Spadge said"

"We realise there's been some disappointment over the fact that Worms: A Space Oddity for Wii has no online play, with that in mind, we'd like to say the following.

Team 17 has proven it can deliver a world class online gaming experience through the popular Worms: Open Warfare 2. THQ and Team 17 believe that Worms: A Space Oddity is a social gaming experience that is best enjoyed locally, in a party-game atmosphere with other players.

We’ve chosen to focus on making the best possible local multiplayer experience through fast-paced gameplay and entertaining party-games. Players will get even more fun and satisfaction from being able to see the reaction of their friends and taunting them with attacks face-to-face."

Dude dont tell us how we should be enjoying the game. Most of us have been playing for way to long to be forced to play with local friends that arnt up to pare with our talent now.

Bottom line, I bought the game the day it came out and I played it for 2 days a total of 6 hours. I havnt played it since. I have one friend that likes to play with me but he works way to much so its just been collecting dust since I cant use it to play online with great people across the globe. Worms ****ed up for its major fans even if this game is a success for people that dont normally play. This wont be my last worms purchase I understand you guys just made this game to make money and get some new players. But that’s not going to encourage me to be any less ****ed that I paid $50 dollars for trash. Lol in your quote you sound like your trying to smooth over the bad press by telling us how we should be enjoying something we have already enjoyed for years now in a different way. Oh well iv spent $50 on worse trash and to be honest when it comes to Wii games spending money on trash is the norm. Good luck with the next Worms I hope its not freaking 3D that would be so dumb. Worms is a 2D virtual chess match and that’s how it should stay. The only changes should be smoother graphics different story and slightly different weapons to fit the story. Keep the basic weapons around because they’re the best. Worms is nothing without the ability to properly old school rope or BNG.

So you didn't read any reviews before you bought the game, I take it?

So you didn't read any reviews before you bought the game, I take it?

Ever since FF7, GTA3, Metal Gear Solid, PES et al, I stopped reading reviews before buying the next game in the respective saga, does that make me irresponsable?

It's your money.

Spadge said"

"We realise there's been some disappointment over the fact that Worms: A Space Oddity for Wii has no online play, with that in mind, we'd like to say the following.

Team 17 has proven it can deliver a world class online gaming experience through the popular Worms: Open Warfare 2. THQ and Team 17 believe that Worms: A Space Oddity is a social gaming experience that is best enjoyed locally, in a party-game atmosphere with other players.

We’ve chosen to focus on making the best possible local multiplayer experience through fast-paced gameplay and entertaining party-games. Players will get even more fun and satisfaction from being able to see the reaction of their friends and taunting them with attacks face-to-face."

Dude dont tell us how we should be enjoying the game. Most of us have been playing for way to long to be forced to play with local friends that arnt up to pare with our talent now.

Bottom line, I bought the game the day it came out and I played it for 2 days a total of 6 hours. I havnt played it since. I have one friend that likes to play with me but he works way to much so its just been collecting dust since I cant use it to play online with great people across the globe. Worms ****ed up for its major fans even if this game is a success for people that dont normally play. This wont be my last worms purchase I understand you guys just made this game to make money and get some new players. But that’s not going to encourage me to be any less ****ed that I paid $50 dollars for trash. Lol in your quote you sound like your trying to smooth over the bad press by telling us how we should be enjoying something we have already enjoyed for years now in a different way. Oh well iv spent $50 on worse trash and to be honest when it comes to Wii games spending money on trash is the norm. Good luck with the next Worms I hope its not freaking 3D that would be so dumb. Worms is a 2D virtual chess match and that’s how it should stay. The only changes should be smoother graphics different story and slightly different weapons to fit the story. Keep the basic weapons around because they’re the best. Worms is nothing without the ability to properly old school rope or BNG.

People have said it too much now.

THIS GAME WAS NOT MEANT FOR YOU, AND NEVER WILL BE. IT WAS MEANT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NEW TO WORMS SO THEY CAN GET USED TO IT. HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY THIS UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY REALIZE? AND I'M PRETTY SURE THAT SOMEONE MENTIONED THAT IT WAS FOR NEW PLAYERS WAYYYYY BEFORE IT CAME OUT, SO WHY DID YOU BUY IT IF YOU KNEW THERE WAS NO ONLINE PLAY?

Also, it would be a bit mean to just keep releasing 2D games and make the 3D fans sad, wouldn't it?

Oh, and you'll get nowhere if your saying Wii games are bad.

It's your money.

I guess you just don't get the point about fan loyalty. When fans are loyal to a brand, they expect the brand to be loyal to the fans.

I guess you just don't get the point about fan loyalty. When fans are loyal to a brand, they expect the brand to be loyal to the fans.

Yeah, but like he said, its your money. If you buy a game and think it sucks and want your money back and regret buying it, its entirely YOUR fault.

Don't go moaning at the publishers if you bought it without renting it first. Its stupid, really. Before i got WASO, i played it at my friends house before getting it, and when i was fully happy with getting it, i got it.

Yeah, but like he said, its your money. If you buy a game and think it sucks and want your money back and regret buying it, its entirely YOUR fault.

I actually agree with you. Wow :p

These days there is an abundance of information about games before most of them are even out. If you buy a game without knowing (or having tried to find) anything about it and it turns out it sucks, your loss.

Lesson of the day: there are people in the world other than you. Don't expect every game to be tailor-made to your liking.

Ever since FF7, GTA3, Metal Gear Solid, PES et al, I stopped reading reviews before buying the next game in the respective saga, does that make me irresponsable?
Yes. Yes it does.

I guess you just don't get the point about fan loyalty. When fans are loyal to a brand, they expect the brand to be loyal to the fans.
Well, the videogaming industry doesn't work that way.

Well Swiftaudi didn't read reviews as far as i remember, because he made a thread about him finding the game in best buy, remember? and then he got it, a little days before that player impressions thread was made.

I guess you just don't get the point about fan loyalty. When fans are loyal to a brand, they expect the brand to be loyal to the fans.
it's a cut throat business. t17 decided to sacrifice their existing fan base in an attempt to create a new one.

what i don't understand is why they even called the new game worms. all of the existing worms fans were disappointed. all of the new people who never played worms wouldn't care either way. so why not just call the game primates, and throw some monkeys in?

it's a cut throat business. t17 decided to sacrifice their existing fan base in an attempt to create a new one.

what i don't understand is why they even called the new game worms. all of the existing worms fans were disappointed. all of the new people who never played worms wouldn't care either way. so why not just call the game primates, and throw some monkeys in?

Again, it was not created for the existing worms fans. It was created for the new players, and let me tell you it is a good game for the new players.

They didn't sacrifice their existing fan base, they created a new game especially for new people, which is very user friendly and pretty easy.

I'm sure something is in the works that will make you happy.;)

Not every game has to be specially made to make all of you happy, y'know.

If they had sacrificed their fanbase they would continue making games for the new people.... and i don't think they are doing that.

Yes. Yes it does.

Point is, it doesn't. I don't know how much you know about marketing, but I guess nothing at all. It is not irresponsable to buy a product from a company that has obtained your loyalty, hence obtaining client loyalty is so important. That's straight from the book.


Well, the videogaming industry doesn't work that way.

It does, providing you want to be succesful. You see, MonkeyLand Interactive could launch a game that's just as good as W:ASO, but it wouldn't sell half the titles, because Team17 are the ones known for making awesome Worms games. What Team17 has done here, is become MonkeyLand, because the people who have played Worms before, are clearly dissapointed, and therefore fan loyalty decreases.

You might ignore the importance of fan loyalty, and it might not be that important for a company like Team17, but fact remains, that trying to get a totally new public by dissapointing the already loyal fans is an extremly risky move, and I'm not exactly sure of the reasons.

Point is, it doesn't. I don't know how much you know about marketing, but I guess nothing at all. It is not irresponsable to buy a product from a company that has obtained your loyalty, hence obtaining client loyalty is so important. That's straight from the book.

This is how it works with game company's....

you sometimes buy a game, and your happy.

you sometimes buy a game, and your very dissapointed.

Yes, it is irresponsible. You should rent it out first before even buying it, to try it out. Not buy it straight away. That is just stupid, so don't go moaning to the publishers: I BOUGHT THIS AND I WANT MAH MONEY BACK! when you should have rented it out first, and read that their was no online play.

It does, providing you want to be succesful. You see, MonkeyLand Interactive could launch a game that's just as good as W:ASO, but it wouldn't sell half the titles, because Team17 are the ones known for making awesome Worms games. What Team17 has done here, is become MonkeyLand, because the people who have played Worms before, are clearly dissapointed, and therefore fan loyalty decreases.

You might ignore the importance of fan loyalty, and it might not be that important for a company like Team17, but fact remains, that trying to get a totally new public by dissapointing the already loyal fans is an extremly risky move, and I'm not exactly sure of the reasons.

Sometimes Gaming Companys will let you down. But if you bought it without trying it, then its entirely your fault and no one elses.

Also, this game was never created for the long time worm players! its just a game for the new players that introduces them to the game easily! i am sure they are working on something that will blow you away, you just need to be patient.

This is how it works with game company's....

you sometimes buy a game, and your happy.

you sometimes buy a game, and your very dissapointed.

Yes, it is irresponsible. You should rent it out first before even buying it, to try it out. Not buy it straight away. That is just stupid, so don't go moaning to the publishers: I BOUGHT THIS AND I WANT MAH MONEY BACK! when you should have rented it out first, and read that their was no online play.



Sometimes Gaming Companys will let you down. But if you bought it without trying it, then its entirely your fault and no one elses.

Also, this game was never created for the long time worm players! its just a game for the new players that introduces them to the game easily! i am sure they are working on something that will blow you away, you just need to be patient.

It is in the benefit of the company that masses of people do not buy their game and feel dissapointed afterwards. Calling those people irresponsable doesn't really do the company any good. It's not a valid justification, people have the right to expect and show loyalty because the company has done a good job creating those feelings, people have the right to feel dissapointed even if they could have been more of an intelligent consumer. Team17 creates expectation with their new worm games, if we understand that intelligent consuming is a minority, we should realize that no matter how we try to justify the lack of expectation-meeting after the game has been released, there's going to be a bunch of people complaining, and there's only the company to blame.
The same way, you can't approach your presidencial campaign with a smart and intelligent point of view, and then complaint you didn't win because the people are too stupid.

You either don't understand my post or you're subestimating my intelligence, either way, please stop repeating yourself.

It is in the benefit of the company that masses of people do not buy their game and feel dissapointed afterwards. Calling those people irresponsable doesn't really do the company any good.

You either don't understand my post or you're subestimating my intelligence, either way, please stop repeating yourself.

If you buy a game, without checking it out first, without even looking at reviews, that names you as an irresponsible person. End of, really.

Team 17 don't have to make every game to fit your liking. There's another target market they need to aim for, and thats new worms players.

In total i'd say there are 3 Target markets they have. Which are....

New Worms Players

Long time worms players

3D worms players

Sigh.......

Sigh.......

What your saying is obvious in a nutshell: That your not irresponsible if you buy a game that lets you down.

You can't expect every game from a gaming company to make you happy. It doesn't work like that.

No, I'm justifying the irresponsabiltiy with loyalty, and the generation of expectation, without previous warning equals a mistake from the company in the long term. People generate loyalty to brands, people therefore trust said brands and their products, to the point they buy it with blind hope, when a product hits so low in their expectations they have the right to feel dissapointed because that's how communities with buy-sell relations work.

The prodcut should clearly indicate what to expect from it, and how it is for, and all WASO indicates is that it's a worms game for the new console generation, the outcome is that it isn't as good as Worms from 10 years back, if Team17 really wanted to stop old school gamers from playing it (which obviously they didn't), they would have, like quakerworm said, called it monkeys in space, or Casual Worms Party. Yet they used a franchise that is played world wide and who has a bunch of loyal fans around the globe, who have all the right to feel dissapointed, even if they aren't intelligent consumers.

WASO succeeds in it's aim, I'm sure of it, however, blaming the consumers for their irresponsabiltiy shouldn't be needed, and should be prevented by all means in order to avoid hurting said loyalty.

Let's see if I can think of an example you can understand... You got to Mc Donalds and you know what to expect, if you travelled to Malasia, and you saw a Mc Donalds and felt like having a burger, you'd go in, you wouldn't ask random people on the street if it's good. If it turns out to be a burger that tastes like nooddle soup, that isn't half as greasy as the ones you have in your local Mcdonalds, then you're going to feel dissapointed, probably even robbed, that doesn't make you irresponsable. And it doesn't mean there's some people out there that love nooddle soup burgers. The easy fix for this would have been to call the Burger the Mc Nooddle soup. But what if it's called the New Big Mc? Now there lies the problem.
I understand games, like movies or whatever are a completely different matter, they're not burgers, they aren't supposed to be so similar to each other, even when part of a saga, but perhaps this example helps you understand what client loyalty is, and how important it is.

You might want to continue arguing this with me, but that's rich, considering all these things are proven science which, of course, I haven't written myself. So if you really want to argue these points, I suggest you educate yourslef on the matter first, so I don't have to explain everything with so much detail.

You might want to continue arguing this with me, but that's rich, considering all these things are proven science which, of course, I haven't written myself. So if you really want to argue these points, I suggest you educate yourslef on the matter first, so I don't have to explain everything with so much detail.

Not that I am disagreeing with any of your points (I haven't even seen the game being played let alone played it myself so I can't really offer an opinion) but I thought I should point out that brand loyalty is part of Economics, which is not a science (i.e. you cannot do a BSc in it) it is an Art (i.e. people do BA's in it).

My father did a BA in Economics and I remember him quite clearly explaining why it is not a science

They didn't sacrifice their existing fan base, they created a new game especially for new people, which is very user friendly and pretty easy.
when you market something using existing brand, you market it to the existing base of brand-loyal customers. when that something ends up being for a different demographic all together, this tends to hurt the brand.

this is why i'm saying that marketing waso as a worms game is sacrificing the existing fan base. there are two options. either t17 have no idea what they are doing. or, more likely, they are aware of that fact and want to start from the scratch.

they have full right to do this. it is done all the time. but when you follow this by saying that something for the old worms fan base is in the works, you are simply being blind to their marketing tactics. no rational business entity will market an old brand for a new demographic if they plan to produce something to the existing customer base in the future.

notice that when a company does attempt to capture new demographic into an existing brand, they make distinctions extremely clear. consider lego for a brief example.

base demographic (http://city.lego.com/en-US/default.aspx) - this is pretty much what you think of when somebody talks about lego

younger demographic (http://preschool.lego.com/en-US/default.aspx) - this is targeted at pre-school children. note that they even use a different logo: duplo. though, a connection to sets for older children is still being made.

older demographic (http://technic.lego.com/en-US/default.aspx) - again, notice that it is not called just lego, but lego technic. a very sharp distinction is made with the core product, even though most design elements are kept.

now lets compare worms a space oddity to worms world party box covers.

wwp (http://www.volny.cz/claudi/bigimages/1574_f1.jpg)
waso (http://www.mynintendo.ru/blog/files/blogger273/250px-Worms_space_oddity.jpg)

looking at the box, can you tell that you are not going to like the waso if you were a big fan of wwp? no. your first expectation based on the way they are marketed is that you are going to be playing a newer better version of everything you liked in wwp.

now, is it really that hard to understand why so many people are disappointed. and do you really think that t17 are trying to keep the existing fan base with something like this? or do you really think they are stupid enough to allow such similarities between styles by error?

cyph3r:

It's not a science in the sense results can't be predicted to a 100% extent, I was only trying to say that these statements weren't my opinion but the result of proffesional work which I tried to apply to the case, sorry for being naive.

It's not a science in the sense results can't be predicted to a 100% extent, I was only trying to say that these statements weren't my opinion but the result of proffesional work which I tried to apply to the case, sorry for being naive.
in science, we are generally happy with 95%, and in some cases, 10% is good enough.

as for economics, my gf is doing an ma in econ. the jokes i hear are on the side of "economic forecasts exist to make weather reports look good."

in science, we are generally happy with 95%, and in some cases, 10% is good enough.

as for economics, my gf is doing an ma in econ. the jokes i hear are on the side of "economic forecasts exist to make weather reports look good."

There's been a debate for decades now. As to if economy reports should have only tangible values or also predictions, brand value et al, like you say, nowadays they're mostly only used to make things look good (intangible value, that is). Normally, only tangible value is given, even though, in many cases, intangible value is more important - see brand potential. In Marketing, we live for intangible value, which includes loyalty and the such.

Come to think of it, why haven't I seen you two complaining loudly about W:OW or Wxbla, considering how those two were equally as simplified as this one?

Oh, and how did this thread manage to deviate into a "this game shouldn't have been made with a different demographic" when the origional poster's issue was the lack of online play, which was removed due to budget restraints?
Edit: Ah, a combined effort of Yakuza and Shadowman apparently, after which everyone else followed suit. I'm guessing both forumers skimmed the origional post without properly reading that it's only issue wasn't related to the normal threads about this. (Unless Yakuza actually thought that every game in a series should have an equally large budget, which I doubt.)

what i don't understand is why they even called the new game worms. all of the existing worms fans were disappointed. all of the new people who never played worms wouldn't care either way. so why not just call the game primates, and throw some monkeys in?
Once again: Making the Worms games simpler is to allow new players into the series, so that they'll be able to play the more complex games that will follow. Making a game of the same engine and concept, but making the substance different than the Worms games, defeats the entire purpose of that.
Also, you two seem to be giving off the impression that the game has changed entirely, when it's only been more simplified.

but fact remains, that trying to get a totally new public by dissapointing the already loyal fans is an extremly risky move, and I'm not exactly sure of the reasons.
The reason is that it's a case of balancing all the new people that will be interested in the series after and the new people that will only get that game versus all the people that will abandon the series if they buy the game. Now, try to guess which group is considerably larger than the other.
Tip: The origional poster himself said "This wont be my last worms purchase".

notice that when a company does attempt to capture new demographic into an existing brand, they make distinctions extremely clear. consider lego for a brief example.
base demographic (http://city.lego.com/en-US/default.aspx) - this is pretty much what you think of when somebody talks about lego
younger demographic (http://preschool.lego.com/en-US/default.aspx) - this is targeted at pre-school children. note that they even use a different logo: duplo. though, a connection to sets for older children is still being made.
older demographic (http://technic.lego.com/en-US/default.aspx) - again, notice that it is not called just lego, but lego technic. a very sharp distinction is made with the core product, even though most design elements are kept.
now lets compare worms a space oddity to worms world party box covers.
wwp (http://www.volny.cz/claudi/bigimages/1574_f1.jpg)
waso (http://www.mynintendo.ru/blog/files/blogger273/250px-Worms_space_oddity.jpg)
looking at the box, can you tell that you are not going to like the waso if you were a big fan of wwp? no. your first expectation based on the way they are marketed is that you are going to be playing a newer better version of everything you liked in wwp.
How about this: if you can design a cover for the game without using any words other than the title, and clearly show that the game is designed to appeal more to new people to the Worms series, then I'll take what you just said to be related to the issue. And if you can't, and I doubt you can, then I'll assume that you haven't got your head around the videogame industry enough.

Let's see if I can think of an example you can understand... You got to Mc Donalds and you know what to expect, if you travelled to Malasia, and you saw a Mc Donalds and felt like having a burger, you'd go in, you wouldn't ask random people on the street if it's good. If it turns out to be a burger that tastes like nooddle soup, that isn't half as greasy as the ones you have in your local Mcdonalds, then you're going to feel dissapointed, probably even robbed, that doesn't make you irresponsable. And it doesn't mean there's some people out there that love nooddle soup burgers. The easy fix for this would have been to call the Burger the Mc Nooddle soup. But what if it's called the New Big Mc? Now there lies the problem.
I understand games, like movies or whatever are a completely different matter, they're not burgers, they aren't supposed to be so similar to each other, even when part of a saga, but perhaps this example helps you understand what client loyalty is, and how important it is.
If knowing that recipes for food can change so much in different regions was as much widely-known as videogames in a series can change so much from each other, then yes, I'd say that's irresponsible.

You might want to continue arguing this with me, but that's rich, considering all these things are proven science which, of course, I haven't written myself.
I'm calling your bluff here. No major point you've said here so far is either researched nor proven, but that you're pointing out from how you think it works.

I'm calling your bluff here. No major point you've said here so far is either researched nor proven, but that you're pointing out from how you think it works.

Right, I've only got a 5 years plus 2 on Majors on Marketing after all... I suggest you start by reading Jacob Jacoby, then move on to Ralph Pfouts and Michael Solomón.

Then, and probably the most important, theres Aaker, who proves that in order to bring new public to a product, it's much more effective to have a base of loyal fans used to bring new users instead of screwing them, and molding the product to fit new users.

Also, there's Oshavsky and Granbois who will teach you the basics on irrational consuming. And how you can't and should never blame it on the consumers.

After you've done all that, you then come here and decide if I'm bluffing or not, so far, for all I care, you're only trolling.

PS: We've gone over WOW and WormsXBLA. Experienced wormers were harsh with WOW, but WOW2 was a very polished product. Either way, they do not apply seeing as they are a portable and downloadable game.
No one complaints that Worms for the phones are not as good as WA, because people know this is an unrealsitic demand. The same applies, based on the plataform (WOW) and price (XBLA).

Then, and probably the most important, theres Aaker, who proves that in order to bring new public to a product, it's much more effective to have a base of loyal fans used to bring new users instead of screwing them, and molding the product to fit new users.
Hold up, think about that for a second. Really, the only major thing Team17 did in changing their games to appeal to those unused with the series is reduce the number of weapons, and that's what most people complain about. They DID mold it the best they could, but there's no middle ground at all!

Also, there's Oshavsky and Granbois who will teach you the basics on irrational consuming. And how you can't and should never blame it on the consumers.
Neither me nor Shadowman are part of Team17. We're not restricted by being good to the consumers.

PS: We've gone over WOW and WormsXBLA. Experienced wormers were harsh with WOW, but WOW2 was a very polished product. Either way, they do not apply seeing as they are a portable and downloadable game.
No one complaints that Worms for the phones are not as good as WA, because people know this is an unrealsitic demand. The same applies, based on the plataform (WOW) and price (XBLA).
Including a buttload of weapons based on each other isn't what takes up a huge part of the budget.

Right, I've only got a 5 years plus 2 on Majors on Marketing after all...
I've noticed something: every time we mention that you don't have a certain experience about something, you say it's highly irrelevant and that experience means little, but every time you do have an experience in something, you never hesitate to make it clear.
I sure hope you don't still think that being on this forum gives you no impression of the mind of the Teamsters attitude on the forum, but that years playing the Worms games does.

Hold up, think about that for a second. Really, the only major thing Team17 did in changing their games to appeal to those unused with the series is reduce the number of weapons, and that's what most people complain about. They DID mold it the best they could, but there's no middle ground at all!

No, there's a bunch of other things that makes WASO much more casual than the other 2D PC games, you might not realize this, but then again, if you're a casual worms player, how are you supposed to know?



Neither me nor Shadowman are part of Team17. We're not restricted by being good to the consumers.

Wait, I guess you don't understand. I don't give a *snip* about what your or Shadowmoon think. But everytime someone fields a complaint you're in the first line trying to justify Team17, when there is no justification, like I've stated, and explained in high detail thousands of times already, those people have all the right in the world to feel dissapointed. The same right Team17 have to make money, or to try and increase their target public.


Including a buttload of weapons based on each other isn't what takes up a huge part of the budget.

Huh?


I've noticed something: every time we mention that you don't have a certain experience about something, you say it's highly irrelevant and that experience means little, but every time you do have an experience in something, you never hesitate to make it clear.

What? You acussed me of buffling with no evidence, I was defending myself against childish and ignorant acussations, that's all. You said I did no research, you basically insulted my intelligence, I gave you some sources so you can start your education. Providing you want to actually debate the point instead of trolling.


I sure hope you don't still think that being on this forum gives you no impression of the mind of the Teamsters attitude on the forum, but that years playing the Worms games does.

I never once had a saying about Team17 staff attitude. I never questioned their methods, I only explained to you and Shadowmoon how you were wrong trying to blame the consumers for being dissapointed on the game, and how letting down loyal fans has negative aspects.
They made this game in the best of their interests, I don't think for a second they "messed up", or anything like that. I'm not saying Team17 is wrong. I'm saying you and Shadowmoon are, because you seem to think that everyone should be pleased with this game, and if they aren't, it's their fault. Wrong. Team17 is highly at fault for dissapointing long term loyal fans, whether this is positive or negative for them only they know.

Obviously though, you have nothing to say on the subject but you still went ahead and acussed me of baffling, if there's anything else, PM me, I don't really have time for you anymore,

I origionally had planned to debate all points there, until I read this:
I'm saying you and Shadowmoon are, because you seem to think that everyone should be pleased with this game,
For anyone who can't spot whats wrong here, read what Shadowman wrote in bold at the start of the thread.

Oh, except for one thing, to make things clearer:
What? You acussed me of buffling with no evidence, I was defending myself against childish and ignorant acussations, that's all. You said I did no research, you basically insulted my intelligence,
Actually, I was thinking along the lines that the videogame industry is too new and the case too obscure for there to have been specific research on it.
Of course, I did say "researched" or "proven", so you should be able to show me that I'm wrong easily enough.


Anyway, because nobody's mentioned it yet outside of my small passing;
Swiftaudi, the lack of online play is due to a restriction in the given budget of the game. Unfortunately, Team17 are still a relatively small company, and unlike considerably larger companies, can't afford to spend money on features that won't provide an income.

Come to think of it, why haven't I seen you two complaining loudly about W:OW or Wxbla, considering how those two were equally as simplified as this one?
i did complain about wow. quite directly, as i have purchased it. it was not worth the money, and i have avoided repeating the mistake with wow2. before wow, i was in the category of people who bought worms games upon release first chance they got. i'm no longer one of these people. i will consider buying future titles if they ever become good again, but i highly doubt it.

yes, i'm a bitter ex-fan. feel free to stereotype me as you wish.

How about this: if you can design a cover for the game without using any words other than the title, and clearly show that the game is designed to appeal more to new people to the Worms series, then I'll take what you just said to be related to the issue. And if you can't, and I doubt you can, then I'll assume that you haven't got your head around the videogame industry enough.
so i'm wrong because i didn't play with crayons as a kid? what kind of logic is that?

but if you are suggesting that you couldn't make the two box arts look different, you are off your rocker.

same "series":
worms (http://www.psxa2z.com/gpgs/ss/BT1230/BT1230F.jpg)
worms 2 (http://www.lynnemusic.com/cdcovers/worms2.jpg)

the w2 box art suggests a connection to original, but points out a new artistic style. you can infer from the box what kind of game you'll be playing if you played worms.

new series:
worms 3d (http://www.gamestore.ro/images/Worms%203D.jpg)

now, by looking at the cover of worms 3d vs worms 2, i could tell that i'd be playing a different game. so when it didn't match my expectations, i wasn't bitterly disappointed. i was hoping for something different, but worms 3d was fun in its own right, so it was fine. these games were marketed to slightly different audiences, and what do you know? they do have slightly different audiences. you'll find a lot of people out there who like w3d better than w2. and that's fine.

just as a refresher take a look at wwp and waso covers for a moment
wwp (http://www.volny.cz/claudi/bigimages/1574_f1.jpg)
waso (http://www.mynintendo.ru/blog/files/blogger273/250px-Worms_space_oddity.jpg)

put them side by side, or something. notice that it's easier to talk about differences than similarities, because they have all but identical styles.

space in the background of both - check
planet with something orbiting used for O in "worms" - check
worm wearing a helmet and bazooka on foreground - check
worms are standing on a surface of a round planet - check
something strange crawling on the title - check

i wish i was just picking at it, but i'm having hard time finding something to differentiate the two. the biggest difference is that for some reason waso uses the w3d font for the title itself. also, there is jet pack. at least that bit isn't misleading.

with the number of different styles used in the past, do you really think it would have been that difficult to make these things look a little different? just a bit, maybe? i'm not saying that you should be able to realize that there is no network play by just looking at the cover (i mean, other than reading back of the box). but just making it look different enough so that you can tell that it isn't the same game for a different platform would be a big step forward.

because lets accept it, an average old-time wa/wwp fan going past that box in a store will think exactly that. 'here is wwp for wii'. that average fan will buy the game, get disappointed, and t17 lost a fan.

again, i cannot believe that t17 would do this by error. the odds are against it, and there are marketing people who are supposed to realize such things. the only explanation is that t17 has abandoned old fans, and are building new base from scratch, hoping that the old name could aid in the effort. we are not going to see a new game for old fans. that bridge has been burned long time ago. best you can hope for is that when the people who currently enjoy wow and waso grow up, t17 might make a game for them. it will not be a game for the old fans, but some of them might enjoy it.

Quakerworm...

What are you on?

Seriously, I have NEVER known anyone that will judge their expectations on a game by how similar the front part of its cover is to another game, especially when they know the series of which that game belong to!
Also, those two covers are hardly alike. The only two things visually they have in common are the planet for an O and the space background, and that's only if you ignore the colours completely. Those other 3 comparisons aren't visual comparisons.

so i'm wrong because i didn't play with crayons as a kid? what kind of logic is that?
I didn't mean to draw it, just to design it.

it's not about logical comparisons. its about memory responses. when i look at waso cover, i immediately think of the wwp cover. such techniques are consistently used to leverage the brand loyalty. a lot of companies mask their logos to look similar to well known brands. they aren't going to have the same name, exactly the same design, or anything like that. just enough of a layout to trigger memory.

the waso box design targets the existing worms fans. that much should be clear. you should at least see a contradiction between that and "it isn't meant for worms fans", even if you chose to ignore the rest of the argument.

the waso box design targets the existing worms fans. that much should be clear. you should at least see a contradiction between that and "it isn't meant for worms fans", even if you chose to ignore the rest of the argument.
Now you've completely lost me...

Plasma, you're really debating something you clearly have no idea about.

Seriously, I have NEVER known anyone that will judge their expectations on a game by how similar the front part of its cover is to another game

You clearly do not know enough people, nor have access to studies revealing the secrets behind irrational consuming and how to take advantage of it. Box art is in the first line of advetirsment between seller and buyer, it's the box art that has the power to have the consumer pick up the box, look at it, maybe look behind it and decide if he's going to buy it. And I'm talking about the average consumer here (majorities) here, the same kind of people that have the right to complaint because Team17 have made them expect something and it turned out to be different.

I know a lot of people here seem to accuse yakuza and quakerworm of "trolling" or whatever gets thrown about these days to mean "disagrees with the long time members", but I have to agree with them here.

First of all, I've never actually played WASO, WXBLA, or WOW and WOW2, so I don't actually have any relevant opinions on any of the games, but why should they be moaned at for trusting the brand and playing the games before reading a review? I remember when I bought the box set for Family Guy seasons 1 - 4 after seeing the first 3 seasons. I thought it was really funny, but it turned out the 4th season wasn't that great. When the 5th season came out, I got the DVD without watching some episodes first and it turns out it sucked. Was I silly for spending my money before watching some of the new episodes to see if they were the same quality as they were before? Probably, but I assumed that because they made some good episodes before, they weren't going to come out with a bunch of crap, and they did. I certainly won't be buying any more seasons.

It's the same with videogames. Naughty Dog made some excellent Crash Bandicoot games, and Jak and Daxter was superb, but Jak and Daxter 2 less so. So when Jak and Daxter 3 came out, am I a fool for buying it before reading about it first and then finding it was a disappointment? I don't think so. I trusted the brand.

I know a lot of people here seem to accuse yakuza and quakerworm of "trolling" or whatever gets thrown about these days to mean "disagrees with the long time members",
I don't think they're trolling. They've got honest opinions and always fully explain them.

but why should they be moaned at for trusting the brand and playing the games before reading a review?
I was thinking over that myself, after something (can't remember what) Yakuza said yesterday. Eventually I concluded that it's because I have a more... considerate mind, or that I'd think of what it'd be like for other people related to the topic and then decide if I should be feeling emotional or not. I guess I just forgot that regular people don't think like that.

See Plasma, when you're debating, you should agree or disagree based on how much you like the person, it's childish.

See Plasma, when you're debating, you should agree or disagree based on how much you like the person, it's childish.
Umm....
Oh wait, you meant "shouldn't". Well I don't, and that's not what I said. What I said was that I think of things from all sides when I'm thinking about how I should react to something.
Wait, how did you manage to derive your sentence from my post?

You clearly do not know enough people, nor have access to studies revealing the secrets behind irrational consuming and how to take advantage of it. Box art is in the first line of advetirsment between seller and buyer, it's the box art that has the power to have the consumer pick up the box, look at it, maybe look behind it and decide if he's going to buy it. And I'm talking about the average consumer here (majorities) here, the same kind of people that have the right to complaint because Team17 have made them expect something and it turned out to be different.
People who are dedicated enough to gaming to play Worms in order to be considered "hardcore" should be clever enough in order to not be a mindless consumer who bases all of his decisions on boxart and doesn't read reviews.

You have to read reviews before buying any game, even games part of amazing serieses can have some dud ones (eg Super Mario series -- sunshine, MK series: DD, CoD series: CoD2:BRO (in some opinions), the list goes on).

To sum up this post:

People who wouldn't like the game because they are too veteran at Worms should be clever enough not to be a mindless consumer.

EDIT: Wow, a lot of people posted whilst I was making my post

Umm....
Oh wait, you meant "shouldn't". Well I don't, and that's not what I said. What I said was that I think of things from all sides when I'm thinking about how I should react to something.
Wait, how did you manage to derive your sentence from my post?

To put it simply, you were arguing with me because you didn't grasp the concept of irrational consuming and how important it is, you ignored all the facts I presented you with and debated my point, acussed me of baffling and insulted my intelligence and preparation.
Now suddenly, Melon agrees, and you suddenly "remember" how regular people approach products even after I've been educating you on the matter for two pages straight.

you ignored all the facts I presented you with
You presented NO facts in your posts! None! Nada! It's things like that that I accuse you of bluffing with.
acussed me of baffling
"Accuse"
and insulted my intelligence
I said you hadn't done research on the specific matter (which you still have to prove me wrong on). That's not insulting your intelligence. However, implying that I have yet to, and I quote, "start [my] education" is insulting my intelligence, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do that again.
and preparation.
Still waiting for you to show me that preparation you said you did...

Now suddenly, Melon agrees, and you suddenly "remember" how regular people approach products even after I've been educating you on the matter for two pages straight.
"Realise how regular people approach life" would be more accurate, which nobody explained/educated (even though it wasn't sudden, like I said). And I still disagree with Melon, but he didn't post anything new and I already explained that I wouldn't earlier in the thread.

You presented NO facts in your posts! None! Nada! It's things like that that I accuse you of bluffing with.


I've given you countless authors which almost exclusively write on the stated matters. I'm not going to scan them if that's what you want.



I said you hadn't done research on the specific matter (which you still have to prove me wrong on).

See above. You can't demand proof just because you're ignorant on the subject.

That's not insulting your intelligence. However, implying that I have yet to, and I quote, "start [my] education" is insulting my intelligence, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do that again.

Actually, I explained you how things are from a marketing point of view, avoiding giving my own opinion, you didn't understand anything of what I've said, and if you have, you disagree with it, ergo you disagree with a bunch of studies regarding irrational consuming, fan loyalty and a bunch of other proven theories you're free to google/wiki. I insult your intelligence because you're either stupid or you are a succesful publicist who has found out formulas that contradict years and years of brand development strategies and market functions, because it's quite clearly not the latter, I really have no choice do I?


Still waiting for you to show me that preparation you said you did...

I've been explaining (in great detail) how consuming works, surprisingly enough, most of that stuff you don't need any degree to figure out, because it's compeltely logical. Yet you have a theory of your own. Is at this point were I'm supposed to print my diploma?


"Realise how regular people approach life" would be more accurate, which nobody explained/educated (even though it wasn't sudden, like I said). And I still disagree with Melon, but he didn't post anything new and I already explained that I wouldn't earlier in the thread.

I did, quakerworm did, we gave examples, we probably wasted our time, yet you still don't grasp the concept, and instead of checking the authors or sources I've given you what you do is choose to disagree, with silly arguments that I've been putting down post after post.

I really don't know what else to do. I've told you the whys, the whats and the hows, yet you still feel I'm wrong. You now read the authors I've given you, and after that, if you still feel they're wrong I suggest you start your crusade against world wide marketing, and who knows, maybe you're right, but don't get your hopes up, specially if you're going to approach them with the same arguments you approached this thread, nonsense that is.

And if isn't clear yet. The fact that you do your research before buying a game, you and the people you know that is, it doesn't mean anything. If you can't see the big picture, and see how most sales are made (which again, you don't even need a degree or preparation to see), then you're just not intelligent enough, simple as.

I've given you countless authors which almost exclusively write on the stated matters. I'm not going to scan them if that's what you want.
You said facts. Authors aren't facts. I still accuse you of bluffing.

See above. You can't demand proof just because you're ignorant on the subject.
I can, however, demand proof that you've done adequate research, regardless of the situation. Otherwise, there's no way to show you're not bluffing.

Actually, I explained you how things are from a marketing point of view,
From your marketing point of view. Marketing isn't one big absolute.

you didn't understand anything of what I've said, and if you have, you disagree with it, ergo you disagree with a bunch of studies regarding irrational consuming, fan loyalty and a bunch of other proven theories
YOU! POSTED! NO! STUDIES! Until you can show that this issue has had studies done on it, you can't claim to be following them.

you're free to google/wiki.
That's your job to show me, because I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking for, as "studies regarding irrational consuming, fan loyalty and a bunch of other proven theories" is too unspecific.

I insult your intelligence because you're either stupid or you are a succesful publicist who has found out formulas that contradict years and years of brand development strategies and market functions, because it's quite clearly not the latter, I really have no choice do I?
You have a choice. Just not that choice.

I did, quakerworm did, we gave examples, we probably wasted our time, yet you still don't grasp the concept, and instead of checking the authors or sources I've given you what you do is choose to disagree, with silly arguments that I've been putting down post after post.
1: I don't have time to read over your selected authors just to find out an issue regarding that simplifying a videogame in a series will reduce sales, mostly because I still believe you're bluffing and are thinking about vague, related studies
2: You posted no sources. Stop pretending that you did already! I mean, this part is an easily provable fact, I can just look through the older posts in this thread, so why do you keep saying you did?
3: I said life. You said things similar to, but not even exact enough, that people don't care about the game's real intention.

I really don't know what else to do. I've told you the whys, the whats and the hows, yet you still feel I'm wrong. You now read the authors I've given you, and after that, if you still feel they're wrong I suggest you start your crusade against world wide marketing,
1: I'm only objecting to what your impression of this part of marketing is.
2: You have yet to include the 'world' part in your posts. In other words, show me studies or research results or other things similar.
3: Like I said, I still don't think there was enough research done on this particular case. The fact that you have failed to produce any studies or research showing that there has been only seems to further my impression.

nonsense that is.
Gee, thanks.

If you can't see the big picture, and see how most sales are made (which again, you don't even need a degree or preparation to see), then you're just not intelligent enough, simple as.
And I'm claiming that you don't see the big picture as much as you think I can't. Which is why just saying "you're wrong" doesn't help in the slightest. Now, don't bother replying to any of this if you can't actually find your sources, facts or examples, because it's the only thing that can convince me you're not bluffing your opinion.

Irrational consuming and fan loyalty are not vague terms, you just need to google them to find all the conclusions the experts all around the world have came to on the matter, including evidence, statistics and theories. Obviously, that's assuming you're actually intellectually interested in the subject as opposed to arguing with me for the sake of doing so, from a position of ignorance you have admitted to stand on demanding me to post proof of my claims, even after I've named numerous authors, known to anyone midly interested on how marketing works. I'm not going to spoon feed you, you're clearly the one here with lack of knowledge of the subject (something you might not notice yet, but you will as soon as you type "irrational consuming", "fan loyalty", "Logotype, the first line of attack" or whatever, that is, if you ever do)

I will do a resume of the thread hoping you see how stupid you look:
-You and Shadowmoon blame the consumers and try to justify Team17 stance
-I tell you how the consumer isn't at fault, and that all the power is on Team17's end, that they should of done things differently if they wanted loyal fans not to feel dissapointed
-You insist on the consumers being at fault
-I go into great detail how this isn't the case
-You accusse me of baffling
-I name numerous authors to back up my statements, making clear they're not my opinion but my knowledge over half a decade of a course
-You put down my sources saying I should be proving to you the things I say instead of showing you the path to educate yourself providing you're interested
-You still accusse me of baffling and claim my terms are vague and unspecific even though I'll the terms I've used are perfectly explained in google and wikipedia

And look, even though it's clear you have no case and are just acting on prejudices (heck, I doubt you even trying googling anything yet), I'm going to link you (even if I'm against spoon feeding, specially someone like you who will make no worth use of the information) to a wikipedia page I've found in 10 seconds, you can check all its branches if you wish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_loyalty

Brand Loyalty is the consumer's conscious or unconscious decision, expressed through intention or behavior, to repurchase a brand continually. It occurs because the consumer perceives that the brand offers the right product features, image, or level of quality at the right price. Consumer behavior is habitual because habits are safe and familiar.

Give me a call when you've grown up.

i think we should lay off spadeg, he did the best he could
so worms space odity isnt as good as worms mayhem SO WHAT? they cant all be winners
i bet you made mistakes in your life too

it cant be that bad though look:
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/wii/wormsaspaceoddity
1up gave it 83! now if u ask me that is a very good and respectabel score
and im sure it is selling like hotcakes since lets face it team17 is a top company in the gaming busness

bottom line is: there wil be another worms game and its gonna b better probably. don\'t worry chill out! if u dont like it dont buy it sheesh, download the demo instead

Plasma, Yak; Cease this madness and return to being gentlemen once again! *moustache twiddle*

However, due to the study I've been doing on advertising, it's true that a box (or other method of packaging) will spark an interest in somebody who has seen one like it. Furthermore, usually the impulse isn't strong enough to fool most people into buying it. It may however make them want to try it through a memory trigger of how much they liked the similar product. On the other hand, Yakuza, you didn't cite any reliable references. Plasma had good reason to ask you what these were and where they were. Also, you appeared to dodge his questions, burying them in false accusations and insults.

My advice? Rent or demo before you buy.

Plasma, Yak; Cease this madness and return to being gentlemen once again! *moustache twiddle*

However, due to the study I've been doing on advertising, it's true that a box (or other method of packaging) will spark an interest in somebody who has seen one like it. Furthermore, usually the impulse isn't strong enough to fool most people into buying it. It may however make them want to try it through a memory trigger of how much they liked the similar product. On the other hand, Yakuza, you didn't cite any reliable references. Plasma had good reason to ask you what these were and where they were. Also, you appeared to dodge his questions, burying them in false accusations and insults.

My advice? Rent or demo before you buy.

How are my sources not reliable references when they're used to teach scholars? What am I supposed to to? Find an internet link? I'm sure anyone who cares can do that. It's not like I'm talking about obscure things.

What's the topic? "Responce[sic] to spadge on WASO dissapointment[sic]".

And everyone is hollering about how much money they'd wasted and how Team17 has disappointed the long-time Worms fans through six titles, amidst tons of capital letters, demographics and bold words.

Quarreling won't benefit anyone a single bit, it won't return anyone's money or make W:ASO a better game or make Team17 magically produce the ultimate Worms game. Hey, there are 3 topics dedicated to this "TEAM17 GIVE ME BETTER GAMES NAOW" madness.

It's not up to us to decide whether Team17 should produce a Worms game to our liking. Why, the last Worms game we have all agreed was good was Worms Armageddon and that was close to a decade (why, almost 9 years, in fact) ago.

Then everyone said that Team17 was spiraling down. Worms World Party, Worms 3d, Worms Forts, Worms 4, WOW, WOW2 and W:ASO weren't matches to Worms: Armageddon. The last 3 games weren't even for the PC!

I would agree to that, but some new players would deem Armageddon too difficult, and would prefer W:ASO or W:OW. It's all based on what each person likes.

It is almost impossible to create a Worms game which everyone would like. In this case, Team17 chose to create Worms games for people who like 3D games, RTS-like games and like simple but limited fun. Fine with us. We will wait. Won't we? Or, we could attempt to make our own game and end up with something like Wormux, which is horrid in my opinion.

The best thing to do now is to sit in front of your computer and play Worms: Armageddon until Team17 announces a new 2D Worms game with old and new weapons, more (free) terrain, detailed backgrounds, downloadable content, more speech, newer looking Worms and a mission editor. Oh, and better backflips. ;)

Who knows, they might have started on one already.

When people complaint, most of the time it's not because they want to improve things, but because humans have feelings. So, even though what you say makes sense, doesn't take away the fact that some people were dissapointed and felt like complaining.

The gaming comunity complain too much and get too annoyed nowadays. Infinity Interactive (the developers behind games such as Puzzle quest and Warlords Battlecry) have even recieved death threats from angry fans (But those were all from angry Sony fan boys :p )

Well... Worms is Worms for me, its the best game. When I play Worms Open Warfare 2 on my DS, I don't play online a lot, so I don't need it.

1) Buy the game

2) Like it or don't like

3) If you don't like it take it back

4) Get your money back

5) Buy another game

6) Happy gaming

I can't believe Spadge made the comments he did, there's utterly no reason to neglect including online play other than lack of effort. Playing online has never precluded playing directly with your friends, this is nonsense and team17 knows it. I mean team17 has demonstrated laziness before in producing essentially the same game several times in a row (W2, WA, and WWP), but this is a pretty astounding new level considering their titles a full decade ago now have online capabilities that their current game lacks.

I also think the best moments in worms are often online and not with your friends in real life. There aren't going to be many opportunities to get a bunch of people together who are willing to get past a bit of a learning curve and play a slow-paced turn based game, unless they've all played it before. Online action gives you the ability to play with as many people as you like... well I shouldn't have to enumerate the benefits of online play, they've been obvious since the mid 90s.

Spadge seemed to imply that there would be some kind of trade off, that multiplayer face to face would be better despite the lack of online play, but from reviews I've seen this doesn't appear to be the case at all. I'm not saying that Space Oddity is a completely lost cause, but I know I won't be buying it now, while I would've at least considered it with the inclusion of online play.

Spadge seemed to, well, did imply that an online mode would cost too much for too little benefit. There's nothing about lazyness there.
...
Wait, lazyness? You're saying that, for a moderately-sized company, that lazyness is a major factor? Oh lordy...

God, people on this forum are so unbelievably anal. Who cares what the cause is for t17 not releasing this game with online play. It doesn't matter what combination of laziness, incompetency, or bad decision making this was. It definitely implies a lack of planning and reminds me of the shortcomings of WA and WWP compared to W2, though those were largely a matter of laziness in terms of creativity. But I say laziness because it implies a lack of effort, in terms of planning at the very least.

It definitely implies a lack of planningThe fact that it had been considered means they had planned, possibly they came to the wrong conclusion, but I doubt it was through lack of planning. Spadge's post suggests a very deliberate decision.

Well... Worms is Worms for me, its the best game. When I play Worms Open Warfare 2 on my DS, I don't play online a lot, so I don't need it.

1) Buy the game

2) Like it or don't like

3) If you don't like it take it back

4) Get your money back

5) Buy another game

6) Happy gaming
Not all stores will give you your money back, most will exchange it or replace it with another copy of the same game if it is faulty. This is why I like Gametraders/EBGames, because they DO give you a full 7 days to get a full refund.I can't believe Spadge made the comments he did, there's utterly no reason to neglect including online play other than lack of effort. Playing online has never precluded playing directly with your friends, this is nonsense and team17 knows it. I mean team17 has demonstrated laziness before in producing essentially the same game several times in a row (W2, WA, and WWP), but this is a pretty astounding new level considering their titles a full decade ago now have online capabilities that their current game lacks.

I also think the best moments in worms are often online and not with your friends in real life. There aren't going to be many opportunities to get a bunch of people together who are willing to get past a bit of a learning curve and play a slow-paced turn based game, unless they've all played it before. Online action gives you the ability to play with as many people as you like... well I shouldn't have to enumerate the benefits of online play, they've been obvious since the mid 90s.

Spadge seemed to imply that there would be some kind of trade off, that multiplayer face to face would be better despite the lack of online play, but from reviews I've seen this doesn't appear to be the case at all. I'm not saying that Space Oddity is a completely lost cause, but I know I won't be buying it now, while I would've at least considered it with the inclusion of online play.I agree, Online play would have been a awesome feature and would have avoided the issue currently plaguing there hand held games since there would be no ranks or other BS.

Not all stores will give you your money back, most will exchange it or replace it with another copy of the same game if it is faulty. This is why I like Gametraders/EBGames, because they DO give you a full 7 days to get a full refund.I agree, Online play would have been a awesome feature and would have avoided the issue currently plaguing there hand held games since there would be no ranks or other BS.

i disagree.online play is just something,for me,they throw in at the last minute and use it to make people buy the game like mad.team 17 realised this,and avoided the use of online play.im not saying i hate online play,but i want to say something:
i liked worms for a long time.i wanted the game,knowing full well there would be no online play.i got it,and i liked it as much as...armaggedon.

so,i disagree about it having to be in or the game will suck,but i agree that it is a nice feature.

p.s:sorry if this is a really old thread that i bumped.

i disagree.online play is just something,for me,they throw in at the last minute and use it to make people buy the game like mad.team 17 realised this,and avoided the use of online play.im not saying i hate online play,but i want to say something:
i liked worms for a long time.i wanted the game,knowing full well there would be no online play.i got it,and i liked it as much as...armaggedon.

so,i disagree about it having to be in or the game will suck,but i agree that it is a nice feature.

p.s:sorry if this is a really old thread that i bumped.

So team17 avoided adding a feature used to make people buy the game like mad?

i disagree.online play is just something,for me,they throw in at the last minute and use it to make people buy the game like mad.team 17 realised this,and avoided the use of online play.im not saying i hate online play,but i want to say something:
i liked worms for a long time.i wanted the game,knowing full well there would be no online play.i got it,and i liked it as much as...armaggedon.

so,i disagree about it having to be in or the game will suck,but i agree that it is a nice feature.

p.s:sorry if this is a really old thread that i bumped.

If it really made the game sell like mad, they wouldn't have removed it. And it does not make the game sell like mad. Its a nice feature to add, and will make the game sell more, but saying the game will sell mad if that happens is going too far. There are some exceptions to this though, but worms isn't one of them.

And they have said why there's no online play. Click here (http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?p=633008#post633008)

And they have said why there's no online play. Click here (http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?p=633008#post633008)
That's the nice public message on why. The real reason, as was clearer in a different post he made, is that it just wouldn't sell like mad enough for it to be cost-beneficial.

If it really made the game sell like mad, they wouldn't have removed it. And it does not make the game sell like mad. Its a nice feature to add, and will make the game sell more, but saying the game will sell mad if that happens is going too far. There are some exceptions to this though, but worms isn't one of them.

And they have said why there's no online play. Click here (http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?p=633008#post633008)

i never said it makes it sell like mad,or that its why team 17 never used online play.i just said that thats how i think of the matter we are talking about.

they throw in at the last minute and use it to make people buy the game like mad.team 17 realised this,and avoided the use of online play

Well, duh.

i never said it makes it sell like mad,or that its why team 17 never used online play.i just said that thats how i think of the matter we are talking about.

You said:

for me,they throw in at the last minute and use it to make people buy the game like mad.

Which is technically saying that if that happened, it would make the game sell like mad.

Echo?

Echoooooooooooooooo

You said:



Which is technically saying that if that happened, it would make the game sell like mad.

guess i never made it note that it is my opinion well enough...
notice the words,for me.i was meaning it like:

i think about online play like something they throw at the last minute and use it to sell the game like mad.

yeah,lack of quote.

that answer it?now,its getting pretty off topic.so,we can stop talking about it.

I wonder if people would still complain if we had just got a PORT of Worms Armageddon with higher resolution graphics? I know personally thats what I wanted for Worms Xbox Live Arcade.

For the record, I agree that Worms games have been missold for a while. Its only logical that you do not build a reputation for a game only to then completely butcher it. Sadly while I bought Worms XBLA and all the addons initially, because it seemed "alright", it has not brought me back to the game like Worms World Party did (I skipped Worms 2 and Worms Armageddon initially). The whole mechanics and feel of the game is different.

For example I LOVED seeing the worms get a good napalming (is that a word?) on PC, how dangerous it would make your next few moves as it continued to simmer. Fact is, I was never a GOOD Worms gamer, but I was about as good as my friends so that was great. Could never play against pros online, would just get my ass kicked in seconds. But online play was more important this time round with my friends having consoles instead of PCs now. They however did not think Worms XBLA was much good either so despite them having Xboxes they did not buy it after playing it on mine and finding the game short and simplistic.

In this case obviously box art does not exist, but I still think using the name of an old well regarded game for a new, badly watered down derivative - is just wrong.

I wonder if people would still complain if we had just got a PORT of Worms Armageddon with higher resolution graphics? I know personally thats what I wanted for Worms Xbox Live Arcade.

For the record, I agree that Worms games have been missold for a while. Its only logical that you do not build a reputation for a game only to then completely butcher it. Sadly while I bought Worms XBLA and all the addons initially, because it seemed "alright", it has not brought me back to the game like Worms World Party did (I skipped Worms 2 and Worms Armageddon initially). The whole mechanics and feel of the game is different.

For example I LOVED seeing the worms get a good napalming (is that a word?) on PC, how dangerous it would make your next few moves as it continued to simmer. Fact is, I was never a GOOD Worms gamer, but I was about as good as my friends so that was great. Could never play against pros online, would just get my ass kicked in seconds. But online play was more important this time round with my friends having consoles instead of PCs now. They however did not think Worms XBLA was much good either so despite them having Xboxes they did not buy it after playing it on mine and finding the game short and simplistic.

In this case obviously box art does not exist, but I still think using the name of an old well regarded game for a new, badly watered down derivative - is just wrong.

i think you posted it in the wrong area.

I think complaining like some people in this thread've done is really immature.

EDIT: Kinda like this ;)

i think you posted it in the wrong area.

No, I just drifted off-topic. My intended implication was would people moan if BOTH Wii and XBLA versions were just a souped up Armageddon. Wii could be a port in fact.