By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kage848 on 09 May 2010
Edit Thread
psrock said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
psrock said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
psrock said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
psrock said:
The PS3 is special to us fans because it can stand toe to toe with the winner this GEN game wise, something very difficult to achieve. I had to have the PS1, PS2, NES, SNES , BUT I don't have to buy the Wii this Gen and I can still get the big games.

That's really all personal taste, I know a number of people that never owned the lead platform, often times getting their big games as well, they didn't care fo the exclusives for the other platform so why buy it?

So basically what you're saying is the console is special because you like it, just like every other successful console ever be it that gens winner or not, hell many people still loved the dreamcast long after it died a horrible death and they had pretty special games too... just saying!

I owned the dreamcast, xbox before buying the PS2 which I did not want because they broke a lot, but to play the big games, and the sheer amont of support the ps2 got, I  took a chance on the PS2. I  had a thread about how I felt the xbox was better as a console than my ps2 which still today wont play either GOW games, but I got the PS2  because that's where the games were. This gen, I don't really have to buy the Wii unless I want Nintendo games.

It's not a matter of opinion, it's fact. Besides MH3 and Dragon Quest, the major games aren't Wii games, they are elsewhere and that's kind of weird for a console winner, but as a PS3 owner, I am loving it.

You see what you're not seeming to understand is that exactly what you're saying is opinion... "big games" are a matter of perception... just like leo-j talking about "AAA games" earlier.  As for this gen there have been a lot more "big games" on the PS3 and 360 because that's what they're hyped and marketed to be, same teams, same ideas, same games last gen, would never get the same kind of marketing budget or be hyped like they are, this gen it's just publishers protecting their investments.  Not really sure why people don't see this.

Anyway opinions are not facts, simple, what is a big game to you is not a big game to me, is not a big game to *throws random user out there* MakingMusic476, is not a big game to the average joe. 

The Thing is we all know what a big game, just because we may not like them or buy them. We know Assasin's Creed, Super Mario , COD, hALO, MARIO Kart, Gears, Final Fantasy, GTA, Monster Hunter, Pokemon, we know they are big games. And I am saying the Wii is not getting them as the winners usually get these games. Yes, the Wii get support, but they are small to medium games that are usually niche titles anyway.

*shrug* I dunno mike, I'm just your average joe I couldn't tell you what those games out of the ones you've listed is really "big". 

*shakes head* What you've just said and listed off just proves my point, Assassins Creed being a big one, since it was a new IP this gen, had no fanbase prior, and when the publisher invested so much money into the game they decided that marketing it as an awesome new super cool game (AKA one of your "BIG titles") when really it was like theres this so-so game that we put a lot of money into, we need to market it to people to protect the investment, then we green lit a trilogy because guess what?  That helps just break even and then make more money with reducing investments.  It's all really a business tactic that has been in use since forever.

Now if your definition of "big games" was done by popular opinion, which is tangible, cause sales are a pretty direct correlation to popular opinion and what they want, AKA demand.  But I'm guessing that would only work for some of those games you've listed, and in all likelyhood make some games you wouldn't want to be seen as "big games" into "big games" simply defeating your own argument.

So right now psrock you've got two ways to go with this man, "my definition of big games is this, cause this is what I believe popular opinion is, though I'm simply representing the "hardcore" definition of big games" (which is all opinion) or you can go by something tangible and backed up by numbers, which would contradict the statements you've made :-

That still does not proove the Wii get these games which previous console winners have gotten. No matter what definition you use, these games still end up elsewhere. The games they put effort, money, marketing and the best talent are for the non winners and big games or not,god or not the Wii  does not get the support which it deserve. No matter how good Assassin Creed is, I and many fans I have them, we have tons of these games which the Wii does not get.

And I am repeating this, unless you really  like Ninendo games, the other reason to get the Wii is pretty slim.

Final Fantasy, Call of Duty, GTA, Resident Evil, MGS these are games usually found on the winning console. Use any definition you want, if Iwant thses games, I wont find them on the Wii.

I just want to say this back and forth here is great. You both make excelent points and I'm not sure who I agree with.

One thing I will say is FF, up untill this gen, and MGS are not fair to say they only show up on the leading consoles because they are only on Sony consoles. Again excludeing this gen for FF. But I see your point and it's very interesting. But. This just seems to show the job Nintendo has done this gen is even more impressive. They have done with without thoes kind of games. I refuse to call them big games as I kinda agree with Max on his points.

Games that are worth getting on Wii that are not Nintendo games:

No More Heroes

No More Heroes 2

Monster Hunter Tri

Madworld

Little Kings Story

Tatsunoko vs Capcom

Red Steel 2

Resident Evil 4

Okami

Sin and Punishment 2

Muramasa The Demon Blade

ect. There are more but I don't feel like listing all of them lol. Plus this year is going to be great as well. Now maybe you don't like most of thoes games? Thats fine you don't have to but they are on the Wii and are not Nintendo and are all worth owning to many many Wii owners. It's just all opinion and tastes.

@Black RL:

I really don't like useing the tearm "loser" when it comes wo the PS3 this gen. But you're right in everyway. The Sony brand is the loser this gen. Now don't hate me ps3 fans. I own one and I love it, it's a fantastic system. But From there numbers last gen, consoles sold and there market share, they have really taken a hit. Now some of that is because they reached such hights in the first place. Kinda like how the Wii's consoles sold has fallen since , what 08? Its hard, almost impossible to keep up that kind of success. But even with that said they still have fallen hard this gen.

But really what does any of that mean? The PS3 is still very healthy and is acually making a profit now! The PS brand ain't going anywhere and if the PS3 was a huge hit from day one we would be paying god knows for it today, $400? $500? Lets be thankfull that Nintendo and MS has gievn the Sony brand a fight. It's good for everyone involved, especially us gamers.