Wii Flops Analyzed - 7outof10.co.uk

"2009 has been a conflicted, frustrating year for Wii software sales" - 7outof10 takes a look at a few titles that should have done better.

[EvilTwin]

Wow, a thoughtful op/ed on third party Wii games. How novel.

Short, very linear games with no multiplayer or replay incentive don't seem to sell well on Wii. You'd think third parties would figure that out by now.

But instead, they'd rather make games on the cheap, refuse to market them, and then complain about sales.

The one factor I don't agree with in the article is local multiplayer. I think it's a factor, but not a deciding factor for a game like Conduit. TCon didn't sell well because it wasn't an established IP (games like COD sell well on Wii) and it was a fairly generic (though lovingly crafted) FPS.

It seems like third parties are doomed to keep replaying this act, though. Even a game like Silent Hill -- which looks phenomenal -- is supposed to be six-hours long. The only replay value is changing your answers in the psych evaluation to change the appearance of characters and monsters. I doubt that's going to be enough to make it a breakthrough blockbuster.

[Nugan]

First of all, thanks EvilTwin. I appreciate the compliment. (I wrote this.)

Let me say that I don't think offline multiplayer is absolutely essential, but I do think it can be and has been a huge factor in Wii sales. How many of the highest grossing Wii games have hotseat multiplayer? Mario Kart, both Wii Sports titles, Smash Bros., NSMB, and several others. Meanwhile, the games with the most robust online options don't seem to sell at the same level. I'm not arguing that developers should neglect online in favor of offline, just that they neglect offline multiplayer at their own risk.

Also, if a game is has enough replay value and player choice without extensive multiplayer (like Twilight Princess and Galaxy), that may very well be enough.

[SpoonyRedMage]

The Conduit would have been a much better experience if it had Co-op but I still like the game, but there's so many ways they can improve.

I think a big, big reason that some games sell and some don't is the precdent set by the companies. Nintendo is the most obvious example, they offer quality so many be see Nintendo as a safe bet. But a prominent example I think is Capcom, they started with Resi 4, it was a good precedent, a great game with well implemented controls, this means they built an audience and it also means more people are likely to take Capcom seriously on the Wii, even with games like Umbrella Chronicles and Darkside Chronicles. Capcom haven't been perfect but they've actually gave the Wii some top notch games(Resi 4, MH3, Tatsunoko vs Capcom). It might also go part of the way to explaining how Okami sold more on Wii than PS2.

[EvilTwin]

I liked Conduit, too. Co-op would be nice, but I think HVS needs to focus more on the environments. Those shiny visuals come at a price -- narrow, cramped, claustrophobic, repetitive corridors (basically, a smaller scale game). You can dress those corridors up with different normal/texture maps, but it won't change them being linear and repetitive by the nature of their level design. I didn't realize how limited the game felt until I played it back-to-back with COD:MWR. It's still a good game, but man, more open and intricate levels make all of the difference. If HVS changes things up for Grinder, they'll have really stepped up. But that's just my $0.02.

You're right on with Capcom, IMO. If you put out good games, people will buy them. RE4 and Okami were ports, but they were darn good ones. People don't mind paying for quality. Okami wasn't as big as RE4, but it's a smaller-scale IP to begin with.

Sometimes quality isn't rewarded, of course. But word of mouth buzz can be a strong thing. Just look at NMH.