'the word' or, much more commonly, by attempting to dictate 'the word'. Those are just two approaches to the same thing. And ultimately, if you don't hear your word being marketed to you, then the word is not so ubiquitous as you think it is.

A person thinking "I like RTS" and a person actually going out and buying an RTS are two completely different things, and only one of them actually matters. Operation Rainfall is a fantastic example of this. There are a lot of people happy to say "oh yeah I love sushi, eat it all the time", but when you actually need to find them you're best bet is to check the burger joint rather than the sushi place.

I don't know what your arguing for any more. You are not going to convince me by just saying "that's business", because those businesses were doing way more genre's back in the 90's, and they stuck around because the games they made were top shit.

I'm a different person from whom you were originally speaking to.

Hahahaha! I didn't even notice I was talking to someone else. Sorry about that.

Well, what your saying is what some of these big company's are doing now, but it obviously isn't the only way to go, is it? That's what Metal seemed to be on about anyway.

Those people thinking "I like RTS" wouldn't be small crowd since they've must of liked some previous successful RTS games, games that introduced them to the genre.

Actually, before I go any further, are you really saying that what you described in your last comment is really the only way to do business, or make successful games, or whatever? I'm going to tell you now that I will never agree with it since I've seen many company's survive of niche games before.

 

[EvilRoy]

snip

Hahahaha! I didn't even notice I was talking to someone else. Sorry about that.

Well, what your saying is what some of these big company's are doing now, but it obviously isn't the only way to go, is it? That's what Metal seemed to be on about anyway.

Those people thinking "I like RTS" wouldn't be small crowd since they've must of liked some previous successful RTS games, games that introduced them to the genre.

Actually, before I go any further, are you really saying that what you described in your last comment is really the only way to do business, or make successful games, or whatever? I'm going to tell you now that I will never agree with it since I've seen many company's survive of niche games before.

Not a problem.

What I'm really trying to get at is the perspective of the game company. In reality there is no way a company could ever really know your intentions when you do something. As much as I can forgive a person for hoping that most people on earth are sane and rational, companies have far more reasons to believe this isn't the case than that it is. When a company makes a game then it either sells or it doesn't sell. On that basis a company can only reasonably conclude that customers liked or did not like the game.

However, and this is the kicker, they will never be able to conclude IF customers will like a different game than those they have made. And that is no more apparent than in the indie scene. Most of those games are made because the creator just wanted to make it, rather than because they thought it would sell well. Some of them get big enough for people to hear about, but most of them just drift away on the XBLA. Large companies can't take that kind of risk, because large companies include hundreds of people with hundreds of spouses and hundreds of children who would like to enjoy a warm house and the odd meal.

And thats the thing I'm trying to say here: large companies cannot base decisions on what you think, because what you think is unreliable and ultimately unrelated to what you do. What you do can at least be planned for based on previous habits.

 

[Doctor]

Desk Mario, nice.
But you're right, comments are typically pointless.

He commented.

 

[IrisNetwork]

Not to sound like a Nintendo fanboy, but
Isn't the social network stuff an optional feature? You can turn them off.

 

[Nazulu]

snip

Hahahaha! I didn't even notice I was talking to someone else. Sorry about that.

Well, what your saying is what some of these big company's are doing now, but it obviously isn't the only way to go, is it? That's what Metal seemed to be on about anyway.

Those people thinking "I like RTS" wouldn't be small crowd since they've must of liked some previous successful RTS games, games that introduced them to the genre.

Actually, before I go any further, are you really saying that what you described in your last comment is really the only way to do business, or make successful games, or whatever? I'm going to tell you now that I will never agree with it since I've seen many company's survive of niche games before.

Not a problem.

What I'm really trying to get at is the perspective of the game company. In reality there is no way a company could ever really know your intentions when you do something. As much as I can forgive a person for hoping that most people on earth are sane and rational, companies have far more reasons to believe this isn't the case than that it is. When a company makes a game then it either sells or it doesn't sell. On that basis a company can only reasonably conclude that customers liked or did not like the game.

However, and this is the kicker, they will never be able to conclude IF customers will like a different game than those they have made. And that is no more apparent than in the indie scene. Most of those games are made because the creator just wanted to make it, rather than because they thought it would sell well. Some of them get big enough for people to hear about, but most of them just drift away on the XBLA. Large companies can't take that kind of risk, because large companies include hundreds of people with hundreds of spouses and hundreds of children who would like to enjoy a warm house and the odd meal.

And thats the thing I'm trying to say here: large companies cannot base decisions on what you think, because what you think is unreliable and ultimately unrelated to what you do. What you do can at least be planned for based on previous habits.

Gotcha. I just wanted to see if you just agreed with Metal but I guess it doesn't matter.

I'm already well aware of that. We already acknowledged they don't like taking risks and rely on numbers (focus groups and what not) for what you mentioned, but the thing is that they used to, and with some other devs, quite often. However, the problem I think we are seeing here is more to do with a lack of confidence than anything. With the combination of their random innovations and stupid PR statements, well I have no confidents in them.

In this day and age where there is communication/internet devices everywhere, looking into what people are thinking isn't 100% (because I never said it was) but it can be seen rather quickly, even just asking or making a poll can actually get some results. It's an option and shouldn't be ignored. In fact, some big company's do use them and they even try to get more people involved in their work sometimes to get definite results.

The numbers Metal brought up don't explain 'why' many people didn't buy the sequels, and if they can get a popular answer for the reasons (some I already mentioned), they could become big sellers once again, and that's why I'm saying it's foolish to drop these franchises, especially when they keep reminding everyone of them with the Smash Brothers games. They pulled out that Icarus game from their ass which was interesting, but once again, they made some stupid moves and it doesn't seem they are learning from there mistakes, just avoiding them, which I don't think is healthy for any business. There is also the strategy that if you leave something for long enough, many people may starve for it, just like making the same thing over and over can kill it.

And another thing is how they could try to experiment with some titles between some successes (which they kinda have). Is it really too much to ask they take some chances every now and again? Yeah, everyone knows they are a business that wants to stay afloat as much as possible, but we'd also like to see something unique every now again too. Those are the games that really stand the test of time in the end. It's the only reason I'm reading through all the new game news, and from what I can see, these professionals need better guidance.

With Nintendo's Wii U selling poorly, I can see why they would just play it safe, but it can also kill them too. It's not a black and white issue, and I have no idea how Metal could expect them to come up with something new now. They need answers and to build up their confidence, otherwise I don't see the point.

 

[GrimHeaper]

Not to sound like a Nintendo fanboy, but
Isn't the social network stuff an optional feature? You can turn them off.

No yahtzee, be unprofessional as possible instead. Don't mention you can turn them off as easily as you can turn the 3d off on the 3ds.
Or the great art that constantly appears on Miiverse.
But hey if you are going to complain about social interactions why don't you scroll right up and like the Escapist on twitter and facebook where people barely do anything like that at all on average.

"8 worlds".

Aren't there 9 main worlds and 3 extra worlds? That sounds an awful lot like 12 worlds to me. Thought Yahtzee tends to play these games to the credits, which is a shame because all the best stuff is always at the end. The extra worlds in 3D Land made the game go from "passable" to "great," the extra levels in Galaxy 2 found the difficulty again, and the extra worlds in 3D World, by my accounts, do pretty much the same thing.

Ah well. Pretty agreeable dissection otherwise.

You don't beat a game until you actually beat every level I say.
His dissection is always "another mario game" at this point.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

You don't beat a game until you actually beat every level I say.
His dissection is always "another mario game" at this point.

I've never really agreed that critics need to play all of a game before reviewing it. If a game gets harder later on, that's still later on. A reviewer need only play as much of a game as it takes for them to form a solid opinion on their own, and if there is extra content they've missed I feel like research on their behalf is as good a substitute for them discovering it themselves. But even if you don't play extra levels, you should be aware of their existence. (He did mention in his Mario Galaxy review that he beat it as in "played to the credits" and mentioned he wasn't dedicated enough to do the bonus worlds - that works for me.)

 

[Strain42]

Sooo...did he like it? I mean going by his judgement of Mario games. It seems like he enjoyed this one a lot more than most of the other Mario titles he's reviewed over the past 6 years.

Or the great art that constantly appears on Miiverse.

Great is subjective, and not everyone cares. To me that stuff is no different than all the ASCII penises people have been putting on Youtube. If I wanted to see random gamer's artwork I'd surf around DeviantArt. But you're right, it can be turned off.

You don't beat a game until you actually beat every level I say.

You're also welcome to say that Walruses are fish, but you'd still be wrong.

There has always and will always be a difference between beating a game and completing a game. It is not only very possible, but also more common to do the former without the latter.

 

[GrimHeaper]

You don't beat a game until you actually beat every level I say.
His dissection is always "another mario game" at this point.

I've never really agreed that critics need to play all of a game before reviewing it. If a game gets harder later on, that's still later on. A reviewer need only play as much of a game as it takes for them to form a solid opinion on their own, and if there is extra content they've missed I feel like research on their behalf is as good a substitute for them discovering it themselves. But even if you don't play extra levels, you should be aware of their existence. (He did mention in his Mario Galaxy review that he beat it as in "played to the credits" and mentioned he wasn't dedicated enough to do the bonus worlds - that works for me.)

Well it's not like it's FF 13 or anything.
Really the fact he even got that far on that game and not this one...

 

[D-Class 198482]

I may be a little late for this question, but where did the name 'Yahtzee' come from? Has it anything to do with that incredibly dull dice and something or another game that grandparents keep away for cold winter nights when the electricity dies?

If someone else answered this, well meh.
Yahtzee's nickname, as far as I'm aware, comes from a game he made in which the main character was named 'Yahtzee'.