- Jan 28, 2019
I mean, if it's a great metroidvania I think it deserves to do well. Not that I'd blame the store or whatever if it doesn't, there's always luck involved, the stars need to align, it never was that every cool piece of software did great, plenty were great but failed to get an audience since the inception of gaming. I don't think there are too many of those great metroidvanias anyway. Even if you include genre classics, not that it's the best attitude, to say play something from 20 years ago instead. That could be said for CRPGs a while ago, hey, why care for the genre's revival, you have tons of great classics from the 90s! But then the revival happened and it was good, we got lots of worthy games out of it, and keep getting them until whatever reason makes people stop making them again. And why is the comparison between an apparently great world in conflict clone and a metroidvania where there are "plenty" way better alternatives people should play instead? If it's it's a lackluster metroidvania that was made and failed then that's part of the reason, that it was lackluster, so why not say they could/should have put more effort to make a great metroidvania rather than say they should have made a great World in Conflict instead? Why would a failure of something like La Mulana be more acceptable than the failure of something like Grey Goo (not saying either of these failed, though I don't think Grey Goo did so hot, just examples). Why shouldn't the developers of Hollow Knight have made a game like the one they succeeded with and instead made something like World in Conflict if that was their passion? Etc. Oh well, just my 2c. I guess I mainly disagree about genre saturation in that manner being a thing I suppose.