The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
When is a game branded a failure?
The meaning of the word failure.
· Fail (NOT SUCCEED)
· Fail (NOT DO)
· Fail (STOP)
Basically I’m talking about games that apparently fail. Why are they called failures? In my eyes a game is a failure if I don’t like it. If it doesn’t make me want to play it again or bores me senseless than to me it becomes a failure.
So then why was sega’s dreamcast branded a failure? It offered Internet access and no other console offered that, plus it had brilliant and original games so why was it a failure? Maybe it was down to people’s biased views that sega was crap and playstation or Nintendo rules. I would say so for a fact because for example original games like headhunter, rez and Shenmue were originally released on dreamcast and didn’t sell too well. 6 months later, they are released on playstation 2 and suddenly they are the best sellers of 2001. Other games like sonic adventure 2 and dead or alive 2. Sequels I know but I brought them on release and loved playing them. So why were they branded failures from the moment they come out, until that is they were released multi platform where they are selling well. Sega have been forced to retreat from making consoles and are now making small change by developing for other consoles where their games are topping the chart as we speak.
Another reason for failure of games is down to piracy. Many youngsters and even grown ups are asking themselves ‘why pay £40 for a game when I can pop down the market and get it for a fiver.’ It doesn’t matter how much these companies spend to stop piracy affecting their consoles because they will always find a way through it. I know for a fact playstation 2 games are in circulation along with playstation 1 games, dreamcast games, p.c games as well as vcd’s. (Same thing as dvd’s) And the law are to blame on this as well. I have seen police officers go down and buy these piracy games, as it’s cheap. They are not in uniform but I recognize them as when I was in secondary school, they would visit every Wednesday and go on about drugs and weapons. Piracy wrecks your consoles as well as the companies who rely on the sales of these games.
However the developers themselves can be brought to blame sometimes. For example Tomb Raider. Its first title it sold loads. The second title sold loads. And so did the third. By the fourth title, it was expected to sell extremely well by its developers. Now say for instance it sold 50 million. Any other company would be over the moon with these sales. But tomb raider is already a smash hit, its expected to sell three times that. Therefore it’s a failure in the developer’s eyes. Another reason developers can be blamed is because it can rely too much on the success of the game. Tomb Raider as an example again. Everyone loved the first one. And the second. But by the third, Eidos were running out of ideas and customers were getting bored with the game. And you can imagine this when they brought out a further 2 tomb raider titles with a sixth arriving. Therefore all the developers do is chuck in a few new levels with a couple of new moves, tweak the graphics and you’ve got a sequel. No effort made and why make an effect if your games already successful. That’s what developers think.
Therefore I bring you to my conclusion. Most games are not failures. If they make you glad you’ve purchased it then it’s surely a hit. And if it sells well then surely it’s a hit. But in today’s world of big businesses wanting to make big money, does the consumers matter any more? Do we have a say in today’s world at all?
The meaning of the word failure.
· Fail (NOT SUCCEED)
· Fail (NOT DO)
· Fail (STOP)
Basically I’m talking about games that apparently fail. Why are they called failures? In my eyes a game is a failure if I don’t like it. If it doesn’t make me want to play it again or bores me senseless than to me it becomes a failure.
So then why was sega’s dreamcast branded a failure? It offered Internet access and no other console offered that, plus it had brilliant and original games so why was it a failure? Maybe it was down to people’s biased views that sega was crap and playstation or Nintendo rules. I would say so for a fact because for example original games like headhunter, rez and Shenmue were originally released on dreamcast and didn’t sell too well. 6 months later, they are released on playstation 2 and suddenly they are the best sellers of 2001. Other games like sonic adventure 2 and dead or alive 2. Sequels I know but I brought them on release and loved playing them. So why were they branded failures from the moment they come out, until that is they were released multi platform where they are selling well. Sega have been forced to retreat from making consoles and are now making small change by developing for other consoles where their games are topping the chart as we speak.
Another reason for failure of games is down to piracy. Many youngsters and even grown ups are asking themselves ‘why pay £40 for a game when I can pop down the market and get it for a fiver.’ It doesn’t matter how much these companies spend to stop piracy affecting their consoles because they will always find a way through it. I know for a fact playstation 2 games are in circulation along with playstation 1 games, dreamcast games, p.c games as well as vcd’s. (Same thing as dvd’s) And the law are to blame on this as well. I have seen police officers go down and buy these piracy games, as it’s cheap. They are not in uniform but I recognize them as when I was in secondary school, they would visit every Wednesday and go on about drugs and weapons. Piracy wrecks your consoles as well as the companies who rely on the sales of these games.
However the developers themselves can be brought to blame sometimes. For example Tomb Raider. Its first title it sold loads. The second title sold loads. And so did the third. By the fourth title, it was expected to sell extremely well by its developers. Now say for instance it sold 50 million. Any other company would be over the moon with these sales. But tomb raider is already a smash hit, its expected to sell three times that. Therefore it’s a failure in the developer’s eyes. Another reason developers can be blamed is because it can rely too much on the success of the game. Tomb Raider as an example again. Everyone loved the first one. And the second. But by the third, Eidos were running out of ideas and customers were getting bored with the game. And you can imagine this when they brought out a further 2 tomb raider titles with a sixth arriving. Therefore all the developers do is chuck in a few new levels with a couple of new moves, tweak the graphics and you’ve got a sequel. No effort made and why make an effect if your games already successful. That’s what developers think.
Therefore I bring you to my conclusion. Most games are not failures. If they make you glad you’ve purchased it then it’s surely a hit. And if it sells well then surely it’s a hit. But in today’s world of big businesses wanting to make big money, does the consumers matter any more? Do we have a say in today’s world at all?
Page:
When is a game branded a failure?
The meaning of the word failure.
· Fail (NOT SUCCEED)
· Fail (NOT DO)
· Fail (STOP)
Basically I’m talking about games that apparently fail. Why are they called failures? In my eyes a game is a failure if I don’t like it. If it doesn’t make me want to play it again or bores me senseless than to me it becomes a failure.
So then why was sega’s dreamcast branded a failure? It offered Internet access and no other console offered that, plus it had brilliant and original games so why was it a failure? Maybe it was down to people’s biased views that sega was crap and playstation or Nintendo rules. I would say so for a fact because for example original games like headhunter, rez and Shenmue were originally released on dreamcast and didn’t sell too well. 6 months later, they are released on playstation 2 and suddenly they are the best sellers of 2001. Other games like sonic adventure 2 and dead or alive 2. Sequels I know but I brought them on release and loved playing them. So why were they branded failures from the moment they come out, until that is they were released multi platform where they are selling well. Sega have been forced to retreat from making consoles and are now making small change by developing for other consoles where their games are topping the chart as we speak.
Another reason for failure of games is down to piracy. Many youngsters and even grown ups are asking themselves ‘why pay £40 for a game when I can pop down the market and get it for a fiver.’ It doesn’t matter how much these companies spend to stop piracy affecting their consoles because they will always find a way through it. I know for a fact playstation 2 games are in circulation along with playstation 1 games, dreamcast games, p.c games as well as vcd’s. (Same thing as dvd’s) And the law are to blame on this as well. I have seen police officers go down and buy these piracy games, as it’s cheap. They are not in uniform but I recognize them as when I was in secondary school, they would visit every Wednesday and go on about drugs and weapons. Piracy wrecks your consoles as well as the companies who rely on the sales of these games.
However the developers themselves can be brought to blame sometimes. For example Tomb Raider. Its first title it sold loads. The second title sold loads. And so did the third. By the fourth title, it was expected to sell extremely well by its developers. Now say for instance it sold 50 million. Any other company would be over the moon with these sales. But tomb raider is already a smash hit, its expected to sell three times that. Therefore it’s a failure in the developer’s eyes. Another reason developers can be blamed is because it can rely too much on the success of the game. Tomb Raider as an example again. Everyone loved the first one. And the second. But by the third, Eidos were running out of ideas and customers were getting bored with the game. And you can imagine this when they brought out a further 2 tomb raider titles with a sixth arriving. Therefore all the developers do is chuck in a few new levels with a couple of new moves, tweak the graphics and you’ve got a sequel. No effort made and why make an effect if your games already successful. That’s what developers think.
Therefore I bring you to my conclusion. Most games are not failures. If they make you glad you’ve purchased it then it’s surely a hit. And if it sells well then surely it’s a hit. But in today’s world of big businesses wanting to make big money, does the consumers matter any more? Do we have a say in today’s world at all?
The meaning of the word failure.
· Fail (NOT SUCCEED)
· Fail (NOT DO)
· Fail (STOP)
Basically I’m talking about games that apparently fail. Why are they called failures? In my eyes a game is a failure if I don’t like it. If it doesn’t make me want to play it again or bores me senseless than to me it becomes a failure.
So then why was sega’s dreamcast branded a failure? It offered Internet access and no other console offered that, plus it had brilliant and original games so why was it a failure? Maybe it was down to people’s biased views that sega was crap and playstation or Nintendo rules. I would say so for a fact because for example original games like headhunter, rez and Shenmue were originally released on dreamcast and didn’t sell too well. 6 months later, they are released on playstation 2 and suddenly they are the best sellers of 2001. Other games like sonic adventure 2 and dead or alive 2. Sequels I know but I brought them on release and loved playing them. So why were they branded failures from the moment they come out, until that is they were released multi platform where they are selling well. Sega have been forced to retreat from making consoles and are now making small change by developing for other consoles where their games are topping the chart as we speak.
Another reason for failure of games is down to piracy. Many youngsters and even grown ups are asking themselves ‘why pay £40 for a game when I can pop down the market and get it for a fiver.’ It doesn’t matter how much these companies spend to stop piracy affecting their consoles because they will always find a way through it. I know for a fact playstation 2 games are in circulation along with playstation 1 games, dreamcast games, p.c games as well as vcd’s. (Same thing as dvd’s) And the law are to blame on this as well. I have seen police officers go down and buy these piracy games, as it’s cheap. They are not in uniform but I recognize them as when I was in secondary school, they would visit every Wednesday and go on about drugs and weapons. Piracy wrecks your consoles as well as the companies who rely on the sales of these games.
However the developers themselves can be brought to blame sometimes. For example Tomb Raider. Its first title it sold loads. The second title sold loads. And so did the third. By the fourth title, it was expected to sell extremely well by its developers. Now say for instance it sold 50 million. Any other company would be over the moon with these sales. But tomb raider is already a smash hit, its expected to sell three times that. Therefore it’s a failure in the developer’s eyes. Another reason developers can be blamed is because it can rely too much on the success of the game. Tomb Raider as an example again. Everyone loved the first one. And the second. But by the third, Eidos were running out of ideas and customers were getting bored with the game. And you can imagine this when they brought out a further 2 tomb raider titles with a sixth arriving. Therefore all the developers do is chuck in a few new levels with a couple of new moves, tweak the graphics and you’ve got a sequel. No effort made and why make an effect if your games already successful. That’s what developers think.
Therefore I bring you to my conclusion. Most games are not failures. If they make you glad you’ve purchased it then it’s surely a hit. And if it sells well then surely it’s a hit. But in today’s world of big businesses wanting to make big money, does the consumers matter any more? Do we have a say in today’s world at all?
As fantastic as it'd be for the world to work like this, unfortunately the only thing that measures a games success is the amount of revenue, and ultimately profit it brings in for the company that made or released it. You're right, Tomb Raider sold absolutely loads, but I never once wanted to play it again although I remember playing it on the Sega Saturn for the first time, it was actually pretty cool, swimming in the water and shooting bears 'n' stuff, but there are games that will appeal only to a very small audience and as such, if the games maker aims for higher than realistic sales (i.e. if a Ground Force game were to be released, with the makers thinking 50% of gamers wanted to buy it) then the game will be a failure in their eyes, and sadly, that's what counts, if only in terms of whether we'll see a sequel or add-on etc.
I do like to think that even when a game is branded a flop (although I don't remember games being labelled flops, it's usually consoles), if it makes me want to play it again then I sure as hell will play it again, no matter what's being droned into my mind by those 'in the know'.
Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of woeful material out there, games that'd bore your granny, but if a game doesn't score well in a review then it's usually not going to do that well in the sales charts, and that's expected. However, if a game scores really well, for example Jet Set Radio on the Dreamcast back in 2000, and then relatively few people buy it, they just don't get it, literally...then it may be branded a flop, but for everyone who's playing it - it's a top notch game!!
I guess it's a matter of principal, taste, target audience and what the market can tolerate. I'd hope that there's enough room in this world for originality, but it’s often to come back to earth with a bout of Fifa against your mates.
The fact that every single game you see on the shelves, or listed online has actually made it there in the flesh, or stock count 'yes', means it isn't a failure - it's obviously been approved, tested, and ready for the world.
Thanks,
Dan
I do like to think that even when a game is branded a flop (although I don't remember games being labelled flops, it's usually consoles), if it makes me want to play it again then I sure as hell will play it again, no matter what's being droned into my mind by those 'in the know'.
Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of woeful material out there, games that'd bore your granny, but if a game doesn't score well in a review then it's usually not going to do that well in the sales charts, and that's expected. However, if a game scores really well, for example Jet Set Radio on the Dreamcast back in 2000, and then relatively few people buy it, they just don't get it, literally...then it may be branded a flop, but for everyone who's playing it - it's a top notch game!!
I guess it's a matter of principal, taste, target audience and what the market can tolerate. I'd hope that there's enough room in this world for originality, but it’s often to come back to earth with a bout of Fifa against your mates.
The fact that every single game you see on the shelves, or listed online has actually made it there in the flesh, or stock count 'yes', means it isn't a failure - it's obviously been approved, tested, and ready for the world.
Thanks,
Dan
Nice post. I can' think of much to reply on. I personally think that games do no really 'fail' but do not capture the gamers likes. Some people may like the game/console. Its really down to personal taste.
Would you mind reading my post in Sony ps1/ps2 its called 'Games into films!? Films into games'. It took me ages to write and i have had very few replies!
Much appreciated.
Would you mind reading my post in Sony ps1/ps2 its called 'Games into films!? Films into games'. It took me ages to write and i have had very few replies!
Much appreciated.
Good post
Fair point.
Good Post.
Good Post.
Thanks for your views guys.
usually i'm insulted with spamming.
thanks again.
usually i'm insulted with spamming.
thanks again.
It's all relative, really, isn't it?
You could judge whether a game is a failure or not by a number of criteria including sales, popularity, whether it innovates beyond the boundaries of its genre, what makes it better / worse than similar games and so on.
I think of Infogrames' Grand Prix 3 2000 Season on the PC - indisputably the best F1 game ever (someone's bound to dispute that, then) but those who have bought previous installments in the series had more to say about what it lacks - safety car, penalties etc... - compared to what it has - stunningly realistic physics, impressive driver AI and other excellent features taken for granted.
The games playing public certainly have a say in whether a game is judged a success in sales terms, because they are the people who buy the games. If however million people weren't repeatedly suckered into buying the nth installment of the now rather tired and derivative Tomb Raider series it wouldn't massively outsell - and be more successful than - more accomplished titles.
Of course an awful lot of it does come down to hype. The Dreamcast was by most people's measures a failure even though it certainly had its' qualities. What probably hurt Sega was the number of people thinking, "well, the Saturn wasn't much cop, I'll wait for the PS2 thankyou very much," and continue to play less graphically impressive games on their PSones in the meantime.
Thus the merits of the Dreamcast didn't enter into the equation. But it would be rather naive to condlue that the Dreamcast was an excellent console that never had a chance to thrive. I have to say that there is no title on the Dreamcast that I would especially wish to play that I cannot on a PC. But I would kill to have Gran Turismo 3 A-Spec or Metal Gear Solid. Other reasons? Ludicrously overhyped online gaming capabilties? Unimaginative styling? Compile your own list...
For an individual, as many of the other posts have shown, whether or not a game is a failure is informed by how it squares with their preconceptions of it, defined by experience of similar games or prequels, a demo, perhaps, and any hype surrounding it.
You could judge whether a game is a failure or not by a number of criteria including sales, popularity, whether it innovates beyond the boundaries of its genre, what makes it better / worse than similar games and so on.
I think of Infogrames' Grand Prix 3 2000 Season on the PC - indisputably the best F1 game ever (someone's bound to dispute that, then) but those who have bought previous installments in the series had more to say about what it lacks - safety car, penalties etc... - compared to what it has - stunningly realistic physics, impressive driver AI and other excellent features taken for granted.
The games playing public certainly have a say in whether a game is judged a success in sales terms, because they are the people who buy the games. If however million people weren't repeatedly suckered into buying the nth installment of the now rather tired and derivative Tomb Raider series it wouldn't massively outsell - and be more successful than - more accomplished titles.
Of course an awful lot of it does come down to hype. The Dreamcast was by most people's measures a failure even though it certainly had its' qualities. What probably hurt Sega was the number of people thinking, "well, the Saturn wasn't much cop, I'll wait for the PS2 thankyou very much," and continue to play less graphically impressive games on their PSones in the meantime.
Thus the merits of the Dreamcast didn't enter into the equation. But it would be rather naive to condlue that the Dreamcast was an excellent console that never had a chance to thrive. I have to say that there is no title on the Dreamcast that I would especially wish to play that I cannot on a PC. But I would kill to have Gran Turismo 3 A-Spec or Metal Gear Solid. Other reasons? Ludicrously overhyped online gaming capabilties? Unimaginative styling? Compile your own list...
For an individual, as many of the other posts have shown, whether or not a game is a failure is informed by how it squares with their preconceptions of it, defined by experience of similar games or prequels, a demo, perhaps, and any hype surrounding it.
Page: