Finaly i have bought a new wii game huray!

Yes, the original DKC was a great novelty. It had outstanding graphics and play control and stood out from an extremely crowded field of platformers. Having tons of things to collect was amusing at first- something Rare took to mean that the more stuff there is to collect, the better, and ratcheted it up in almost every subsequent game they made. It was a great game- there's no argument there.

When I said I'd put the new one in my top 20 to buy, I wasn't talking about top 20 new releases, I'm talking top 20 of all games I still want to buy, some of which go back to near the Wii's release. That's a lot of games, so it's not like I wouldn't enjoy it if I had it. I'd still much, much rather have the new Mario, the new Zelda, and the new Metroid, and if you think DK is bigger than those today, you're kidding yourself. DKC was huge for its day, but I don't see it getting a fraction of that success today. A second-tier Nintendo franchise still beats almost eanyone else's first tier. DK was great once, but now it's only good. This new title may prove me wrong and magically catapult DK above Mario and Link to the point where it receives more than minor applause at E3, but so far I'm not seeing it.

Also, I have Jungle Beat, and it was a ton of fun. Very creative and unique.

Donkey Kong Country Returns probably won't be as big as the Mario's, Zelda's and Metroid's simply because it never has been. Seeing the return of the 2D DK has a lot of hype thanks to fond memories and a character that is long past his due to star in a game. Donkey Kong Barrel Blast doesn't really count.

Or does it? Link's Crossbow Training has sold more than Twilight Princess so what's up is down and what's down is up sometimes. Sales wise, I see DKCR pulling a nice $4 mil in its run.

And I third the motion that Jungle Beat is a terrific Bongos to the wall game.

My local Wal-Mart still sells bongos for $30. The same 3 that have been sitting there since I moved in this area in 2007. Probably been sitting there longer. I probably should tell them to lower the price or point out they've been sitting there forever.

Do it! They will sell them to you cheaper!

Link's Crossbow training was free- with the accessory. Not the other way around, so I'd say that hardly counts. And people like you probably bought more than one. Plus, it was cheap. Twilight Princess was a full-priced game.

I agree, Link's CBT and Wii Sports shouldn't technically count... but since they can be re-sold by themselves... They do.

Uhhh... reselling doesn't count because... they... don't count resellings. No, literally. Those sales figures do not include used games.

I know that. I'm saying the games in and of themselves can be re-sold once bought, making them a tangible sale item whether accompanied by accessory or not.

My logic is, if its sell-able as a used game, then I guess technically it *could* count.

ZeldAnTales wrote:

Do it! They will sell them to you cheaper!

I think I will. Next time I'm in there I'll ask them what's up with the expensive ancient GameCube peripherals. I'll let you know what they tell me.

Antilles wrote:

Link's Crossbow training was free- with the accessory. Not the other way around, so I'd say that hardly counts. And people like you probably bought more than one. Plus, it was cheap. Twilight Princess was a full-priced game.

It counts. It's supposedly free, but only if you buy the Wii Zapper with it. Without, expect to pay up to $15 for it on ebay. I only bought one, simply because I don't like the Wii Zapper, but you're right that there are people that did by a couple.

It also counts because the official record keeping dudes say it does.

ZeldAnTales wrote:

I agree, Link's CBT and Wii Sports shouldn't technically count... but since they can be re-sold by themselves... They do.

Wii Sports has to count as much as some hate it to. It is being counted as the best selling game ever as a free pack in. This makes my Link's Crossbow Training stance a little shaky even though it also has value on its own. But if Guinness says it counts, it counts.

If someone doesn't like Wii Sports being counted, then at least agree that the Japanese sales should since they didn't get it free. They had to buy it separate.

Yes, because if someone's arbitrary record-keeping system says it counts- it counts. Oh wait- what were we talking about again?

The bottom line is about whether or not people are going to pay $50 of their hard-earned dough specifically for a game. If you throw in pack-ins and whatnot, you're comparing half-rotten apples to freshly-picked oranges. It's a meaningless comparison. Link's Crossbow Training may be the best of the bunch, but try selling it for $50 without the zapper attachment and see how it competes. Same goes for Wii Sports without the console. Yeah- didn't think so.

I don't see why the game has to cost $50 to count. Are you saying a game like Wii Fit Plus, which sells for $20, or any game that costs $40 or $30 for that matter, doesn't count? If anything, give kudos to a game like Wii Fit with Balance Board at $90, which can still rake in a billion dollars in sales at a high price.

And of course you aren't going to sell a game for $50 that wasn't even $50 with its pack in to begin with. Heck, you'll be hard pressed to sell most $50 games for the same price you bought it for.

You're completely missing my point. The $50 has nothing specifically to do with it- I just used that figure since it's the standard price point for a normal new game. You still didn't answer my question. Would so many have bought the Link game (apple) if it stood alone and cost as much as, say Twilight Princess (orange)?

Of course it's not a fair comparison. That was EXACTLY my point. Also, I'd almost say Wii Fit Plus (tomato) counts double, since it cost a lot more and still sold extremely well, but it's still impossible to compare, since it would be better classified as inexpensive exercise equipment than as an expensive game. Price has a significant effect on sales, believe it or not, and so does the status of a game as a pack-in, so let's spare ourselves the pointless comparisons of games we all know don't deserve to be considered "top sellers" with games that actually earned that right.

(And don't start in on things like Super Mario World. YES, it almost certainly WOULD have earned that right, but we'll never really know because it's impossible to extrapolate from existing data.)

Too much fruit being compared here. So would Super Mario World be the banana? And Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt be the grapes?

To answer your question (but you already know the answer), no. But I don't like to hold price/pack in status against the game. Don't tell the Apple he can't play with the Orange because the Orange is racist and only plays with orange skinned fruits.

For many years and years to come, there are going to be full games, smaller pack-in games, games attached to a large price tag due to expensive peripheral, etc. They should all be judged on the same scale; by the content of their microchips, not the color of their price. Can't we all just get along? (said the Apple to the Orange).

To be honest, I don't even know what I'm talking about anymore.

Certainly it doesn't matter for game reviews whether a game was packed in or not. There they can all be judged on an even scale. (As much as possible in a subjective system, anyway.)

What I take issue with is the use of sales charts to judge the relative greatness or even overall popularity of a game. When all of the games you are comparing are within the same price range and are not pack-ins, that's okay, but otherwise the comparisons are meaningless.

Some pack-ins are great, some are weak. Reviews can judge that- not sales figures!

There's always a gray area. For instance, take a look at the reviews for Just Dance, and then the sales of said game. The reviews say it's garbage but just about anybody that bought it is having a great time. The game is selling like crazy to boot.

Sales don't always judge a games greatness, but I'd say most of the time it does. It greatly effects whether or not a sequel will come, or how long that sequel will take to get here (more 3rd party here). A game like Circus Games may not be as great as it sales, but becomes great in the eyes of the developer who go on to make sequels.

Sometimes we have to go by sales because opinions are different everywhere you go. A great game to you might not be to me and vice versa. Who wins? Check the charts. That's how we'll settle it. And no I don't care if metacritic or gamerankings has an average score of 72 and I think a game is a 92. Nope...not listening to the pack of opinions...just going by the sales of $4 mil. dum de dum dum....

Sales are also heavily affected by marketing, which I attribute as the major factor in Sony becoming a viable contender in the console market. The original PS, (I know many will disagree vehemently with this statement, but I won't bother arguing with them,) was inferior to the N64. Nevertheless, Sony has always been very strong at marketing, and has risen to the point where they and Microsoft drove Sega out of the market.

Why do companies continue to churn out awful licensed games? It's simple- they're easy to market. If the games sold only on their merit, they wouldn't sell a single copy. No, such games are rarely at the top of the sales charts, but they sell more than well enough to make the investment worthwhile for the shoddy game company that puts them out. Should we judge these games based on their relative sales? Many of them outsell true gems that are underappreciated due to lack of marketing.

I know you're agreeing with me that both reviews and sales charts are an imperfect means of judging a game. All I'm saying is that comparing games of wildly different price points and pack-in status by sales is useless. Do the high sales of Just Dance indicate that it's worth looking into for purchase despite reviews that say otherwise? Clearly. Do they mean that Just Dance is better than Game X, which sold less, or that Game Y, which sold more, is better than Just Dance? No. There's no meaningful correlation there.

I agree with pretty much everything you're saying, but the fact that a pack in like Link's Crossbow Training SHOULD be compared to a game like Twilight Princess. LCT sold better, yes. TP is a better game, yes (at least that's my opinion). Some people will go by the ratings that show TP the better game, and some people will go by the higher sales and the cheap cost of LCT. By putting them in the same bracket isn't so bad. Just go out and buy both, even if a LCT purchase is more for the Zapper, and we'll call it a day. What I want to know is...why is the Zapper $25 in some stores and $20 in others? GameStop once gave some lame excuse which I don't buy since they can still sell $50 games for $50.

gamestop has a $5 nintendo tax on first party games...dont believe me check it next time your in the store. DS games always sell $5 more if published by Nintendo.

Also Nintendo 64 was an inferior system to the playstation so yes I will disagree with you Antilles.

I would expect nothing else from you, Triz.

That tax...yeah that's the lame excuse they gave. Lame because I was able to buy Metroid Prime 3 at $50 from them. A first party game.

And PoS1 was inferior.

DS games always sell $5 more if published by Nintendo.


I said DS....

Also this whole thread derail is about sales numbers and you guys are all of a sudden gonna dismiss that when PS1 and N64 are involved. ROFL.

Streex wrote:

And PoS1 was inferior.

LOL. I love the "o."

(P.S. Look at me! I'm on page 8!)

I'm pretty sure I bought Metroid Prime: Hunters at the same price as I would anywhere else. Plus my original question was on a Wii product being $5 more, not a DS game.

No, silly, they had marked hunters down by $5 by that point, so it LOOKED like it cost the same as anywhere else!

Maybe, but this was pretty soon after it was released and Nintendo titles take forever, if at all, to get a price cut.