Post by cheat-master30 on Aug 30, 2010 16:57:02 GMT -5
... of Scott Pilgrim Vs The World? Think about it, both are basically:
Critically decently but not classic acclaimed.
Appeal primarily to the internet geek/hipster type crowd rather than the general public
Kinda failed as far as sales and non geek opinion goes
Are filled to the brim with geek like culture references and such...
Did massively well with online communities and fandom, to the point their internet popularity makes them seem far better and more popular than they actually are.
And the ironic aspect, they kinda both failed for the same reasons. I mean, they both just couldn't appeal to anyone above maybe the age of 30, because they were just not what said crowd wanted (for the film example, the crowd in question have no interest in the activities of a bunch of 20 somethings and nerd 'culture', and for Super Paper Mario, the older crowd either wanted simpler games ala Wii Sports, or more traditional games like a 2D Mario platformer or an RPG)
They both can't appeal to the younger crowd, because the references are just completely alien to kids and such. An article I read for example mentioned the Scott Pilgrim example had references to like, Atari games and things from the NES days, which for most kids, it's probably seen as ancient and the joke just not funny. And for Super Paper Mario... well, chapters 2 and 7 are probably just boring as heck for anyone who doesn't seem the mythology/historical references, chapter 5 likely comes off as rather outdated and somewhat preachy, chapter 3 is pretty much impossible to comprehend unless you're a forum dweller (digital butterflies? Yeah, good luck explaining that to a seven year old) and the philosophical themes are just... interesting, for the two percent of Mario fans who are philosophy students. For others, said themes sound more like a Final Fantasy ripoff. Or a poorly written attempt at a Doctor Who season finale for anyone in the UK.
Oh, and they're both weird genres that can't really grab the attention of people who haven't heard of them through word of mouth. I bet in both cases, all the sales were through word of mouth, probably on the internet.
Valid comparison? Should I write an article?
Critically decently but not classic acclaimed.
Appeal primarily to the internet geek/hipster type crowd rather than the general public
Kinda failed as far as sales and non geek opinion goes
Are filled to the brim with geek like culture references and such...
Did massively well with online communities and fandom, to the point their internet popularity makes them seem far better and more popular than they actually are.
And the ironic aspect, they kinda both failed for the same reasons. I mean, they both just couldn't appeal to anyone above maybe the age of 30, because they were just not what said crowd wanted (for the film example, the crowd in question have no interest in the activities of a bunch of 20 somethings and nerd 'culture', and for Super Paper Mario, the older crowd either wanted simpler games ala Wii Sports, or more traditional games like a 2D Mario platformer or an RPG)
They both can't appeal to the younger crowd, because the references are just completely alien to kids and such. An article I read for example mentioned the Scott Pilgrim example had references to like, Atari games and things from the NES days, which for most kids, it's probably seen as ancient and the joke just not funny. And for Super Paper Mario... well, chapters 2 and 7 are probably just boring as heck for anyone who doesn't seem the mythology/historical references, chapter 5 likely comes off as rather outdated and somewhat preachy, chapter 3 is pretty much impossible to comprehend unless you're a forum dweller (digital butterflies? Yeah, good luck explaining that to a seven year old) and the philosophical themes are just... interesting, for the two percent of Mario fans who are philosophy students. For others, said themes sound more like a Final Fantasy ripoff. Or a poorly written attempt at a Doctor Who season finale for anyone in the UK.
Oh, and they're both weird genres that can't really grab the attention of people who haven't heard of them through word of mouth. I bet in both cases, all the sales were through word of mouth, probably on the internet.
Valid comparison? Should I write an article?
