People are acting as if the 3DS selling more AT LAUNCH than the DS or Wii is an indication that the 3DS will be more popular. Pu-leeeeze.
The big thing is that the 3DS is the first Nintendo handheld to place a strong emphasis on technology instead of game library. Other than the 3D effect, there isn't a single game on the 3DS that can't be done on other platforms. 3DS is also Nintendo's most expensive handheld. So, don't think the 3DS will be a huge hit just because it is by Nintendo....people forget the N64 and Gamecube so easily.
PC Gamers: elitist snobs since the Commodore 64. I remember hearing this exact same nonsense about the NES and how it was "killing gaming".
I have never beaten this game, but I am proud to say that I've gotten past the jet bike stage! My personal choice of hardcore game from the retro games would have to be Ghouls and Ghosts.
So you're saying that a videogame receives two completely separate budgets, one for gameplay and one for graphics? That's news to me.
Naughty Dog makes some excellent games, but they always keep in mind that their games need to be fun, too!
I don't even think there are "casual" and "hardcore" games, simply niche and mainstream games. People who try to make themselves feel better by labeling games "casual" or "hardcore" are just insecure elitists. BTW, Mario, Legend of Zelda, and FF7 were once considered "casual" (or the past equivalent) when they first came out.
Awesome article. If game makers would focus more on the games and less on extra functions, gamers would be happier. Just look at the 3DS: all Nintendo talks about is Streetpass, 3D movies, and Netflix integration, but where are the games? I think by the end of the year, 3DS sales will not be as strong as people expect.
It's impressive, but not surprising. When Nintendo launched the DS and Wii, they were the industry underdogs. They also didn't make very many units at launch (for instance, only 500,000 in the US), so with the 3DS launching with 1 1/2 million units in the US, it's not too hard to get higher numbers.
Would be awesome, but obviously April Fools.
@ hatchimatchi It's not about "best game ever". It's about entertainment. The reason why games like SotC are scarce (and special) is because they are niche games. Very few people buy them. CoD entertains millions of people, which is why millions buy it. Are you actually suggesting that developers should ignore millions of loyal fans in favor of a few thousand fans?
Nice list! There was a surprising number of gems on there. Good times...it's never boring reading someone's Top 100. I always love these lists.
What's with the hate for CoD? You gamers must be seeing something in these games that the gaming public does not, because they're buying it just like you are, and yet these millions of people are still buying it. CoD is obviously doing SOMETHING right. If it was such a horrible game, people would not buy it year after year. It's like Pokemon: the formula has always been the same, and that's exactly why people still buy it and people still enjo...
@ Phosphor Y'know, the interesting think about professors at universities is that they are professors. How many of them have gone on to create mega-selling franchises? Game developers don't need to exercise their passion or innovation to make a good game. The majority of high-selling games are not innovative, simply really really good.
Here's a simple solution: Check sales charts and see if Mega Man is blowing them up here in the States. Heck, have you seen the sales numbers for Mega Man 9 and 10? Not very impressive. Is there a fanbase for Mega Man in the US? Absolutely. But "fanbase" does not mean "popular". See Earthbound for further reference.
There were so many "bad" games that were fun as heck to play back in the day. Maybe it has to do with childhood innocence, or maybe games were simply - on average - better overall?
I pop in Earthworm Jim for my Genesis every once in a while (I prefer the Genesis 8-way pad to the SNES's D-pad for games like this). It's such a great game. It makes me sad that 2D console platformers basically died after the N64 and PS1.
Sales come from a customer, and a customer is a living, breathing person. If 10 million people bought Game A and only 500,000 bought Game B, you don't think it is the least bit interesting to investigate why people chose Game A over Game B?
While Out of This World is a great gem, I don't think it is more progressive. It - has one solution to every situation - is a very short game - has small environments Why weren't these obvious issues mentioned within the article?
Sales of consoles don't matter so much, but sales of games shows what sort of games that the gaming public wants, so I think that is fairly interesting.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.