robor said:
Why do you keep reverting back to how successful the game is by consensus? I do not care how many bargain bins you found it in, I do not care how much more sales Metroid 1 had on VC, it does not determine the quality of the game. The latter is merely nostalgic adoration.
Actually unless you're talking how much you like a game (which is YOUR opinion and as such is not worth debating, not just yours, mine too), the only thing worth talking about is how it was received.
If it is well received and liked, it will get sequels and all, if not it'll stop.
DKC2 and YI were released nearly at the same time IIRC, we got multiple sequels to DKC2, none for YI.
Conclusion : the market has spoken, they to play (and pay) for DKC2 over YI. I can differ all I want it won't change the reality that as a result I got less games that follows the formula of YI over the one seen in DKC2.
robor said:
How much did you think Super Mario Bros. sold on VC compared to SMG? How does that qualify creative integrity?
Actually a better comparison would be the sales trend of SM64 and NSMB, much more similar. Or any 3D Mario to NSMB or NSMBW (although the later one got amputated of its later legs).
And if the whole SMB affair showed anything, it's that creative integrity is overated. We should never have had to wait so much to get a new 2D race-to-the-finish Mario game, they dropped it in favor of something they clearly wanted to do and as such disregarded the what their customers actually wanted. As a result : lesser sales => less money, which really is all they should worry about.
robor said:
The sequence breaking in ZM is much more defined than the rest of the series. Hard mode = perceived value, what you consider hard does not = what IS hard for anyone else.
Hard mode which is NOT available when you get the game, which is also way easier than Metroid 1 if only due to the structure of both games.
Or actually HARDER is not the right word, it provides way more scenarii for failure => more interesting choices in how to avoid death.
The more traps, the more likely it is that you'll fall into one, Metroid 1 provided WAY MORE than Zero Mission in that context.
_Alkaline_ said:
Mael is wrong in suggesting that sales reflect the quality of a game. They don't.
robor is wrong in trying to convince people that the original Metroid is a poor game. It's not.
Again, quality is not exactly what is in question here,
perceived value is. As it is it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt if a gmae was perceived more valuable than another in the market.
Who cares about the objective quality of the game anyway? unless you intend to make a lengthy indepth critique it'll be wasted anyway.