patapon on 06 July 2010
Wow, this thread went right off a cliff didn't it? I wish the author rewrote the article but instead took into consideration arbitrary terminology like 1st/2nd/3rd party.
We all know what the article is trying to say. And that whether or not something is 1st party doesn't matter. He's saying everything in regards to Sony games. Take Demon's Souls, that's a Sony game. Sony owns the IP and helped develop it into the glory it is today. It's undeniable, Demon's Souls is a Sony game. The same for games like Infamous, Infamous 2, Ratchet/Clank, Resistance, Flower, etc.
Take Nintendo's relationship with many of their "2nd party" games, IE Metroid: Other M. I think we can all agree that Other M is a Nintendo game, right? First, they own the IP. And second, Nintendo has taken keen interest in making that a fantastic game full of quality goodness, yes? Yes. It's a Nintendo game in the same way that Demon's Souls is a Sony game. This is where the article is really coming from. And I think it's disingenuous to say "No, that's not a Sony game because it wasn't completely made by a 100% owned subsidiary of Sony!!!"
If you disagree that Sony is the only place of innovative games, then by god go about it that way! Don't try to say that Demon's Souls or Infamous aren't Sony games... because you are wrong. I personally think each of the big 3 have highly innovative, unique experiences. I also think this article is very one sided. The only thing I 100% find myself agreeing with the author is when he says Sony is THE leader in technical graphics. This is pretty much factual so far. But I guess we'll have to see how titles like Rage and Brink turn out. Don't worry though, Slenor will keep us informed! 
