jarrod said:
I'm not getting into the "Quality" slippery slope, but here's all the new IPs from Nintendo this generation... Nintendo
|
But none of those are on the system I own and, hence, does not exist.
How are you goimg to race with that lolly pop thing?? I mean the wii remote isnt ideal but it doesnt have a huge knob on the end!!!!!!!!!
Its soooo ugly! And looks inpractical!
No news at all in the uk general press about it either whitch says it all!
PS3 and Wii markets remain mostly different, we don't know how much Move will do for PS3, but unless they hire Nintendo to develop games for it, game styles, more than genres, will keep on being widely different and only the less inspired and worthy Wii games will be hit, but neither the HW platform itself, nor the best Nintendo exclusive will suffer.
I love how cocky the PS3 fans are. They act like just because they think the console is the second coming of Christ, so should everyone else. They can't fathom that there might be a soul out there that doesn't think the PS3 is the greatest thing in the world.
| Simulacrum said: So Ps3 basicly becomes Wii+Xbox360...And you still get Ps3 games..+all other magic stuff.What reason not to buy Ps3 then?
|
you still get PS3 games indeed.... but not the 360 and wii games....
and don't say there's the equivalent of WSR, nintendo games that we love is not the wii series, it's the mario, zelda and metroid kind, that are still unrivaled in their cathegories.
oh and if you don't like this answer.... then PRICE (yay)
OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO
Congrats to Sony ! The Move could be the last nail in the 360 coffin, now that PS3 is already deeply outselling 360 week after week in worldwide hardware sales.
Nice move from Sony (no pun intended).
pastro243 said:
Yeah, but people are calling games like Ico or Shadow of the colossus forgotten gems too, and those havent sold 10 million. |
They probably got the recognition they deserved from their audience. A good assumption is that all things get the recogntion they deserve all you'd be right at least 95% of the time which is a pretty good hit rate.
pastro243 said:
Your first parragraph is like you need a game to sell trillions and appeal to many people to be considered innovative, making games that are actually good but niche and dont appeal to large groups of people seem bad. Oh, and the way you talk about quality being nothing but an undefined word is the same way you could talk about gameplay being good or bad, it seems to me that people have the stupid idea in their minds that a good looking game is the same as a game with no gameplay. There is a lot of fail there, it gives me the idea you need a game to sell millions to be considered good, I hope you dont think the same about movies where you would think transformers 2 is a great movie or in music which would mean you consider the jonas brothers good. Actually, quality of a game can be known because it excells in what its meant to do, if its a shooter that doesnt make shooting good, its bad quality, if its a fighter thats unbalanced its bad quality, if its an online game with crappy online its bad quality. So Id tell you to apreciate people can find good games on sony consoles even if these dont sell as much as the nintendo first party games, and stop the fanboy debates to make others people choice of consoles look bad when its clear both nintendo and sony console owners can get great things from their companies of choice. Oh, and to many people here, before you post try to think a bit, if you think before you post you can actually avoid stupid comments and insulting others. To the thread, its clear the ps3 isnt the answer that would cover all of the wii and 360 fans tastes even with move because it lacks the software that made them choose their consoles, that, added to the fact that the ps3 costs money, makes them avoid getting one. |
If you took quality at face value and just applied the word with no clarifications then quality = sales, sales = quality. Quality would in that instance mean the sum of all positive attributes of a game like accessability, value, fun, novelty etc. You have to qualify the word quality for it to mean anything aside from the sales success of a commercial product.
As for innovation, if noone bothers to copy something then its probably no good. If a game is 'innovative' but it barely sells then again those innovations are probably not worth copying and won't mean anything in the longer term.
Graphics != fun game. If you drew a graph and placed graphics on one side and sales on the other then you'd see no real causation between an increase in visual fidelity and sales/appeal. Therefore its a pretty dumbass move to remove important gameplay features to cater to a desire to create a graphical masterpiece, pretty simple stuff really.
The reason why Nintendo are like so much better than Sony at this game is that they make higher quality software. Quality meaning it has a ton of appeal and a lot of people like to play it. They are rewarded with excellent attach rates and good overall sales for their console because of their good work. They create games you cannot get anywhere else which also have a great deal of appeal for a wide range of people. In many ways you don't need the Sony 1st party efforts as you could ignore most of it and replace the rest with an equivalent multiplatform game. In addition to this, the Sony titles tend to be throwaway titles which people are only inclined to play a few times before putting away due to their reliance on cinematics, story, graphics which are onyl good for the first or second time through at most.
@WilliamWatts : I completely disagree. You know, right now Lady Gaga sells more than Mozart, it doesn't mean her music is better. See the analogy with the Wii vs the HD consoles ?
If Wii Sports and Wii Fit were the only "games" left in the world, I think most of us on this board would just stop with gaming. No depth, no fun which lasts more than 3 minutes, no nothing.
To quote yourself just changing 1 word : "Nintendo titles tend to be throwaway titles which people are only inclined to play a few times before putting away". See, I agree with your sentence if I just replace "Sony" by "Nintendo". Most of the Wii in the world are now indeed collecting dust due to lack of quality games.
I applaud Nintendo efforts, but us core gamers mostly don't care about waving our arms and dancing in front of Gamecube age graphics. We want deep and smart games, involving stories, emotions, challenges. I appreciate the fact they convinced grandmas to play those simplified video games though.
Talking about Sony 1st party, please give me the multiplatform "equivalent" you're talking about for this Sony 1st party games :
- God of War 3
- LittleBigPlanet
- Gran Turismo series
- Uncharted 2
- Ratchet : A crack in time
- MLB 10 The Show
- The Last Guardian (or other Team Ico games)
...
Thing is, there are none. Those games are just better than competition in quality terms.
So ok, Wii sells more, since there are more "casual gamers" (grandmas, kids, families) than "core gamers", but that doesn't make the Wii more valuable as a gaming machine. Now there are a few exceptions in the sea of Wii mediocrity (Zelda, Mario...), but if you want real games, great games I mean, they're definitely on PS3 and 360, not on the Wii.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
