Talk:Killer game

I think much of this information could be placed in the context of the killer application article. Having both seems rather redundant. You could keep the same information but just seperate the Killer Application article more to discuss video games as well. Berenlazarus

I disagree, both articles carry information for beyond the realm of the other, to combine them would cause confusion to those not familiar with videogames. And this being a reference material things should be as clear cut as possible. Killer game will be a constantly expanded article due to the continuing release of videogame hardware while killer app will be relatively static as it is a description of a general phenomenon. Solidusspriggan 08:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone hearing "mario 64 was killer" or something of the sort that isn't well versed in video game technology or terminology most likely wouldnt associate that with killer application. Many people are not aware there are dedicated videogame consoles that play games specifically for that console in the first place. My aunt said she "didn't realize there were 3" and I know older people who just thought they were "all computer games" and didn't realize that you had to have different competing systems to play them, that they all played on one.

Kingdom Hearts is not a killer game, it should be removed from the list.

I definitely agree. Please do not post games just because they are very popular. Killer games MUST have a large impact on SYSTEM SALES. For the PS2, Final Fantasy and GTA clearly have, but the others, I just don't believe so. --Locarno 15:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. --MadMoses 09:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

What about adding the Resident Evil series on the Nintendo GameCube. I would never have bought a system if it wasn't for RE 4 coming out on it.

Yes, but would hundreds of thousands feel the same? I don't think RE4 is going to drive many sales. However, if it turns out to do so in the next year or so, then we can add it. We can't speculate that it will or won't at this point, it was just released a few months ago. If there's a big spike in Nintendo GameCube sales, then we can search for a potential killer game that caused it. No spike, no killer game. --Locarno 22:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Methodology questions

Look - it's really hard to determine what ACTUALLY makes a game "killer". I added that warning to the FF7 section because it simply smelled fallacious. Just because sales rose for the PS and FF7 at the same period does not mean that one caused the other. Many games were released for the PS at that time, too. For us to be able to know if FF7 is a killer game FOR SURE, we would need to conduct surveying on whether or not people bought a PS mostly or solely for FF7. However, for Mario 64 and Nintendogs, the jury is in. Being a launch title, Mario 64's popularity brought with it many console sales during the launch period. The same could be applied to Halo. And Nintendogs, despite not being a launch title, contributed to large DS sales due to a confirmed fact that many people bought a DS solely for Nintendogs. The fact that some DS units are bundled with Nintendogs only enhances this assertion.

That said, I would like to know if Mortal Kombat for the Genesis is a killer title for that console, due to Nintendo's draconian censorship policies. I've heard assertions that people bought a Genesis over the SNES solely for the uncensored version of MK, but I cannot confirm them.

I appreciate keeping this section honest. I've edited the section on FF7 to fit in with the article better. I would speculate that Sonic the Hedgehog, NHL Hockey (video game), and then Mortal Kombat a few years later were killers for the Genesis; Super Mario World and Street Fighter II were killers for the SNES. FF6 and Dragon Quest 6 were probably killers for the SNES in Japan but not the U.S. Maybe Super Mario Bros., the Legend of Zelda, and Double Dragon for the NES? We'd need more proof for any of these.

I'm not sure what I think of the revised Final Fantasy VII paragraph. It seems a little odd that we only mention correlation/causality in conjunction with that one game, and it comes across as slightly POVish, in my opinion. I think it's an important distinction to make, but I'd be more comfortable with making it as a more general point elsewhere in the article, as the same can be said about any number of games recognized as "killer," I would think. – Seancdaug 21:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Killer is NOT the same as popular

A killer game is a game that causes a great deal of people to buy the hardware. Many popular games are not killer, and perhaps even a non-popular game can be a killer. Also, if sales for a console were never all that high (Saturn, 3DO, Jaguar, Dreamcast, etc) there by definition is no killer game. --Locarno 22:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems that fans of certain videogames come here and post video games that they think are popular. I propose that the entire list be deleted and that any new list of an example of killer game be provided with statistics that show a correlation of game sales with hardware sales, as well as a source that said statistics might be validated/confirmed. It would be also good to offer explanations of why the correlation is not an example of a spurious relationship. In the absence of correlative statistics, authoritative opinion (sales commentary from industry leaders, etc...) that a game caused a lot of hardware sales would be a good alternative. Until a major change occurs, the list of killer games here is highly dubious. I am sick of policing this article and I won't do it anymore. --Locarno 14:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

A exclusive game is a killer game!

Uhhh, what? --Locarno 14:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I propose we get rid of the Online multiplayer gaming and online gaming because they fall under PC gaming and the nuon and video arcade categories because they are dedicated consoles. also I am not sure if SW KOTOR should be on the list as it is also released as a computer game and is seemingly popular with only star wars fans. i'm just asking for confirmating on the game's impact is all. --Philip Laurence 10:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

An online game could be considered a killer game only if it caused hardware (or service) sales. For example, if Half-Life Counter Strike caused millions to upgrade to broadbamd, and you could give evidence that this was so, it could be considered a killer game. --Locarno 20:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hearing no discussion, I am deleting the list. If you wish to supply examples of killer, please provide statistics or authoritative industry opinion in the article. This is in accordance with Wikipedia:No original research. Hypothetical Example: "Joe Soandso, Vice Executive Poobah of Nintendo of America, said that the appeal of Super Mario Bros. was the largest factor in selling the Nintendo Entertainment System from 1985 to 1989." would be a good contribution; "Super Mario Bros. was obviously a killer game" would not be a good contribution. --Locarno 20:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

One could say that this isn't original research. The social impact of some games, like Mario Kart 64, is well known to many college students. Also take Doom, which has been ported to many systems. What about Final Fantasy 7, which definately helped play a serious role in solidifying the PlayStation? Or how about Halo, which basically gave the X-Box instant credibility, and is still a game that if you have an X-Box, and you don't have, people think that it is odd (I know this from numerous experiences). Grand Theft Auto III, if not it's two follow ups, is a perfect killer game. Name one other game in the past five years that has affect pop culture so much?

When talking about the social impact of any thing, one simply can go out into the streets to see it. Look at the newspapers. One does not need authority to say that "Yes - that was a killer game." Pointing out the facts, like I did (though I didn't do a perfect job. I left a lot blank, and left a lot of half write ups, but I had class), such as how the Sega Genesis version of Mortal Kombat outsold the SNES because of the blood, helps.

Take for instance - at least until recently (I don't know how much the latest Grand Theft Autos have sold), Super Mario 3, for the NES, was the best selling game of all time with 7 million units sold. While my edits were far from perfect, I have to say that they greatly help the artical become more encyclopedic, since it actual listed reasons why the said games could be considered killer. I didn't do a perfect job, but the artical could be improved. If you cannot see a real reason for keeping a game, find, delete it.

A killer game, by its basic definition, is a game that simply is not good, but held in an extremely high regard, and helped shape videogames in general. Take Metal Gear Solid, without that - no Splinter Cell. --198.7.245.93 22:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You have missed the whole definition of the term, how many times does it have to be said? POPULARITY is irrelevant when determining what is/isn't a killer game. Social impact is irrelevant in determining what is/isn't a killer game. A killer game, sometimes called a "system seller," is a video game which causes many to buy a particular video game console or upgrade their computer hardware simply to play such a game. --Locarno 17:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we can establish that super mario 64, mario 3, final fantasy 7 and halo are killer games.

Mario 3 is not a killer game, because most who bought it already had a NES. For the others, I'd agree, BUT WE NEED EVIDENCE. I'm once again deleting the list--evidence or testimony that a game caused system sales is required. --Locarno 14:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Nintendogs

There's been a rise in Nintendo DS console sales due to Nintendogs: "This title game also boosted the Nintendo DS system sales by over 4.2 times the previous week to 95,000 units, up from 22,000 ([1]). In that one week, the DS sales were more than the combined total of PSP and PS2 sales for the month of March in Japan. These record sales were related to a combination of the release of four chart topping DS titles (three of them being the Nintendogs titles, and the other being a Naruto game that sold 87,000 units) and the release of pink and blue DS systems."

Does this qualify as a killer game? Probably could do with some sources, like a games site saying "it's a killer game" or something. --Sum0 17:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if it is sustained for another few months, which I suspect it will. If you cite the source for your quote above, that would be an excellent quote to supply as evidence of "killer-gameness". --Locarno 15:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, well, that quote is taken directly from our own Nintendogs page, which links to [1]. --Sum0 20:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I've used the IGN article as the evidence for this example and added it to the article. --Locarno 14:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Xbox and Halo

I have no particular evidence that Halo was a killer game for Xbox, but nearly everyone I know with an Xbox got it primarily to play Halo. Personally when I first read the definition of a killer game, Halo came to mind

I definitely agree, and I appreciate your contribution. I hope you can appreciate the need for evidence for each example. Go out and scour the net for some statistics that prove it, or an industry contact or journalist who said that it was a killer game or drove XBox sales. Wikipedia will be better for it.

Common knowledge doesn't need a cite. Learned that writing research papers in middle school...

This isn't common knowledge. --Locarno 16:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that useful bit of insight, grand wizard of the page. Dudewhiterussian 17:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

what about games that sell old consoles?

What about games that were not killer games when they were released, but because they are multiplayer and timeless classics they still sell old consoles today? Do they deserve killer game status? Notice how all most SNESs sell on ebay with Mariokart? Also Goldeneye for the N64 --bitplane

Used consoles sold would probably not be considered, because "killer game" is a marketing term and has to do with market share and the state of the industry. Since all used consoles were once new consoles, a "used" sale does nothing to increase sales--especially for consoles where new sales have ceased. A "used" sales only moves a console between consumers. If Nintendo were all of a sudden start manufacturing and selling Super Mario Kart and people start buying used SNES consoles to play it, then we might have a different story. --Locarno 13:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Look, Halo 2 was a high-selling product, but the game itself does not have that kind of impact. Halo 2 mostly is an FPS medium for Xbox Live!

Killer Game is a registered trademark

Killer Game is a registered trademark of the company of the same name.

This San Diego game development company was started in 1996 and has published numerous sports games for the PlayStation (R) SONY and Playtation2 (R) SONY. They recently released a puzzle adventure game for the PSP called Frantix published under SOE.

Perhaps you should start a Killer Game (with a capital G) article for that company? --Locarno 16:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Best-selling Games

There seems to be a very strong correlation between what are termed 'killer games' and the best-selling games for each console.

• NES - Super Mario Bros
• SNES - Super Mario World
• Gameboy - Tetris
• N64 - Super Mario 64
• Nintendo GameCube - Super Smash Brothers Melee
• PlayStation - Final Fantasy VII and Gran Turismo
• PlayStation 2 - Grand Theft Auto III (although this has now been surpassed by other titles in this series).

While I haven't seen journalistic opinion or statistical evidence for most of these, it seems to be the case. However, I would doubt the PSX and PS2: Did a lot of people by a PlayStation because of Gran Turismo? Did a lot of people buy a PS2 because of GTA3? Perhaps, perhaps not. --Locarno 16:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dubious List

Seeing my cries for restraint in the examples section go unheeded, I have requested comment from others on this issue. Various editors continually add examples that are of dubious legitimacy, constantly adding games that are either popular or their favorites, two criteria which are rather irrelevant on whether a game is "killer" (this is largely a mar--Locarno 14:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)keting term)--[[User:PSzalapski|Locar--Locarno 15:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)no]] 14:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC). Most of these have no citation regarding their "Killer"-ness, which I have begged and pleaded for. Having deleted the list once before, I don't think I should do it again. Let the discussion begin. --Locarno 16:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Would you support redirecting this to killer application? None of the sources seem to directly address the content of "killer game," and killer app's not a very long article -- better to consolidate the information for now, I think. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know--it seems that those interested in "killer app" are completely different folks from those who would be interested in this article. But I'd go along if others agreed. --Locarno 15:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree with the implementation of a redirect. I agree with the above statement "those interested in "killer app" are completely different folks from those who would be interested in this article." What should be one point of improvement is the finding of sources for console to game copy ratios. An even better source would be one showing a spike in console sales when a particular game was released. Go for the latter but definitely add the former, which I think can be done with most if not all the games listed here. Solidusspriggan 08:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It's still original research for us to take an association of high game sales with high console sales and use it to show that the game is a "killer game" as described here. Specifically it is "a new synthesis of published data." A lot of this content would be alright in an article about high-selling games, but this article is making additional claims that are not in evidence. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw the request for comment and I have to say that I you really have engaged on an impossible mission. The article in itself is completely subjective - I might as well make an article called "Awesome Songs" and then start arguing with people about what they add to the list. You can't fail to lay down criteria (and even if you did, it would also be subjective) and then ask that people moderate their choice to add certain games. Is there any data at all to back up the claims in this article? Has someone surveyed console purchasers to see if they bought it just to get a specific game?

My suggestion: It might be better to discuss the phenonominon of the "killer game" or "killer app" without mentioning specific games, unless you have a citation - like a news story called "Millions by Xbox consule so they can play Halo!". Otherwise, you'll never get past this issue. Aguerriero 04:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• That is very wise, and I agree mostly. The only point of the examples is that they certainly serve to explain the term better--however, only one or two are required. To say, "For example, in perhaps the most obvious example of a killer game, millions of Nintendo Game Boys were sold in Japan, the United States, and around the world to those wishing to play Tetris." is certainly true, as anyone in the industry would tell you, and really helps explain the term. However, if you include Tetris, someone has to include Mario 1, and Halo, and more and more until the examples become meaningless. --Locarno 14:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone added "Devil May Cry". You have GOT to be joking. Also, the evidence they gave is that "many fans consider" it to be a killer game. The irony is that, by definition, whether many fans consider it to be killer is irrelevant in determining whether it is.

I agree completely with Aguerriero. This concept is completely subjective, and it's hard to justify inclusion of any specific examples.--Deville (Talk) 11:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, done! I've been bold and removed the list, this time deleting the "obvious ones" as well. I've included Tetris in the article in a way that flows naturally and illustrates the concept. Tetris is the most obvious example of a killer game. I've also provided two citations that directly speak to how much Tetris caused Game Boy sales. In my opinion, any further examples are unnecessary. I hope this ends the inanity. --Locarno 15:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Examples?

How about some examples, which games are largely accepted as "killer games"? You could simply list those games that sold most units. Or were bundled with consoles. Or so. :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.135.68.89 (talk • contribs)

I think you missed the huge debate over such a list. The problem, basically, is that selling well is not the same thing as being "killer." As a case-in-point, Super Mario Bros. 3 was the highest selling standalone cartridge for the original Nintendo Entertainment System. It was certainly not a killer game, however, because it was released relatively late in the life cycle of the system, and the console was already so well established in the market that there wasn't that much room for console sales to increase. By that same logic, it's extremely difficult to identify games bundled with consoles as killer, because there's no statistical data available to tell why a consumer purchased a particular system: it may or may not have been because of the bundled game. Ultimately, the list was removed because it was unworkable. It was next-to-impossible to come up with reliable sources to confirm or deny "killer" status, so it basically became no more than a war of opinions on the part of the article's editors. – Seancdaug 02:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

When?

The article does not mention when the term came into use. The 1990s? Chipmunk01 20:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)