Support NeoGAF

[Hours Left]

I'm not shocked. I've seen tons of commercials for it and it appeals to a broad audience.

Note to publishers, if you want a game to sell, do some freaking advertising!

 

[Jtrizzy]

I've played it with drunk chicks, and of course they love it...but it's pretty crappy overall. The tracking or whatever it does sucks. I could see a Natal version being really good though.

 

[timetokill]

Dude...did you read the rest of my post? I compared it to karaoke in the very next line.
I don't...begrudge its success for begin what it is. But I wish that a "dance karaoke" game that was of a higher caliber (i.e more music, better tracking for a more involve feeling) would have sold this well.

I did read it. I wasn't talking to only you, or I would've said "you" instead of "a lot of you guys." My reply to you was really just the "MGS4" line. I guess I should've used more carriage-returns to indicate I was on a different subject in the next part.

 

[Fun Factor]

I bet Ubi is like, "WTF did we do right?"

MC Hammer - U CAN'T TOUCH THIS!

 

[The Technomancer]

I did read it. I wasn't talking to only you, or I would've said "you" instead of "a lot of you guys." My reply to you was really just the "MGS4" line. I guess I should've used more carriage-returns to indicate I was on a different subject in the next part.

Ah, okay. And heh, yeah, IGN...*shrugs helplessly*

Okay, honestly, I don't think they should have given it a 2. I think they should not have reviewd it, because it really doesn't fall into the traditional field of "games"

 

[Animator]

hahah the Giant bomb vid actually made me want to play the game :lol

 

[SamBishop]

I've bought a number of copies for my family through Amazon. I have to say that there very few used copies available throughout its existence.

Just Dance's success shouldn't come as a surprise. Very low barrier of entry (excellent social lubricant during a party), instructions on front and back of box or personal experience, minimal penalties that don't bog down the pacing, contemporary if limited soundtrack, aggressive pricing, excellent ad campaign by Ubisoft (HA-HA!), viral on youtube through countless home videos, and much more. It takes a lot of talent to make a game very approachable, physically demanding, and genuinely entertaining. Perhaps Ubisoft took a good look at how the early Wii/Wii Sports phenomenon, why it occurred, and replicated it with considerable success. Of course, give Ubisoft a few installments before they run this to the ground.

It really goes to show how detached reviewers are from consumers. This isn't a movie reviewer saying a movie is intellectually bankrupt and viewers finding it an enjoyable dumb film. This is a reviewer telling you the game is not fun and countless consumers finding it to be the complete opposite. The Worthplaying, in particular, is baffling with its attention the game's graphics and presentation. It reminds me of the early Pokemon Red/Blue reviews.

It seems arcade game design common and very popular in the 70s and 80s have left people today completely flabbergasted when a game like this becomes a hit. It's like the game's very existence has physically harmed some posters in this topic. I haven't had this much fun since people started to call New Super Mario Bros. Wii a non-game! God, the Wii is easily the most entertaining console ever created. Not because of motion controls, blue ocean theory, or Mario Kart Wii, but because of how utterly insane it's making everyone!!

I like how you keep calling it a game. It's not. Sometimes your arbitrary actions match up with the single throwaway mechanic that doesn't really work while you dance. I'm glad you're having a good time, and hopefully everyone that bought the game does too, but it was a waste of $30 if you bought it expecting anything approaching an actual thing you can play.

More power to the people that enjoy dancing, but this is a "game" only in the sense that it was burned onto a disc and when you put that disc into a Wii something comes up on the screen. I can't speak for other reviewers, but what I took issue with was the fact that Just Dance looks like it took about an hour to make, has absolutely nothing going for it in terms of actual play mechanics and the one thing that it purports to do in traditional actions-equals-results fashion is utterly busted. If even one iota of effort was expended at giving it some purpose beyond doing the exact same thing you can do with a CD player and for free, perhaps the people that have played it wouldn't be so frustrated.

It's fantastic that people are enjoying themselves, but as it's my job to take a game on its merits, when breaking down the actual mechanics shows that even the singular thing it does in terms of interactivity is broken, surely you can understand why some would poo-poo the product and not the ones having fun with it? It's a half-assed effort and it's being rewarded. That's what I take issue with. It's also why I scored the review the way I did.

 

[Plaguefox]

.

 

[Jtrizzy]

I agree with Sam, it's total shit as far as the game itself. The song list is very small too. The moves just don't really register properly, and emulating the moves of the on screen person is worthless since it's just the wii mote.

But, a game that accurately measured the moves, and had good HD graphics (being in a club or party) would be really fun. I think it *could* be really fun in 3D if you were dancing with someone else at a party.

 

[felipeko]

People asking for a Move, Natal or M+ version to play have no clue... While i agree it would be better, it actually does not need it.

People say it's inacurate, but it's actually people not dancing, or not doing the movements right... I have a friend who does 20000 points in some songs (i do 15000+ half of the songs). And most people who try to cheat can't even get close to 10000.

 

[robertlebrone]

The game got slammed by the critics, but my daughter and wife love it. It's a fun game if you just relax and allow yourself to look like a fool and don't worry about your every move registering or the score. Great fun.

 

[SamBishop]

Ah, okay. And heh, yeah, IGN...*shrugs helplessly*

Okay, honestly, I don't think they should have given it a 2. I think they should not have reviewd it, because it really doesn't fall into the traditional field of "games"

Even though it would have meant the loss of the ability to pay for a bill that month, I actually am 100% in agreement with you here. Critiqued by the same measure as just about any other interactive product on the Wii, it pretty much fails. It really isn't a game in any normal sense of the word, but it's clearly entertainment.

I agree with Sam, it's total shit as far as the game itself. The song list is very small too. The moves just don't really register properly, and emulating the moves of the on screen person is worthless since it's just the wii mote.

But, a game that accurately measured the moves, and had good HD graphics (being in a club or party) would be really fun. I think it *could* be really fun in 3D if you were dancing with someone else at a party.

That kinda brings up the issue of value too, but I do believe that if you get your money's worth out of it, that's all that matters. Personally, I think it's a rip-off, but I'm definitely judging it by the traditional model of what a game is.

 

[nincompoop]

Ah, okay. And heh, yeah, IGN...*shrugs helplessly*

Okay, honestly, I don't think they should have given it a 2. I think they should not have reviewd it, because it really doesn't fall into the traditional field of "games"

What makes it less of a "game" than Guitar Hero or Rock Band?

 

[timetokill]

It's a half-assed effort and it's being rewarded. That's what I take issue with.

I really doubt it's just that.

From your review:

Again, I'm fully aware of the fact that we as reviewers can be unfairly harsh on a game because it doesn't have the kind of depth or challenge that we expect from the high-budget efforts out there, but this simply isn't a game, not any more than finding the original music video on YouTube and dancing along to it while awarding yourself imaginary sprinkles and gumdrops for your performance. And Ubisoft has the unmitigated gall to charge poor, unsuspecting, uneducated consumers forty dollars for this? Amazing.

Personally, I don't care that you gave the game a "2." It probably is a 2 or even less on the IGN scale of what makes a game "good," and since the IGN scale starts at about 7 I guess that's pretty damning.

However, it really doesn't matter. So you don't think it's a game -- cool. The target consumer really doesn't care what you think. But I don't think even that is what is bothering you.

I think what you take issue with is the fact that people are buying it and enjoying it.

In your review you say Ubisoft has the "gall" to charge "poor, unsuspecting, uneducated consumers" $40 for Just Dance. You are making the claim that if these consumers knew what they were buying, they would avoid it.

And yet the opposite proved true. People bought it, and played it with their friends, and then their friends bought it. And then they showed their friends, and they bought it. All the way to over 2 million sold and still going.

So no, I think what bothers you is that it was consumers who knew exactly what they were buying that made this game the wild success that it is. They paid the $40 and ended up having a blast.

 

[Cipherr]

I really doubt that.

From your review:


Personally, I don't care that you gave the game a "2." It probably is a 2 or even less on the IGN scale of what makes a game "good," and since the IGN scale starts at about 7 I guess that's pretty damning.

However, it really doesn't matter. So you don't think it's a game -- cool. The target consumer really doesn't care what you think. But I don't think even that is what is bothering you.

I think what you take issue with is the fact that people are buying it and enjoying it.

In your review you say Ubisoft has the "gall" to charge "poor, unsuspecting, uneducated consumers" $40 for Just Dance. You are making the claim that if these consumers knew what they were buying, they would avoid it.

And yet the opposite proved true. People bought it, and played it with their friends, and then their friends bought it. And then they showed their friends, and they bought it. All the way to over 2 million sold and still going.

So no, I think what bothers you is that it was consumers who knew exactly what they were buying that made this game the wild success that it is. They paid the $40 and ended up having a blast.

This kinda, you cant call them unsuspecting uneducated consumers when the game burns to 2million based on a shit ton of word of mouth. These people were clearly liking this shit, so to each his or her own. Hard to call them unsuspecting when it spread as far and as fast as it has.


This shit still has nothing on Carnival games though. That game must have done like 4m worldwide or some shit, it was all over the charts in EU and the US, it just burned alot slower, but it was around forEVER.

 

[hyp]

is this really a shocker anymore? *sigh*

 

[BananaBomb]

In defense of Wii Fit it's really fun and taught me a lot of tough exercises as well as having completely awesome minigames like rythm boxing and kung-fu (all for the price of a session or two with a personal trainer).

 

[Sushen]

IGN - 2.0

"Do not buy this game. Do not rent this game, do not look at this game on the shelf, don’t even think about this game lest someone at Ubisoft find out and they prep a Just Dance 2. Such would be the end of all things, mark my words."

:lol :lol :lol

This explains why IGN had to go through layoffs and how much they understand the people who play games and the industry they think they are the expert on. Simply 2 million people can't be wrong, and shows how much IGN missed the market judging the game.

 

[onipex]

How different is this game to Boogie? It sounds like the same game, just without the weird creatures.

Boogie was targeted towards kids in design and marketing. This game seems like it is made for everyone.

It is fun at parties and if you actually try to do the moves and not just waggle you can get a good workout.



If people are mad at how this game is selling they will really be pissed at Zumba Wii when it comes out this fall.

If it is done right it could be one of the biggest third part games on the system considering how popular Zumba is getting.

 

[Kai Dracon]

With all due respect to those who wrote reviews for the game, you guys are still missing a basic point. You can try to justify calling it a trashy game, but the reviews of the game seem oblivious to understanding what its appeal actually is - and this is what some people are calling Wii review syndrome. In the case of Just Dance, it happens to be that its "gamey" part is exceptionally thin, but that has little impact on its entertainment value for the customers it is aimed at.

Most game reviewers today though, cannot step outside their own mentality sufficiently to understand what is happening when a product comes across their desk that falls outside their comfort zone to a particular degree.

It's just very easy to build up a straw man in the case of this game, because the game part is extremely shallow. This still happens however with products where the "gamey" part is actually quite sophisticated - everything from Nintendogs to Wii Fit. It's hard not to conclude that reviewers therefore, are suffering from a fundamental breakdown in their approach, methodology, and communication goals.

The fact is, Just Dance represents another "expanded audience" phenomenon that just sells like hotcakes, regardless of how good or bad the "game" under the hood is, and reviewers are still failing to see (or admit) what is happening because their taste as to what a "real game" is, is being offended.

 

[SamBishop]

I really doubt it's just that.

Personally, I don't care that you gave the game a "2." It probably is a 2 or even less on the IGN scale of what makes a game "good," and since the IGN scale starts at about 7 I guess that's pretty damning.

However, it really doesn't matter. So you don't think it's a game -- cool. The target consumer really doesn't care what you think. But I don't think even that is what is bothering you.

I think what you take issue with is the fact that people are buying it and enjoying it.

In your review you say Ubisoft has the "gall" to charge "poor, unsuspecting, uneducated consumers" $40 for Just Dance. You are making the claim that if these consumers knew what they were buying, they would avoid it.

And yet the opposite proved true. People bought it, and played it with their friends, and then their friends bought it. And then they showed their friends, and they bought it. All the way to over 2 million sold and still going.

So no, I think what bothers you is that it was consumers who knew exactly what they were buying that made this game the wild success that it is. They paid the $40 and ended up having a blast.

Go back and re-read that whole paragraph you just quoted. I take serious issue with the content that's put on that disc. It is shameless that they essentially slapped a barely-interactive skin on what amounts to an MP3 player and then charge customers $40 for something they could get for free. Judged on the same grounds as any other full-blown game, it is a rip-off in my opinion.

That I'm wrong about how I thought people would perceive what's on that disc doesn't change the fact that $40 for 15 songs without videos, without modes, without objectives, with any progression and without completely functional controls is a rip-off when you judge the game by the very same rules we would judge any other game on the Wii. The success of the game means people are enjoying themselves, and that's wonderful. It also means, I feel, that Just Dance is a slapped-together, half-baked concept that caught on with people who don't care about things like actually controlling the game or having a purpose in pressing buttons or matching poses.

My opinion of the game and my opinion of the experience people are getting out of it are completely different. I expect some actual effort put into my games and I don't think that's unfair to ask of the people making them. Or would you rather the next Rock Band only come with 15 songs, no online play and only respond to every fifth input while you stared at a gyrating silhouette but only go for $40? It's okay to want a complete game on the one hand and feel that Ubisoft is bilking people out of their money while simultaneously feeling glad that they got some enjoyment out of things on the other. They aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[jman2050]

I think it just goes back to the issue of people erroneously trying to compare the gaming industry to the movie industry when they should be comparing it to the toy industry.

If you look at the gaming industry as a variant of the toy industry suddenly these type of phenomena start to make sense.

 

[-PXG-]

Well video games, it was nice knowing you.

 

[Arpharmd B]

On a party game scale, Just Dance get's a 9.

Look I'm not a fan of these types of games, I don't own a Wii, but this is the perfect game for the Wii audience. I can appreciate what "games" like these do, and if you've ever been to a party where they had this you'd understand why it's a 2 million seller.

 

[markot]

Yeah, there was never this stuff on the PS2. Its just the Wii and its audience.

 

[Owzers]

With all due respect to those who wrote reviews for the game, you guys are still missing a basic point. You can try to justify calling it a trashy game, but the reviews of the game seem oblivious to understanding what its appeal actually is - and this is what some people are calling Wii review syndrome. In the case of Just Dance, it happens to be that its "gamey" part is exceptionally thin, but that has little impact on its entertainment value for the customers it is aimed at.

Most game reviewers today though, cannot step outside their own mentality sufficiently to understand what is happening when a product comes across their desk that falls outside their comfort zone to a particular degree.

It's just very easy to build up a straw man in the case of this game, because the game part is extremely shallow. This still happens however with products where the "gamey" part is actually quite sophisticated - everything from Nintendogs to Wii Fit. It's hard not to conclude that reviewers therefore, are suffering from a fundamental breakdown in their approach, methodology, and communication goals.

The fact is, Just Dance represents another "expanded audience" phenomenon that just sells like hotcakes, regardless of how good or bad the "game" under the hood is, and reviewers are still failing to see (or admit) what is happening because their taste as to what a "real game" is, is being offended.

I still prefer game reviewers to review games as games.

 

[AceBandage]

Well video games, it was nice knowing you.

Indeed...

 

[forrest]

Played this at my niece and nephew's house. Had lots of fun dancing around like idiots and my wife absolutely loved it. I'm pretty sure we will be picking this up sometime soon. I agree that there may not be a lot of substance, but for the right crowd, there is a lot of fun.

 

[Arpharmd B]

Yeah, there was never this stuff on the PS2. Its just the Wii and its audience.

I know you're trying to be sarcastic from a defensive Wii fan's perspective who doesn't understand the majority Wii audience, but you are actually 100% correct.

The market for Just Dance may not have started on Wii, it existed on the PS2 somewhat, but Nintendo cracked this market wide open.

Natal and Move, if they are lucky, and get even 1/4th the market penetration Wii has, will have the same types of games.

 

[timetokill]

Go back and re-read that whole paragraph you just quoted. I take serious issue with the content that's put on that disc. It is shameless that they essentially slapped a barely-interactive skin on what amounts to an MP3 player and then charge customers $40 for something they could get for free. Judged on the same grounds as any other full-blown game, it is a rip-off in my opinion.

That I'm wrong about how I thought people would perceive what's on that disc doesn't change the fact that $40 for 15 songs without videos, without modes, without objectives, with any progression and without completely functional controls. It's a rip-off when you judge the game by the very same rules we would judge any other game on the Wii. The success of the game means people are enjoying themselves, and that's wonderful. It also means, I feel, that Just Dance is a slapped-together, half-baked concept that caught on with people who don't care about things like actually controlling the game or having a purpose in pressing buttons or matching poses.

My opinion of the game and my opinion of the experience people are getting out of it are completely different. I expect some actual effort put into my games and I don't think that's unfair to ask of the people making them. Or would you rather the next Rock Band only come with 15 songs, no online play and only respond to every fifth input while you stared at a gyrating silhouette but only go for $40? It's okay to want a complete game on the one hand and feel that Ubisoft is bilking people out of their money while simultaneously feeling glad that they got some enjoyment out of things on the other. They aren't mutually exclusive.

It's fine that you think it's a rip-off. Again, I really take no issue with your score or even your statements saying you don't like it at all. But it's only shameless if you think they were trying to appeal to you, Sam Bishop, or the readership that even knows what a "IGN" is.

I really have no concerns at all that they're going to make the next Rock Band have 15 songs and be unresponsive (as far as the online play, they're free to take it out as far as I'm concerned, I've never used it and never wanted to -- but it's beside the point). On one level they are going for different audiences. On another they are fulfilling completely different consumer needs. They're really not worth comparing, but I guess it's inevitable because they're both music games.

What people are getting out of Just Dance is a driver of a social experience that takes place more outside of the software than within it. It's there to break the ice, and it's enough to get people to dance with their friends and have a good time.

This is also where your "you could just put pull up a YouTube video" comment misses the mark. Pulling up a YouTube video doesn't give instructions or dance poses to the user/player. That's really all Just Dance has to do to achieve it's goal... deliver that and the illusion of scoring. The rest of the experience takes place outside of the software... all Just Dance has to do is promote that experience. Based on consumer reaction it seems to have been successful.

Your comment also misses the mark in that you seem to completely ignore the social aspects of the game. Again, it's a flaw in the traditional review system that suggests that you guys adapt or simply stop bothering to review these types of games. If you are judging a game based on its merits, as you say you are, then why are you not judging them in the environment they were meant to be played in? Do you play God of War 3 on a 12-inch black and white CRT and then attempt to score its visuals?

 

[markot]

I know you're trying to be sarcastic from a defensive Wii fan's perspective who doesn't understand the majority Wii audience, but you are actually 100% correct.

The market for Just Dance may not have started on Wii, it existed on the PS2 somewhat, but Nintendo cracked this market wide open.

Natal and Move, if they are lucky, and get even 1/4th the market penetration Wii has, will have the same types of games.

I understand the Wiis audience. I am an expert. And unless....... etc.....

I love how everyone is an expert on the Wiis audience.

 

[Vizion28]

With the success of Just Dance, which probably was made in a week during coffee breaks, can we expect to see Dance Hero and Dance Band (Crew) from EA and Activision this Fall?

 

[SapientWolf]

This explains why IGN had to go through layoffs and how much they understand the people who play games and the industry they think they are the expert on. Simply 2 million people can't be wrong, and shows how much IGN missed the market judging the game.

That's like saying Food & Wine Magazine needs to fire their staff because millions of people love McDonald's. They're aimed at two different markets. IGN needs a sister site like What We Play.

 

[Trailblaster]

This explains why IGN had to go through layoffs and how much they understand the people who play games and the industry they think they are the expert on. Simply 2 million people can't be wrong, and shows how much IGN missed the market judging the game.

I'm, sorry but this is just stupid reasoning here.

 

[charlequin]

SamBishop's stance in this thread is just indicative of the spitting-into-the-wind disconnect between the people who consider themselves the noble warrior defenders of "true gaming" and... well, pretty much every single thing Nintendo has done in the last six years.

The idea that a simple idea, executed in an enjoyable fashion, can somehow be as fun -- or even more fun -- for some people than some sort of elaborate, baroquely complex "core game" is (apparently) an existential threat to an industry built up around circular bro-hug exchanges for titles that appeal to a single narrow demographic. A site like IGN has to give a game like Just Dance a terrible score, pretty much completely without regard to the actual content of the game.

So no, I think what bothers you is that it was consumers who knew exactly what they were buying that made this game the wild success that it is. They paid the $40 and ended up having a blast.

Bingo.

 

[SamBishop]

It's fine that you think it's a rip-off. Again, I really take no issue with your score or even your statements saying you don't like it at all. But it's only shameless if you think they were trying to appeal to you, Sam Bishop, or the readership that even knows what a "IGN" is.

I really have no concerns at all that they're going to make the next Rock Band have 15 songs and be unresponsive (as far as the online play, they're free to take it out as far as I'm concerned, I've never used it and never wanted to -- but it's beside the point). On one level they are going for different audiences. On another they are fulfilling completely different consumer needs. They're really not worth comparing, but I guess it's inevitable because they're both music games.

What people are getting out of Just Dance is a driver of a social experience that takes place more outside of the software than within it. It's there to break the ice, and it's enough to get people to dance with their friends and have a good time.

This is also where your "you could just put pull up a YouTube video" comment misses the mark. Pulling up a YouTube video doesn't give instructions or dance poses to the user/player. That's really all Just Dance has to do to achieve it's goal... deliver that and the illusion of scoring. The rest of the experience takes place outside of the software... all Just Dance has to do is promote that experience. Based on consumer reaction it seems to have been successful.

Your comment also misses the mark in that you seem to completely ignore the social aspects of the game. Again, it's a flaw in the traditional review system that suggests that you guys adapt or simply stop bothering to review these types of games. If you are judging a game based on its merits, as you say you are, then why are you not judging them in the environment they were meant to be played in? Do you play God of War 3 on a 12-inch black and white CRT and then attempt to score its visuals?

I'm definitely not ignoring the social part of things as that is literally the lion's share of what you get with Just Dance (and yes, I made a complete idiot out of myself while playing with my roommate, but then she's used to that after all these years of seeing me play stuff). I'm not contesting its success. I'm not saying my opinion is any more right than the two million people that obviously liked the game enough to purchase it. I am saying that I feel that for $40 people could get a whole lot more on top of the fun they already had, and in retrospect that this game probably shouldn't have been reviewed with the normal IGN scale because it comes up as a severely lacking product by the same standard that we'd apply to every other game out there.

People can have a good time doing just about anything, but when you put a price on it, slap it on a disc and slip it into a games console, then pick up a controller, it's understandable that people would rightly expect to get something with the kind of depth and sense of reward you'd get with just about any other Wii game. It's wonderful that people are having a good time, but by the same token it's not unfair to expect that people would judge the game on the very same criteria that we'd judge any other game out there.

 

[ToxicAdam]

On a party game scale, Just Dance get's a 9.

Look I'm not a fan of these types of games, I don't own a Wii, but this is the perfect game for the Wii audience. I can appreciate what "games" like these do, and if you've ever been to a party where they had this you'd understand why it's a 2 million seller.

I have been and everyone complained that the moves didn't register and you could basically flail around for 3 minutes and achieve a similar score. It was a dud and we went back to playing Wii Sports and Mario Kart after 20 minutes of play.


At some point, no matter how derivative the game play, the user has to feel like they control the actions on the screen.

 

[Owzers]

SamBishop's stance in this thread is just indicative of the spitting-into-the-wind disconnect between the people who consider themselves the noble warrior defenders of "true gaming" and... well, pretty much every single thing Nintendo has done in the last six years.

The idea that a simple idea, executed in an enjoyable fashion, can somehow be as fun -- or even more fun -- for some people than some sort of elaborate, baroquely complex "core game" is (apparently) an existential threat to an industry built up around circular bro-hug exchanges for titles that appeal to a single narrow demographic. A site like IGN has to give a game like Just Dance a terrible score, pretty much completely without regard to the actual content of the game.



Bingo.

What you argue sounds more like the comparison between a really complex bowling game vs. Wii Bowling. Sometimes simple is better. Just Dance, from videos, looks terrible from a gameplay perspective. I don't want game reviewers reviewing games by GUESSING what people are going to extract from a game instead of the work the developers put into it.

It's like watching a really bad movie with friends ( like Mystery Science Theatre) and having a good time making fun of the movie. Of course you're not going to give that crap movie a 10/10 because you had a good time with it, it's still a crap movie.

 

[HAL_Laboratory]

The sooner 3rd parties realize that mega sales have almost ZERO to do with what gamers, gaming sites or GAF thinks, the sooner they'll start making profits on Wii. This game is a case in point. No true gamer wants to play Just Dance, but if you put it in front of a party -- one with real girls -- it's a hit. I'm so sick of hearing the whining about how 3rd party software doesn't sell well on Wii. I have no sympathy for those developers because if they'd just create compelling software for the masses (instead of gamers), this problem would be solved.

 

[charlequin]

That's like saying Food & Wine Magazine needs to fire their staff because millions of people love McDonald's.

IGN is quite happy to writhe in rapturous ecstacy to the taste of a new chicken sandwich from a fast-foot restaurant like Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto, though. (Is this metaphor still working?) There are sites that take a consistently elite position towards what they cover and how -- y'know, pretentious (often annoyingly so) sites like insertcredit that dedicate their coverage entirely to obscure and niche games.

A site like IGN is perfectly happy to cover popular but mediocre tripe as long as it fits the narrative, which is what makes the idea that they're the elite tastemakers protecting the hoi polloi from their own poor taste so utterly ludicrous.

 

[AceBandage]

The sooner 3rd parties realize that mega sales have almost ZERO to do with what gamers, gaming sites or GAF thinks, the sooner they'll start making profits on Wii. This game is a case in point. No true gamer wants to play this game, but if you put it in front of a party -- one with real girls -- it's a hit. I'm so sick of hearing the whining about how 3rd party software doesn't sell well on Wii. I have no sympathy for those developers because if they'd just create compelling software for the masses (instead of gamers), this problem would be solved.

Well, it also helps that games like Just Dance get about a hundred times the marketing that games like Red Steel 2 do...

 

[Owzers]

Well, it also helps that games like Just Dance get about a hundred times the marketing that games like Red Steel 2 do...

I've seen countless commercials on tv for red steel 2 and not a single one for Just Dance. This is in the U.S. of course, apparently Just Dance was marketed heavier in the U.K.

 

[AceBandage]

I've seen countless commercials on tv for red steel 2 and not a single one for Just Dance. This is in the U.S. of course, apparently Just Dance was marketed heavier in the U.K.

Really depends on what channels you're watching.
Disney, Nick and channels like that, you won't see a single Red Steel 2 ad, but you'll see a Just Dance ad just about every break.

 

[Owzers]

Really depends on what channels you're watching.
Disney, Nick and channels like that, you won't see a single Red Steel 2 ad, but you'll see a Just Dance ad just about every break.

Comedy Central is currently the Red Steel 2 network. I dont' watch Disney or Nick at all.....apparently the world doesn't revolve around me.

 

[AceBandage]

Comedy Central is currently the Red Steel 2 network. I dont' watch Disney or Nick at all.....apparently the world doesn't revolve around me.

Well yeah.
There are certain channels you use to advertise certain games.
You'd never see an add for God of War 3 on HGTV just like you'd never seen an add for EA Active on SyFy.

 

[SamBishop]

SamBishop's stance in this thread is just indicative of the spitting-into-the-wind disconnect between the people who consider themselves the noble warrior defenders of "true gaming" and... well, pretty much every single thing Nintendo has done in the last six years.

The idea that a simple idea, executed in an enjoyable fashion, can somehow be as fun -- or even more fun -- for some people than some sort of elaborate, baroquely complex "core game" is (apparently) an existential threat to an industry built up around circular bro-hug exchanges for titles that appeal to a single narrow demographic. A site like IGN has to give a game like Just Dance a terrible score, pretty much completely without regard to the actual content of the game.

I really can't say this any more plainly: if you enjoy a game, that's fantastic, and more power to you. This imaginary divide you've created between the supposed enlightened and stuck-in-the-mud audiences doesn't exist. Nobody here is threatened by Just Dance's success (or at least I hope not), but I'd rather you list the "actual content" that I'm apparently missing.

Aside from the obvious social interaction and the communal fun of just spazzing out with friends -- which you can actually get in games with stuff to do -- I just don't see what that $40 gets you. But hey, that's the beauty of games. Not everyone has to get it, and not every opinion has to be right. I think Just Dance is a rip-off, but obviously 2 million people out there don't and have indicated as such with their wallets.

Amazingly, the world just keeps on a-spinnin' and these apparently diametrically opposed groups that are duking it out in your head will continue to not exist out here in the real world.

[edit] Awesome, a new tag! And holy shit, charliequin, you really do think there's some sort of grand divide out there. Amazing.

 

[charlequin]

Nobody here is threatened by Just Dance's success

On the contrary: this thread (like all-too-many similar threads in the past) is pretty much chock full of quite precisely people who are threatened by Just Dance's success.

Not everyone has to get it, and not every opinion has to be right.

Well sure, that goes fine for all the unemployed schmoes who post in your average GAF thread. I'm a bit less inclined to accept "I'm just a humble unfrozen caveman lawyer, I can't figure out how to review party games correctly!" from someone who is ostensibly a professional reviewer of games.

 

[avatar299]

I'm going to go out on a limb and defend Just Dance's "gameplay" based off of what i have played.

Just dance works on the level of perpetual inputs. One thing i have noticed playing final fantasy 13 and God of war 3 is how many times i have pressed a button needlessly. Spamming the X button ten times during an intense battle in FF13 or spamming circle when Kratos only recognizes 3 or 4 inputs. Just Dance works on that level. If you dance, actually dance while playing JD the game will recognize some inputs and score you accordingly, but it never becomes that big a deal because the game is always moving. There is no slowdown to really force you to think of your movements, so it's rarely a problem. Unless you try to break the game you likely won't notice or care, and i think that is what is happening here between people playing it to enjoy it and people playing it to bury it.

IMO it a big step up from previously dancing games in the same vein as JD like Boogie. in Boogie, they tried to capture every input of the controller, instead of just giving you a visceral attachment to the game that convinces you to continuing inputting. As a result boogie is a spazzy mess full of half-done or canned animations that look offputting.

 

[cooljeanius]

This isn't a movie reviewer saying a movie is intellectually bankrupt and viewers finding it an enjoyable dumb film. This is a reviewer telling you the game is not fun and countless consumers finding it to be the complete opposite.

This is going off topic a little, but why is there such a disconnect in the two types of reviews? I've always been under the impression that reviewers in most other mediums (movies, books, etc) disagree with what people actually buy. I remember reading a panel in a newspaper after Transformers 2 came out of reviewers of different things discussing whether they're still relevant, and a lot of them said they had long accepted that their views were different from those of the masses. The question is though, why are video game reviews supposed to be different? I see no reason that video game review scores should be positively correlated with sales when review scores and sales aren't positively correlated in other forms of media.

 

[avatar299]

This is going off topic a little, but why is there such a disconnect in the two types of reviews? I've always been under the impression that reviewers in most other mediums (movies, books, etc) disagree with what people actually buy. I remember reading a panel in a newspaper after Transformers 2 came out of reviewers of different things discussing whether they're still relevant, and a lot of them said they had long accepted that their views were different from those of the masses. The question is though, why are video game reviews supposed to be different? I see no reason that video game review scores should be positively correlated with sales when review scores and sales aren't positively correlated in other forms of media.

Movie reviews and the public opinion are very similar. The disconnect isn't really there. Most people going to see transformer know it isn't the best movie of the year. They know it doesn't have best script or acting, but those movies are fun.