PS3, The Loser That The Fans Think Is Winning.

[psrock]

MaxwellGT2000 said:

psrock said:

MaxwellGT2000 said:

 

Out of those you listed the statement is a lie for everything but FF.

CoD was never properly on consoles till this gen, and has been supported on Wii I really don't get that point.

RE4... first on GC... was supposed to stay excusive... need I say more?

Metal Gear originally released on the MSX2, then NES got a really shoddy port, and original games with a lot of work put in them were put on GC and PSP.  Hideo Kojima is pretty good for supporting Sony products other people do his ports... there has yet to be Metal Gear on the DS for example.

GTA goes where they can put it, it was originally a PC game, the game that started 3D GTA was on N64 (pst the losing console)

As for marketing, dev teams, and budgets.... really man?  You're trying to go there?  You realize there has never been a time in the history of game making that it has taken such huge teams to make a single game, and it could be pure rubbish and a lot of the time is, but that's not how it's going to be marketed.  Most of the games that have "effort" put into them is because if they don't make a game look pretty then people will shrug it off, they put a lot of man hours into that, costs them a lot of money, a lot of time, and then to protect that investment publishers HAVE to give it high marketing budgets and even then a lot of games fail to make money...

Honestly here since you want to bring this up tell me previous gen games that HAD the same size dev teams, had the budgets, had the marketing, Shenmue is probably the closest thing... but even it's dwarfed now... which defeats the point all together, since that is not above and beyond effort into a game that's simply what they have to do to get a game to a certain graphical standard and doesn't indicate at all the quality of said product.

But it's not like I don't see what you're doing, you're throwing out a red herring to divert from the fact you have no factual basis for your claim, as franchises, IPs, etc hop around as they please and always have, and usually most IPs die out or start up in one gen.  No one franchise is a good indicator of "big game" because at any moment a "big game" could just drop off the face of the world and it has happened time and time again. 

So really there is no tangible definition of "big game" that isn't in some form rooted in opinion, unless you want to go out, do a proper survey over a period of probably 10 to 20 years to see which games and IPs people will say they know about, think of as big, and still see as a quality series, cause your definition only fits you and some people on the interwebz and even then obviously there are disputes...

I really don't know how you cannot get this.  There is no IP floating around that is in any way shape or form a direct indication of both a "big game" and has always been put on the lead console, NONE, because popularity and standards change constantly and give rise and fall to new IPs, there is no way for your definition to hold water without it being completely your opinion as what *IS* a "big game", period.

You are making me repeating myself, no matter how you want to define big games, no matter how many people are put to work on a project, the leading console is the one that usually get the best games and get it first. Just like the Wii got Dragon Quest in Japan.

If you don't think these developers are making their big games on the HD console, that's your choice. Time after time, annoucement after annoucement, games the PS2 or PS1 would have gotten first are not going to the Wii, in fact the PSP get them before the Wii. The Iphone got SF4.

It might be difficult to admit, but I am saying it again. If you are not a big fan of Nintendo games, the choices are very few compared to the competition.

Admit what? That there is nothing that makes your claim right?  You seem to be turning this into some console vs console BS only to be like yeah I don't like Wii cause the games on it are bad and not the big games I want and I haven't been going from that perspective from the very beginning, but rather trying to get you to wrap your head around some basic concepts that A IPs don't define big, B gaming changes the type of games that come out change over time, C there's been plenty of games on all consoles throughout the history of gaming you never had to get another console especially if the games on said console were what you liked, and D your argument still boils down to what you want, what you view as big IPs sounding like the people that whined about the PS1 and how Madden wasn't good, PS1 was a non gamers console, but it changed the way people viewed what games was... and currently we are in another one of those transitions and it's starting to emerge this year... I could whine everyday how SNES games aren't represented anymore and that PS1 didn't get the "big games" I liked... but it's just a new form of "big"...

Put it like this

SNES was the peak of the types of games that was started back in the Atari era

PS3/360 are the peak of the type of games that started on PS1

and Wii is creating something new and many people will eventually see those sorts of games as the new "big" games

The Wii big games already exist: Wii Sports, wii play , wiiFit those are bigger games than any other games out there, games like Just Dance are going to be huge too, but 99% of these big games are made by Nintendo. Crazy thing is even having starting the whole motion sensing craze, it will be PS3 and 360 that will benefit the most support wise from developers when it comes to games. I don't care if you want to believe it or not. The Wii got left behing by these developers, they really are not focusing on it like they are suppose to as a console leader.