mhsillen said:
what platform game is better? lbp? uh no sorry |
Name a few platformers.
mhsillen said:
what platform game is better? lbp? uh no sorry |
Name a few platformers.
Zipper said: Sony has been in the console business for 15 year. They've created 3 amazing consoles, two of them being amazingly popular and one the best selling home console in the world. They own the most amazing developers, I believe today Sony is only second to Nintendo in quality when it comes to first party titles. They created dozens franchises, some of them more popular than others yet only one of them - Gran Turismo, has been extremely popular and with Gran Turismo 5 releasing soon, we will see if the franchise is still popular as it was before. I'm trying to think why, in 15 years, they couldn't make at least one extremely popular franchise among the dozens they've created? Even back in the PS2 era, Sony created some of the best titles on the system, but they still weren't crazy popular Titles that are critically acclaimed - Uncharted 2, God of War 3, Killzone 2 - Why do they fail to reach their sales potential? It obvious the potential is there Take Uncharted 2 for example. It the most critically acclaimed of the bunch, it has multiplayer, co-op and I can't take of a game that is more easy to market - yet it failed to make an impact and dropped of the NPD for good after one month of sales which weren't extremely good anyway Why do titles like Gears of War (for some reason the eastiest title to compare to Uncharted) do so much better? Why do titles like Killzone 2 which had a huge amount of hype and belongs to the most popular genre on consoles today failed to sell the millions everyone thought it will? It an interesting topic I think we should discuss |
The answer is easy. SONY targets their fanbase and the gamers first, the masses second. Since you mentioned Nintendo, they just simply did a better job catering to the masses with their pseudo motion controls while still concentrating on their core franchises.
Hackers are poor nerds who don't wash.
Liquiduval said: The answer is "AGE GROUPS". Look alot of people here blame marketing/depending on 3rd party support.... blah blah blah. But selling games and consoles you realise it's the answer is what age groups are buying these consoles. In order as i see it Nintendo: KIds (families that have kids) and 40 women (all buy what friend s and family have and seldom buy anything different as you can witness on this sight) Xbox:Young-Teenage boys, 20 men (no real care for saving just wants the next fps thier mates have) Playstation: 20 men (mostly in ther 30's) Teenage boys (Generally buys a game after research abit anal, doesn't throw there money around) I have no real stats on this but I sold the most consoles in canada 2009 so i sort of pick up on these things |
Rather general, but I too see a similar trend.
Hackers are poor nerds who don't wash.
AGE OF EMPIRES >>>>>>> Starcraft
_______________________________
GT is
Does MS have any others apart from Halo? no they don't.
All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey
Crazymann said:
I played it on release. Conquerers expansion as well. I really enjoyed it, though I didn't get into 3 very well. I still have all 3 on my shelf, but not installed sadly. |
Which Civs did you play?
With 3, the only problem I had with it was you pretty much had to stick with one Civ and lvl them up rather than switching on a whim. I did fairly well using the British villager boom tactic though.
geddesmond2 said:
|
You can't seem to grasp it can you? Halo(not to mention they've added in things almost no console fps has) redefined FPSes and made them a dominating force on the consoles. The mega franchises were either the first done right or they redefined their genre. As good as UC2 was it didn't do either one of those it did what other games did very well and wrapped it in a pretty package with a great story but that's not redefining a genre. Microsoft also popularized Western RPGs on consoles though that only became huge this gen it has it's roots on the Xbox1.
Scoobes said:
Which Civs did you play? With 3, the only problem I had with it was you pretty much had to stick with one Civ and lvl them up rather than switching on a whim. I did fairly well using the British villager boom tactic though. |
Well, I think you hit the nail on the head with my problem. As I recall, I was very restless, and bounced around a lot - never really finding a "niche". That wasn't a problem with any other RTS game I played because I always played the "good side" first then the "bad" (such as in C&C*) or in the recommended order (SC). For some, illogical reason, Age 3 never "fit" with me.
So, my unfavorable memories of the game could have as much to do with my mood at the time than anything else. Maybe after Age 2 - which was totally great - I expected more, and let my restlessness color my perceptions**.
* I mean the old games when they were good, and made by Westwood.
** Whereas I had not played SC1 for years before SC2 released, so I didn't get hit with that same feeling. Honestly, though, if it wasn't for the single player, I would be dissappointed in that, too.
Doobie_wop said:
Marketing is far more a factor in how a game sell's than the actual quality of the game. The market is ignorant and misinformed, most of the general public don't know they want something until they are told what to want. Nintendo would never have been the success that it was if they didn't start grabbing celebrities for ad's, putting the Wii on talk shows and advertising the system non-stop for the first three years of it's release. The same applies to their games. You've seen the marketing push that's followed games like Halo 3, MW2, Gears of War, Wii Something Something, Mario and Gran Turismo. If little Timmy had never heard about Halo from his TV box or never read the back of a Mountain Dew can, he most likely would never have heard of Halo. People could say that word of mouth is the cause of their success, but that only works after the ad's kick in because they have to develop a large enough userbase to spread the word to a significant amount of people. Your opinion on what games are innovative and important is skewed because I'm willing to bet that you don't play most of the PS3 games you've mentioned or you already have some sort of weird affiliation with another console that hinders your enjoyment of PS3 games. |
Or the general public does not like how video games are being developed now. The market decides how good a game is not you.
1) Lol@Killzone copying Halo. They're nothing alike.
2) Demon's Souls is the greatest thing to grace consoles this gen.
Michael-5 said:
Technically Sony only owns the studios that make their first party titles. Nintendo is the only company to really develop their own games, where only a handful are handled by other studios (Pokemon by Game Freak, and Metroid: Other M by Team Ninja). You may think some other Nintendo franchises are developed by third party companies (Advance Wars and Fire Emblem by Intelligent systems, Metroid Prime, and DKCR by Retro Studios, and Smash Bros/Kirby by HAL Laboritories), but if you do a history lesson, these companies originally branched off from Nintendo R&D 1&2, Nintendo EAD 1-5, or were simply bought out in early life. I beleive Camalot, Game Freak, Team Ninja, and Creatures Inc were the only developers that ever got to work on a big Nintendo project (Golden Sun/Mario Sports, Pokemon, Metroid: Other M, and Earthbound). This is similar to Bungie, which was conceived by Microsoft. To my knowledge, the only first party studio that originated withing Sony would have been Polyphony digital, everything else was bought out. Even Square-Enix, Sony bought large shares for that company back during the N64 days, and thats why Final Fantasy games largly remain exclusive. Edit, I looked it up. Polyphony Digital, SCE, Zipper Interactive, Naughty Dog, Guerrilla Games, Evolution Studios, and Media Module are the big ones. So Sony develops Gran Turismo, God of War, Ape Escape, Ico, SOCOM, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, Sly Cooper, Jak & Dexter, Killzone, Motorstorm and LBP Microsoft has 343 Studios, Lionhead, Rare, Turn 10, and Wingnut Studios. So they develop Halo, Fable, Conker, Perfect Dark, Killer Instinct, Forza, and flight simulator. Most of these companies have been bought out, the difference from Nintendo to Sony and MS, is that most of their studios separated from Nintendo development studios to work on different games. I think Nintendo only bought Retro Studios. If your refering to games released in 2010, all 360 titles are published by Microsoft, and PS3 titles are published by Sony. |
Who cares WHEN they buy them out. Nintendo still bought them out. How about Media Molecule, Sony got them early. Sony develops, because they are part of Sony.