Read your own posts:
I replied with:
You could say SMG2 has a better metacritic user review b/c people who didn't like the first one didn't put their input in which caused its score to be bigger.
Because despite what people on NeoGAF say, in the real world, it's not really considered a good game.
The platforming is shit, and the editor despite MM's best efforts, is still too complex and fidgety for people to use.
So in the end, itso just not really that good.
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).Meh. User reviews are useless. Why discuss them?
Even though I just mentioned how Gears also got affected by this?
I'm suggesting the user score is irrelevant. Why is this suddenly a surprise? There was news articles on how raids were bringing down scores for specific games, Metacritic had to make changes to the system to try and avoid that and everything.
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.
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.
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.
I disagree.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.
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.
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.
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.
Me too.I always thought it was because it was a PS3 game, and not a Nintendo title.
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.
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.
No, that works against Metalmurphy's explanation of fake fanboy reviews, but actually bolsters charlequin's.
He's talking about the reviewer's disconnect from end user expectations. LBP 2 sold a lot less, which automatically means that it sold to a less diverse and more devoted group of people - who knew what they had to expect from the physics and the gameplay, lessening the amount of people who could be disappointed and potentially voice that in the Metacritic user reviews.
All that said, I do agree with Metalmurphy that user reviews are useless. Probably just as useless as professional reviews. Better to disregard all the numbers.
Me too.
Here's some food for thought.
Jet Set Radio Future has fantastic controls. This game bombed when it released, and was almost immediately sold as a free pack-in to the Xbox.
If I made a topic about why it isn't more popular, you wouldn't say "Because it controls poorly."
You'd consider a number of other factors...as you should here.
Because despite what people on NeoGAF say, in the real world, it's not really considered a good game.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
So how did Halo on the OG Xbox sell?
Floaty controls have nothing to do with it. Floaty controls are the least of LBP's problems.
As to Jet Set? Not sure, chalk that one up to no marketing and it being more of a niche title.
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...
They didn't need to, because they (correctly) figured that local multiplayer did the job just fine on its own.
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.
I simply cannot fathom how LBP2 bombed so hard, its one of the best games I've ever played.
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. It is easier for everyone to just have it online. Also, it is what is expected by most people in this generation, or at least it should be.
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...
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 have it online. Also, it is what is expected by most people in this generation, or at least it should be.
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.
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'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.
Your supposition is very different from reality.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.