I don't really see the building the base with a temporary measure thing as positive. It gives the impression that they can produce more exclusives that they actually can, so is kind of dishonest. With this they can pad out the install base then abandon them later in the generation. If however they had more first party studios, they would have to be using them constantly meaning a steady flow of exclusives, rather than the short bursts.

Both Sony and Nintendo have good strategies with very different approaches.

Sony gives developers a lot of freedom, so much so that sometimes they publish average games. But this also results in some amazing games and a lot of variety. They're also not scared to try new things that most publishers wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole, things like Heavy Rain. I suspect this is because its their strategy to strengthen their image as a console with experiences that can't be found elsewhere, even if it means making losses every now and then on certain games.

Nintendo has way more control over its products, but their quality assurance is better too, and they won't publish a game until they think it's up to their very high standards, although this means draughts sometimes as they don't seem to have enough studios. But with this, they make sure their franchises remain popular and timeless. Also, they have a much stronger brand image when it comes to their games. Many people may buy a game simply because it says Nintendo on the box, not so much when it says "Sony Computer Entertainment", at least outside of forumgoers.


Ultimately, I'd say both are really good. I'm more of a Sony guy but that's subjective and I can see that Nintendo really takes good care of their products. About MS, I see them way behind both tbh. They have some deals with 3rd parties for launch, but who knows in 2 years what'll happen, and they rely on only a few IPs of their own.

New Super Mario Bros, New Super Mario Bros 2, New Super Mario Bros Wii. Mario Kart Wii, Mario Kart 7, Wii Sports, Pokemon "random color," Pokemon Conquest, etc.  I'll also name comparison titles that are better and were rated worse.

Sports Champions 2 has most of the games on Wii Sports, Tennis, Boxing, and Bowling.  All are far better games, coincidentally, Wii Sports has a Metacritic score of 78 while Sports Champions 2 has a 69.  The first Sports Champions doesn't have the same games, but the games that it does have are all more polished and it's actually a full game, yet it still scores lower.  Granted I think the score Sports Champions received is deserved, the score Wii Sports received should have been much lower, even at launch it was just  a pretty shitty game.  In every review they said it was nothing more than a tech demo yet they still gave it above average scores.  I've never played Wii Sports Resort so won't comment.

The New Super Mario Bros games are completely average.  The original DS New Super Mario Bros is sitting at a 89 Metascore and the only reason it's there is either a massive pay off or the fact that people h aven't seen a 2D Mario game in such a long time they just overscored it.  9/10 is near perfect rating and the series is anything but.  It's the worst in the NSMB series yet it's sitting with the highest score.  You might even expect it to be better than LBP Vita which is sitting an 88.

Mega Man Maverick Hunter X.  Oh noes.  It's a remake, let's automatically score it low despite the fact that it's actually very good.  Shinobi is a hard game!  It sucks!  The Prinny characters are supposed to be from Disgaea?  I wanted an RPG, and I get a well developed platformer that's slightly difficult?  6/10!!!!!!!  These games except MMX scored lower than all the NSMB games and are far better, while MMX scored one point higher than NSMB2.  Nintendo can and has been releasing sub par games with Mario on them and they're rated highly.   

My rating scale is a bit different.  The post above I was talking about if your average journalstic review site were to review the games, places like IGN if these games weren't Nintendo franchises they'd get a 6/10 or 7/10.  I'd give them less since I use the full scoring system and not the highest four numbers when it comes to playable games.  For example.  I reviewed Shinobi and gave it a 6.25/10 at an unbiased review.  That'd be more like an 8/10 with how these review sites are doing everything.  I use the entire scale and how I see it, a 6/10 is when a game reaches that upper half of the scoring system and it's a game actually worth playing.  Half of the average game library, a 5/10 are your other half of the average  game library where it has a lot of things right and it might be decent to play, but it's not really a good game.  4/10  or 2/5 and lower are your actual bad games.

There aren't many kart racing games and I don't play the genre, but Wipeout is very comparable to Mario Kart and what?  Wipeout unfortunately has a lower Metascore because it's not a braindead racing game with Mario characters.  I've heard Sonic & Sega All Star Racing Transformed is better than the Mario Kart games and thatt also didn't score as high as any of the recent released Mario titles.  I mean seriously.  You have a garbage series that has such a broken online that you can snake your way to victory or every time Mahu Wahu shows up on the track everyone picks it because you can jump in the water 10-15 seconds from the start of the track and skip 3/4 of the entire race.  The racing isn't as good and it penalizes you for being a good player, unlike a game like Wipeout which includes speed and weapon pads, as well as the fact that despite being in first or last, every weapon will always have the same percentage of acquisition.

Pokemon Conquest with its ridiculous Metascore of 80.  If I didn't know the score I would have thought someone was making a joke, but that's the Metascore.  I'm not a fan of the Disgaea games and even those are better yet, obviously, they've got a lower score, or equal score actually for Disgaea 4.  Wild ARMs XF is a great game that has a 64 Metascore.  Guess they should have asked for the Mario license, huh?  Valkyria Chronicles 2 isn't rated lower, but it's only two points higher.    

Pokemon.  Same game for the 50th time.  Storyline is awful, gameplay is worse than a lot of turn based RPGs.  Devil Summoner Soul Hackers with its 75 while Pokemon Black/White and Black/Whitet 2 are at 87 and 80.  I'm sure you understand why Soul Hackers was my game of choice when comparing its score to Pokemon.  There are other better RPGs than Pokemon yet I wanted to point out one that is better yet has similarities.  A 14 year old game that's far better than the newest revision of Pokemon titles and scores lower because Pokemon has that Nintendo recognition.     

Nintendo titles.  Mario and Pokemon especially, are rated high for being Nintendo titles, not for being good.  While obviously there are some great Nintendo games, the ratings Nintendo titles receives is  bullshit.

But see.  Throwing names out there isn't going to do anything.  This is personal opinion, you asking me to list games isn't going to mean that what I say is definitive.  You'll have to have played them and then make an opinion based on the game itself, not on the franchise.  This is something many Nintendo fans aren't going to do.  Nintendo franchises sell rather than the games themselvves.

And it's all thanks to the brilliance of Don Mattrick.

Nintendo in last? FUCK OUT DA WAY

hahahahahahaha! Hodge Twins Bitches!!!!

I guess this thread is more of a `Whose First Party IP`s are the best?`thread.
It`s Nintendo.
Sonys IPs are meh and Microsoft can`t really compete (but I really like Forza, though).

Arent they the one making a loss at the moment, have had to lay off staff and are going down in the stock market?

It is just a joke.  My point is they are opinions.  Where as you may like Mario and Donkey Kong someone else may like Halo and gears.  And where they like Forza and Fable somebody may like Gran Turismo and Uncharted.  And where they like Gran Turismo and Uncharted somebody else may like Zelda and Smash Bros.  

This list can go on and on.  It is a matter of preference and who is to say that person A should like Halo, GT, Mario better than person B who likes  Farmville.  Is someone wrong for saying they like farmville more?  This would be different if we knew how much each company is making in revenue throughout the generation but we dont so we are giving opinions based off of our preferences rather than anything that holds any merrit.

I expected Sony to be heavily favored in the polls, just going off of this site alone. Disregarding sales and profits, I have to go with Sony for their variety.

All three have strengths and weaknesses. Sony has struggled with advertising for PS3 games, but again has that variety. Microsoft, while doesn't have much in variety, has proven that their exclusives sell. Halo 4's sales have proven that people do still care about Halo. And going into the next gen at this moment in time, Xbox has a great variety and is bringing it with their exclusives. Let's hope they support One throughout it's life and not for the first few years.

People buy Nintendo's consoles solely for their exclusives. Yes, they could use a new IP. Nintendo games are special (to me), I know I can't play Pikmin 3 anywhere else. Another aspect to consider is that Nintendo games generally do not depreciate over time, unlike a lot of over saturated FPSs. The experiences are unique to Nintendo.