Scribblenauts will be a victim of its own hype

Seriously.
I think Scribblenauts looks like a rather fun, innovative game.   However, seriously?  What the hell?   People honestly care about this game more than big name titles like Uncharted 2, Conviction,etc.?

While it should be fun to mess around with this game, why are people expecting this to be huge?  It's a neat indie game, in the same vein as Braid, World of Goo, etc.   Because while spelling Godzilla and having him appear to kill everything  will be fun,  do you guys honestly think this will be better than some of these big title games?  And really, don't you think it'll feel, you know, gimmicky after a bit?

I dunno, I just feel like when people realize that while this isn't (and it can't be) up to par with these bigger titles they'll just be hugely disappointed.

Considering World of Goo was pretty much the best game to come out in 2008 I'd say you are making a pretty bad argument.

It won't be the game of the year or anything, but im sure most people will have a ton of fun with it anyways, so there is a chance it will still meet most of the hype. From what i've seen though its pretty impressive

How's it gonna be a victim of its hype if it's like World of Goo? World of Goo rated and sold great. Scribblenauts probably will too. How are you even comparing it to titles not available on its platform, and of different genres? Once again, you're making no sense.

Gimmicky? Sure. If shooting stuff in an FPS or snapping necks in a stealth game is gimmicky and gets old after a bit, then using whatever you can think of in creative ways to solve puzles and challenges in Scribblenauts will also get old. It's its core gameplay, if it doesn't appeal to you, don't get it. It clearly appeals to others going by the positive impressions from pretty much everyone who tried it.

And no, the majority don't care about those games. So? Are you going by what the majoirty likes now? I don't see you thinking the Wii casual games are so hot. That's the majority. So, start making sense with consistent points, don't twist even your own opinions around...

The game, if good, will probably sell well, but not multi-million seller well, make a good profit for its studio, make them more known, and allow them to create more games they enjoy. How that is going to be a failure because "the majority don't care" is beyond me.

it will be fun but probably not super memorable, crowing it best of E3 is silly 

why is it making you upset that this game is getting a lot of BUZZ? (not hype)

No, I think it will sell because it's an interesting game.

Couldn't the same be said of Natal? After all, wouldn't making a gun shape with your hand and then quickly raising it into the air (recoil) get gimmicky after a while? (This is somewhat of a devil's advocate.)

I don't see how a small screen game doing something totally fresh is necessarily worse than big screen games iterating on what's gone before. It has every right to be a smash.

That said, I'm concerned about the level of freedom you're offered in the confines of a puzzle game. I'll have to play it to find out exactly how much time I'll spend playing the puzzles vs how much time I'll spend just messing around. This game better have a sandbox mode where I can create Little Big Planet/Incredible Machine style contraptions.

What is this World of Goo you speak of? I'm just kidding. I've heard of it but haven't played it.

Why the fuck are you already judging a game that is not out yet? It's people like you that make games victims of their own hype. Can we just wait until the fucking game comes out?

I think any game that uses E3 to go from obscurity to making a massive impression on people is exactly the kind of game that should win 'Game of Show'.  It doesn't necessarily have to end up being the 'best game',  it's more like 'Man of the Match' for games at E3.

There are 100m DSs out there, so there's no reason this can't sell as well as any of the other games you mention.  If people only become disappointed after they've bought it, then I don't see how that makes Scribblenauts a victim.

Um, Braid is a success. Leave it at that? You quote people but you don't really reply to what they say. No, these games won't sell multiple millions, or even one. So what? Who said they will? Previews and reviews judge them as games, not as sales. They sell great for their budgets. Just because you don't play them doesn't mean others don't. They rate great, they sell well, their developers can continue making the games they want instead of join a content factory for EA or Bethesda. How that can be considered anything less than succesful is beyond me. As for playing them "over" other games, again, those games aren't available on DS, and it doesn't have to be "over" anything anyway, you can always buy that and other games. Do you really want to see only the highest selling games created? I don't see you think Wii casual games are so hot. So, stop acting like getting the highest sales is what dictates a good game. And no, it's no more of a gimmick than any core mechanic of any game.

No, I don't think they care more about Scribblenauts than those games. It's just that those games already have plenty of hype. Scribblenauts has relatively little hype. It could use a little recognition.

I don't see any retrospective opinions of how Braid or World of Goo sucked ass. So, yeah, people think they're great games still. Maybe you don't, if you've played them. Well, to that I say hurray for you getting excited over things you don't really have an interest in. Others aren't like that.

Some flash games are great also but I don't see the comparison. 2D = Flash now? Seriously? In any case, Flash is just another development environment. It can also do great games if used well. Though it certainly wouldn't run on the DS in that case. Anyway, uh, pointless argument.

sheesh. who cares?

Flash is just a development environment. Yes, it can do good games in the right hands. I don't see how that means Scribblenauts isn't worth paying for. If you want it, you either pay, or don't play. Just like any game at retail. Why does it have to be different? It's not. There are free or very cheap games that are likely to be better than currently hyped games as well, what does that mean? That you'll go just play those again, even if you have already? I got Deus Ex free off of a magazine, I got Enemy Territory for free, there are Quake 3 based mods for free now that's open source, there's the actual Quake 3 for free now with Quake Live, Instant Action offers a few pretty good games for free, you can buy yesteryear's gaming gems for incredibly low prices at any store, etc, etc. Meh.

Your precious Blue Dragon didn't sell well either, yet you enjoyed it. Now you're making threads shitting on what other people enjoy as inferior to something something. What's wrong with you? Can't you even ever take your own experiences and apply them to what others may think in ways that make actual sense? Just like you liked the unpopular Blue Dragon, others like 2D indie games (lol? as if you can lump them all together instead of look at them on a case by case basis). What's so hard to understand? What, because it's from a small studio and 2D instead of a large studio and 3D? Is this basically an undercover thread for "2D sucks" or what? Say what you really want, make any kind of sense, anything.

If your argument is simply "its indie it cant be better than AAA games" then I cant support that. I had more fun with World of Goo, Tag, True Combat: Elite and Gravity Bone (http://www.blendogames.com/) than I have with games such as Gears of War and Halo. GOW and Halo are both a lot of fun and in my opinion deserving of praise but I have equal, and sometimes more fun, with Indie games than AAA games.

Indie games are just games made by smaller, independent studios/groups.  The "indie" tag says nothing of a game's actual quality as entertainment.  Anyone that uses the term to label a game as inherently inferior to multimillion dollar games that can be purchased for $60 at retail don't know what the hell they're talking about.  You might as well say that Infinite Undiscovery is inherently better than Persona 4 because it had a larger budget and is on a more powerful console.

Braid and World of Goo wasn't really all that hyped. At least I hadn't heard much about them before just about release. Not saying they didnt sell well (Braid was especially spectacular), but you cant compare those to scribblenouts imo.

"@SmugDarkLoser: In your username, replace the word Dark with Ignorant and you'll have the most accurate username ever!"

Which will generate more buzz among enthusiasts, an inventive new puzzle game on the best selling handheld of all time, or FPS/3rd person action game #10980891?

It looks fun and different,but it wont be game of the year.

It's that kind of attitude that holds the industry back.

You're thinking about this all wrong. People are impressed with the functionality of this idea. It looks like a really awesome game, and there is no two ways about that. The other thing is that this game is a relative left field. Everybody knows what Modern Warfare 2 and Mass Effect 2 will be. (See the two's at the end? That's a big indicator.) This is an incredibly unique and original game that works incredibly well. Just because a game isn't super-technical and all turbo-charged with machismo doesn't mean it can't be an excellent game. I don't see why this wouldn't be eligible for Game of the Year if it's as good as it looks.

Ehhh perhaps you should look into the developers history before writing these threads, 5th cell made drawn to life and Lock's quest two extremely original and excellent games, they have already proven themselves. You just can't say that it might have nothing to it. Also this is a puzzle game in which your imagination is the key to solve the various puzzles and there is no set way that you have to complete a puzzle, it's not like you just type stuff for the hell of it.

On a side note please post your threads in the correct game forums.

Except it was so he is! See wut I did thur? Anyway, best or not it's simply a great game, so yes, the argument that it will "fail" like that is stupid.