The Energon Pub

#Sideways# wrote:Oh... THIS IS A DIS-AS-TUUUURR!!!!

Anyway.

Ahem.

*Cough* *Cough*

Shadowman wrote:

Blurrz wrote:343 Industries is basically Bungie. Most of the people at Bungie who worked on the Halo series moved over to 343 Industries. 343 is just Microsoft's branch of Halo, because Bungie wants to move on to other things other than Halo.

Whoops, I meant to add that into my post. Seems I got distracted by people not fully understanding the point I'm trying to make.

As stated before.

THIS IS A DIS-AS-TURRRRR!!!!

Treetop Maximus wrote:

#Sideways# wrote:For instance, a game could have gotten 1,000,000 sales, but all of a sudden an uproar from the people who played it say that it stinks!

You can't look at the sales of the game to judge it, especially at the release of the game, because there will be just so many people who only watched the cinematic trailers and went "OOH" and didn't look the game up before they bought it, those are the people who drive the sales up, and thus nullifies the actual popularity of the game.

Treetop Maximus wrote:However, to the consumer, quality should be a factor when buying games. If you go by sales, 50 Cent: Bulletproof may seem like it's worth buying. Games like that are why it's not a good idea to buy something based on sales. If you buy based on quality, you won't make the mistake of buying that game.

So you basically just rephrased my words.

Huh.

I thought you said to judge the sales before buying...

#Sideways# wrote:Anyway, that is true, if you make a sequel to a bad game, you get another bad game, causing sales to go down, causing the game creators to go from: to causing the entire series never to be revamped for 13 years, and this causes good games to have new, even better sequels.

Shadowman wrote:

#Sideways# wrote:Anyway, that is true, if you make a sequel to a bad game, you get another bad game, causing sales to go down, causing the game creators to go from: to causing the entire series never to be revamped for 13 years, and this causes good games to have new, even better sequels.

Wrong on a few points. For instance, Duke Nukem 3D was a good game. DNF is supposed to be garbage, sure, but DN3D is one of the classics.

Second, crappy game does not mean crappy sequel. Prince of Persia: Warrior Within was easily the weakest in the trilogy, and though it's sequel, Two Thrones, still retained some of the problems, it was massively better than Warrior Within.

Treetop Maximus wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

#Sideways# wrote:Anyway, that is true, if you make a sequel to a bad game, you get another bad game, causing sales to go down, causing the game creators to go from: to causing the entire series never to be revamped for 13 years, and this causes good games to have new, even better sequels.

Wrong on a few points. For instance, Duke Nukem 3D was a good game. DNF is supposed to be garbage, sure, but DN3D is one of the classics.

Second, crappy game does not mean crappy sequel. Prince of Persia: Warrior Within was easily the weakest in the trilogy, and though it's sequel, Two Thrones, still retained some of the problems, it was massively better than Warrior Within.

Not to mention the Armored Core series.

Armored Core 2: Another Age = Total garbage

Armored Core 3 = Enjoyable

Shadowman wrote:

#Sideways# wrote:Anyway, that is true, if you make a sequel to a bad game, you get another bad game, causing sales to go down, causing the game creators to go from: to causing the entire series never to be revamped for 13 years, and this causes good games to have new, even better sequels.

Wrong on a few points. For instance, Duke Nukem 3D was a good game. DNF is supposed to be garbage, sure, but DN3D is one of the classics.

Second, crappy game does not mean crappy sequel. Prince of Persia: Warrior Within was easily the weakest in the trilogy, and though it's sequel, Two Thrones, still retained some of the problems, it was massively better than Warrior Within.