-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
So why isn't little big planet 1/2 a more popular game?
- Thread starter neutralgamer02
- Start date
I think the reason LittleBigPlanet didn't sold more copies than that is because of failed marketing and the extremely badly designed community related parts of the game.
I was a big player of this game and when I was looking at the ads, I was always like "WTF IS THIS?". The ads NEVER tell the audience what the game is or they are blatantly lying about it. They should have marketed it simply as a platformer and talking briefly of the level creator.
Their marketing was so out there that it leds to many things like:
1- "What the hell is that multiplayer game? is it a platformer?"
2- "Oh, I need to create stuff? I don't want to buy an editor but a game"
3- "Oh wow, we can do all this easily? (enters the game) "ok wait, this takes alot of time if you want to pull off anything great" (turns off the game and never plays it again and doesn't promote it to friends)
4- "You can do all games in that game? (LBP2) I don't understand."
5- Number 3 works even better with LBP2...
And the other main reasons is that this game works on paper if you take good care of the community aspect. Well, that was the worse designed part of the game. The community side of the game is completely useless without actively using the internet on PC at the same time. This is not good and it discouraged alot of users and engineered alot of bad word of mouth. They should have focused WAY MORE on the community side of the game.
I was a big player of this game and when I was looking at the ads, I was always like "WTF IS THIS?". The ads NEVER tell the audience what the game is or they are blatantly lying about it. They should have marketed it simply as a platformer and talking briefly of the level creator.
Their marketing was so out there that it leds to many things like:
1- "What the hell is that multiplayer game? is it a platformer?"
2- "Oh, I need to create stuff? I don't want to buy an editor but a game"
3- "Oh wow, we can do all this easily? (enters the game) "ok wait, this takes alot of time if you want to pull off anything great" (turns off the game and never plays it again and doesn't promote it to friends)
4- "You can do all games in that game? (LBP2) I don't understand."
5- Number 3 works even better with LBP2...
And the other main reasons is that this game works on paper if you take good care of the community aspect. Well, that was the worse designed part of the game. The community side of the game is completely useless without actively using the internet on PC at the same time. This is not good and it discouraged alot of users and engineered alot of bad word of mouth. They should have focused WAY MORE on the community side of the game.
Yes, you could. And the comparatively smaller change in the delta between user and critic scores would imply that SMG2's audience reception was much more in line with its critical reception than LBP's. I'm not sure if I agree with the argument, but your criticisms of it are off-target.
neutralgamer02
Member
On the contrary, it is many of GAF that don't like the game and most of the real world that does. Basically the complete opposite of whatever you are talking about.
Haunted
Member
Basically, someone implied that the people complaining about the controls in this thread must have been wrong, because the professional reviews on metacritic said the game was awesome. charlequin replied that the user review score is significantly lower than the critics' and thus closer to the actual opinions expressed by the majority of users in this thread... suggesting that there might be some validity to be found in the 34 points difference between user reviews and critics reviews. Criticism and disappointment that goes beyond the usual MS/Nintendo fans sabotaging of Sony exclusives (as Metalmurphy suggested).
XANDER CAGE
Member
The other thing is that in LBP2, you can make lots of different kinds of games, but they were all pretty poor facsimiles. I could play this R-type style level for five minutes and chuckle to myself about how "creative" it is, or I could just play some R-type. I just feel like the editor is one of those things that sounds way better as a concept.
Ah, I see your position then.
I think it's possible to imagine a middle ground here; obviously user reviews should not be taken as gospel -- aggregate scores can certainly be compromised by a few people deciding to bombard the score -- but at the same time, it's highly unlikely that the statistical noise completely overwhelms any substantive feedback.
Which is another way of saying; I could chalk up a 1.0 difference in user/critical reviews to statistical noise or a deliberate intent to sabotage. At some point, though, the disparity becomes so great that it is unlikely to be just a prank; it is more likely that there is a genuine disconnect between gamers and reviewers.
I'm not sure where to draw that line, precisely. Once the disparity between user/reviewer gets above 2.0, I'd least caution suspicion. At a disparity of 3.4 (Which is what LBP1 is at), that disparity is so large that the game was either the victim of a massive and unprecedented sabotage campaign, or it was genuinely less liked by players than it was by reviewers.
Yeah, ok. Whatever you think.
Wait, what? In what universe?
The drastic sales difference between 1 and 2 disagrees. In fact nobody liked the game as much as the gaming press themselves who hyped the first game up for months on end and then proceeded to barely mention it after the game actually came out.
Haunted
Member
I disagree.
That drop is also influenced by the very nature of the game. LBP was working on paper if it was a continued experience like an MMo. But stupid Sony forced a sequel wich in return seperated the audience and ruined the concept. They would have made more money by simply continuing to improve and support LBP1.
This was like if Notch suddendly decided last summer to make Minecraft 2 out of the fucking blue. It would have been commercial suicide.
My relatives and i played it last christmas, everyone hated it but me, and even then i didn't like it. More anecdotal evidence though Xo It's a very awkward game that wants to be more fun than it actually is.
neutralgamer02
Member
We honestly don't know how much lbp2 will end up selling b/c it hasn't even been out for a year. LBP has had almost 4 years to reach 4.5 million including greatest hits so lbp2 may be able to sell much more as well.
Pancakes R Us
Member
Me too.
Right, there's no way to "prove" absolutely and conclusively that LBP1 was not well liked by those who played it, generally speaking.
But the best evidence we could possibly have is:
1) How did those buyers review the game online?
2) How many buyers went on to buy sequels?
Obviously, as already mentioned, these metrics are subject to statistical noise. It is not perfect. But it's essentially the best evidence we could ever possibly hope to get, and both pieces of evidence suggest that customers were not especially fond of the game.
People in this thread are looking for an explanation. This is likely the best explanation we're ever going to get, backed by the best evidence we can reasonably hope to acquire in a confusing market with lots of missing sales data.
XANDER CAGE
Member
Should we check back in the year 2111? Maybe the series will become retro chic and sell a bazillion copies to the Groknord aliens who inhabit Earth in 2093, coexisting with us and buying old video games.
charlequin
Banned
Thank you, that is in fact precisely my argument.
Well, like I said, it's a lousy judge of quality. "Game X is awesome, its Metascore proves it!" is a pretty bad argument. But tools for judging how reviews and end-user response differ are lacking. We on GAF can't do our own market research and while it's easy to make GAF polls to measure games that lots of people love (like GOTY voting) it's harder to find evidence of games that were polarizing or games that lots of people liked pretty good but not better.
So yeah, it's not a great metric, but in terms of establishing the basic fact of "some games with top marks from reviewers went over equally well with players, some didn't" and trying to ferret the one set out from the other, I haven't found a less crappy source of data. And, again, I only came to start looking at it because it correlates well with real-world factors (like volume of backlash, or release-over-release franchise declines.)
Nintendo would have made a better game though, hence why it would have been better, and more successful.
Right now, a massive chuck of that games sales would come from pack ins. Much like Alan Wakes "success".
To be honest I feel the same way about JSRF than about LBP (that floaty controls can ruin a great experience)...
I mean, I LOVED the world of JSRF, the graphics, the music, everything except the controls. Why? Because I thought they were floaty. It takes a good 2-3 seconds for your character to land back after a jump, resulting in a lot of retries and missed jumps.
It deserves to be way more popular than it is. And this is coming from someone who barely touches the level creator at all. Between the great story levels, and some amazing community levels, LBP2 is probably the most fun multiplayer game I have ever played. When you get a group of friends to play some great levels, it just puts a smile on your face that doesn't leave until you're done.
Playing it single player is still great and fun, but when you play it with some friends it becomes one of the best games ever, imo.
Playing it single player is still great and fun, but when you play it with some friends it becomes one of the best games ever, imo.
I've introduced the game to at least 15 people in real life have enjoyed it. Not to mention all the other non-GAF websites and critics that have praised it as well.
As a matter of fact, GAF is probably one of the few places I've been to that has such a negative opnion. Though it's not even all of GAF, so "mixed" opinion would probably be more accurate.
neutralgamer02
Member
How about we wait for it to hit greatest hits? That is where most playstation games get a lot of their sales anyway.
Metalmurphy
Member
The thing is this is not a regular/constant thing, if it was then also scores even if lower, would serve for comparisons. But its just specific games and it seems LBP was one of them. For example LBP has 30+ zero scores, which as bad as the game could be, it would never be a serious score, but SMG2 on the other hand has none. Also it has 4581 userscores which is WAY more then games on metacritic usually have. SMG1 and 2 have around 1000 for example. It looks very likely that LBP was a victim of one of those raids and I do think it is enough to "overwhelm" the legit reviews and make any type of conclusion from it bogus.
Also, not that its very relevant but I also believe that this happens more between MS and Sony then it does with Nintendo, but the nature of the game might attract the Nintendo crowd when other games wouldn't, hence the biggest disparity, and why I said that on my previous post, even though I said "I don't know" as well.
Another way to approach the question: what other explanations are there?
1) That people didn't know about the game? The game was heavily advertised. That doesn't seem likely.
2) That the advertising, while plentiful, did not attract customers? This is possible, but this tends to affect the front loading of games; that is, if a game has bad/non existant advertising but the game itself is very good, it typically picks up steam through word of mouth, even if it starts badly due to poor advertising. LBP experienced the opposite phenomenon, where it started strong, then died fairly quickly, such that the sequel did not attract much interest.
3) That people are dumb and don't understand the true greatness that is LBP? Please.
What other plausible explanations are there? That's an honest question. Because the explanation: "to most consumers, the game wasn't very fun" is the obvious explanation that's staring us in the face.
1) That people didn't know about the game? The game was heavily advertised. That doesn't seem likely.
2) That the advertising, while plentiful, did not attract customers? This is possible, but this tends to affect the front loading of games; that is, if a game has bad/non existant advertising but the game itself is very good, it typically picks up steam through word of mouth, even if it starts badly due to poor advertising. LBP experienced the opposite phenomenon, where it started strong, then died fairly quickly, such that the sequel did not attract much interest.
3) That people are dumb and don't understand the true greatness that is LBP? Please.
What other plausible explanations are there? That's an honest question. Because the explanation: "to most consumers, the game wasn't very fun" is the obvious explanation that's staring us in the face.
Answering the OP
LBP is fun in short bursts, but it does not keep you motivated to finish it. Lacking substance (trophies are not gameplay rewards) and real story. Yes, i said it. Story.
Also the inventory system is crap and the editor screams for mouse support.
Nevertheless, everybody who has a PS3 should own LBP 1.
LBP is fun in short bursts, but it does not keep you motivated to finish it. Lacking substance (trophies are not gameplay rewards) and real story. Yes, i said it. Story.
Also the inventory system is crap and the editor screams for mouse support.
Nevertheless, everybody who has a PS3 should own LBP 1.
Did those 15 people go out and buy it?
Because the PS3 owners I know who bought it based on hype, traded it or sold it a mere matter of weeks later. I'm the only one who held onto his copy. I'll give it another chance one day, maybe.
neutralgamer02
Member
Yeah, they would have definitely have had a great online multiplayer coop experience like lbp has which makes the game fun to play. Oh wait...
NEOPARADIGM
Banned
Sorry to be such a parrot, but floaty and not fun.
The editor also showed me just how uncreative I truly am.
I'd ultimately deem it a "neat" game, not necessarily a "good" one.
The editor also showed me just how uncreative I truly am.
I'd ultimately deem it a "neat" game, not necessarily a "good" one.
Halo isn't a platformer. Yeah it's floaty (and I personally think the levels aren't well designed but that's for another thread) but the main point of the game isn't to jump on platforms. It's to shoot people.
They didn't need to, because they (correctly) figured that local multiplayer did the job just fine on its own.
neutralgamer02
Member
Local multiplayer is okay, but it is difficult for most people to bring over four friends, have four controllers, and have the time to play through a platformer together. It is easier for everyone to just play it online over voice chat. Also, it is what is expected by most people in this generation, or at least it should be.
Metalmurphy
Member
Honestly? I think it's just because it's on PS3.
Games just tend to send less on PS3 for some reason. Different AND smaller userbase?
I don't think Gears for example would have sold the millions it sold on PS3, and LBP on the other hand would have sold TONS if it had mario on it even if the everything else stayed the same.
Ofc, this is just my opinion and me speculating.
It didn't bomb.
XANDER CAGE
Member
I'd hazard a guess that it's much easier for children to get this sort of thing together, which is what the game is sort of (or at least should be) aimed at.
They would have made the game actually have great gameplay so it wouldn't need supporters to use phrases like 'great online multiplayer coop experience' as a crutch.
Your supposition is very different from reality.
Don't know. Most of them didn't have PS3s back when I introduced it to them.
Either way, LBP gets plenty of praise from critics and "real people" (lol). And not because "people on GAF say" it's good. So I guess you're still wrong.
Very good reasoning. Far better than what anyone else is babbling about anyway.
I also think that LBP2 could have suffered some backlash from the community that the original managed to establish. I don't follow the community myself, but I remember a lot of people being pretty pissed about the sequel. The original game was bolsted as having "neverending" content and got constant updates. A lot of people didn't seem to fond of having to buy a whole new game for what just seemed like more editor tools.
Kinda like the whole Ultimate Marvel 3 backlash perhaps.
neutralgamer02
Member
I don't think LBP is targeted to children. There is no way it would have such an extensive user generated community if it was for children. It just happens to also appeal to younger people, but the target of the game is the typical group sony always targets.
Yep, most people are able to come over to their friends house and play games for hours on end. That is reality...
I've been playing platformers on a variety of consoles since Pitfall on the 2600. LBP to me, doesn't stick out as "floaty" any more than a variety of other beloved platformers. It feels roughly comparable to Donkey Kong Country. The game design is not about pin-point jumps like in NES-era Mario. If LBP had jumping like that, it think the game would feel really bizarre and jarringly dated alongside its (fairly) realistic physics system.
The physics system really is big part of the joy in LBP games. Being able to manipulate objects and the way different materials have varying properties (buoyancy, friction, etc). I can't think of another game doing these things. Maybe it's not a "pure" platformer in that sense. But then neither is virtually any 3D platformer. Even even accepting that, I still say it's a fun platformer. Swinging feels really good, enemies have a good variety, and the coop puzzles are really clever.
I wouldn't assume fanboy motivations on the part of people who dismiss the game as "floaty". It's just a really reductive way of thinking about the genre.
That's a pretty big mistake for Sony to make if that is the case. Cause they should have known that such a direction is ultimately a dead end.
XANDER CAGE
Member
What is that "typical group sony always targets"? Are you suggesting that Uncharted, Killzone, Gran Turismo, and Ratchet & Clank are all aimed at the same demos?
neutralgamer02
Member
LBP is one of the best selling sony first party games this generation so I am guessing, no?
Yeah it was a cool idea but I didn't find it any fun at all. Then again I think the same of the majority of platformers, but there were some levels that were really damn creative. The core mechanics were not good though.