Larkmarn
Since: Nov, 2010
Jun 2nd 2020 at 1:18:08 PM
•••
I mean, one can only assume that 6th at the time means at the month of release, a fairly standard metric. It could stand to specify worldwide or NA.
A few seconds of Googling sees that it was the 6th highest PS 2 seller for the month of May, which (while surprising for being, as you said, a mostly forgotten game. I'm a huge Transformers fan and I only clicked on this discussion to go "wait... what was a Transformers release in 2004?!?") really isn't that impressive in the grand scheme of things.
Source https://www.gamespot.com/articles/chartspot-may-2004/1100-6101516/
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
What's the deal with claiming that Transformers was the 6th best selling video game of the time of its release? It's not in the top 163 best selling PS 2 games, at least not according to Wikipedia, and 96 of those games were released in 2004 alone. In what country on Earth was a barely known 2004 Transformers tie-in game the 6th best-selling PS 2 game? How long was it #6 - a week? A month? This claim is incredibly vague, and it's absolutely ridiculous
I get that TV Tropes has an informal tone to it, and as long as something flows well and is a somewhat well-known, apocryphal account of reality at worst, it tends to be okay. But this isn't any of those things. It jumps out at me as a glaring error or a bold-faced lie, and it took me out of the article so hard I actually felt the need to look some stuff up. If only for my peace of mind, could someone explain where this factoid came from? Preferably the person who wrote it?
Hide / Show Replies