Smash Direct

Just some quick thoughts about the Super Smash Brothers Direct.

First of all. It was great! I'm seriously hyped for this game. For both versions. And that already brings me to the main point of this post. You can read the actual news and announcements for Characters, Stages, Items and so on on other sites, but I will talk about the separate release dates for both versions and why this is a good thing.

So the 3DS Version of Smash Bros will be released in Summer, while the Wii-U Version will launch in Winter. And of course the Internet is all over this, although the negativity is far less than I would have anticipated. Many say that Nintendo is cannibalizing the sales of the Wii-U Version with that move.

I say it's the opposite. Releasing the 3DS and the Wii-U Version at the same time would have been sales cannibalization. They would have to compete against each other, while the release we have now gives both versions enough room to breathe. I think many people will get the 3DS and the Wii-U Version and I see the 3DS game as kind of an appetizer (While still being a full fledged game of course). Also a winter release will surely give the Wii-U a good push during the holidays.

Now this assumption only works if the Wii-U Version has some extra content. Of course the core of the game will be the same, but like the 3DS Version, which gets the Smash run exclusive, the Wii-U Game needs some unique selling point.

Call me optimistic, but I think that's exactly what they're going to do in the time between 3DS and Wii-U release. They will work on some extra mode. Probably some single player. It only makes sense. They can't change the characters, trophys and items after the release of the 3DS Version and it would increase the appeal of the Wii-U game and encourage buying both versions.

So I expect Nintendo to release some infos on Wii-U specific modes and extras at E3.

Also yeah for Zero Suit Samus.

Ps.: Let's start a petition to rename the for Glory mode into ''Final Destination, No Items, Fox only''

...and yes I know that this joke has been told probably a million times in the last hours.

What's the Problem with mediocrity

I normally don't give anything about metacritc, but a thread I saw in the last days has sparked my interest. The Op in this thread claimed that with a Metascore of 80 InFamous: Second Son had failed. In which kind of world do we live where this score is considered a failure. Why are we so afraid of mediocre games? Why is a 9/10 for a hyped game like GTA 5 worth a death threat to the reviewer?

There are many factors at work here and I think we are all to blame. The Reviewers, the consumers and the Industry itself. The Game Industry has become an industry of superlatives. It's bigger than ever and at the same time blander than ever. And with that we have separated the market into two extremes. Triple A Games and Indies. There is nothing in between anymore. Small or Big, but where is the medium size.

In the eyes of the big publishers everything has to sell in the millions or it's not worth doing at all. Game Reviewers can change their rating system to a 4 Star rating, cause a nowadays a big game rarely gets something lower than 7/10.

And the customer is afraid. Afraid that his 70€ game purchase might not be worth it. Afraid that he could regret his Pre-Order. Afraid that the game might not live up to the hype. You're afraid of wasting your money and time. And that is totally legitimate, but that also narrows down your possibilities. Surely you could get burned, but you might find a gem inside the fire.

But enough with this pointless words. Let's talk about some things that could be done.

Publishers: Know your audience

Not every game or genre is fitted for Triple A Gaming and that's okay. The yearly cycle of games like Call of Duty was born because there is a crowd for it. I don't blame the publishers for milking CoD or Assassins Creed, but I blame them for trying to make every game Call of Duty. You would have to be a total brickhead to actually think that this works. It's simple greed that drives these men and women. Why should we be satisfied with one Call of Duty when we can have 2 or 3 or 10. But every sane person knows that you can't grow forever. One thing that grows forever is cancer. Think about that.

As long as this mindset dominates the industry I don't see games breaking out of this cycle of Triple A or Indie. This brings me back to my initial statement. Know your audience and dimension your game appropriately. If you bring something like Hitman back it's pretty simple. Look at the sales figures of the old games and take these as a base for your assumptions. If the last game sold 2 Million than make a game which can be profitable with 2 Million copies sold. If the game then surpasses your expectations you can increase the budget for the next iteration.

I know I simplified the problem here, but my core point stands. A survival horror game won't sell as much as a first person shooter, so you can't justify the same costs for this kind of game.

The second point I would like to see return are medium priced games. I, for example, own Deadly Creatures for the Wii. It's an original game, which is mediocre in every aspect. But I'm not mad because it's price was 30€ when it was released. Why did this kind of games die out? It may not make large amounts of cash, but it will still sell even if it's only mediocre. Because it doesn't hurt if it's not a masterpiece. It's the same thing with steam deals. You're not mad when a game you got for a reasonable price turns out to be just solid. Indies show that this works. Games like Limbo are great, but I wouldn't be willing to pay full price for them. But for the price they're being sold I have no second thoughts about buying.

I'm not defending bad games here, nor do I want you to accept them, but Sonic Lost World or Knack aren't bad games. They're just overpriced for the value they actually provide.

Reviewers: Believe nothing

Believe the Hype. That's what IGN had to say about Titanfall. In a time where 10 out of 10s get thrown around like leaves in autumn it's hard to survive with anything except that. This review industry gives us the picture that nearly all games are either masterpieces or trash.

GTA 5: Masterpiece

Titanfall: Masterpiece

Super Mario 3D World: Masterpiece

When nearly all big games get an 8/10 at least, the 7 or 6 out of 10 feel the blow. InFamous is seen as a piece of crap by some people because of that. What we need is a healthy review culture which uses the whole skala. That means that a 5 out of 10 is not a catastrophe, but a solid game with some bigger flaws, but it still can be enjoyed by genre fans nonetheless.

I, for example, would rate Yoshis New Island with a 6 out of ten. It's a good Jump'n'Run without really new ideas and a solid, but weaker, sequel to the Original.

If game reviewers want to be taken seriously they need to step up their game. It's not enough to hand out a ''bad'' score to a big game once in a while. The Review spectrum needs to be broadened. 9 out of ten has to mean something again, because right now it only speaks to me: Well that game doesn't suck.

Consumer: Tolerance is the key

But for this to work we, the consumer, need to change too. Right now many gamers have a live or die mentality. A game is either a glorious masterpiece sent from the high heavens or a piece of crap no one can, and should, enjoy. Stop that. Find some middle ground. And also give smaller games, which fit a genre you enjoy, a chance.

The Industry is big enough to house everyone. But right now we're all cramming ourselves into one corner and one day we just won't fit anymore. And when that happens I will probably play Deadly Creatures.