By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
d21lewis on 04 December 2010
Edit Thread
CGI-Quality said:
d21lewis said:
CGI-Quality said:
d21lewis said:

It's blowing my mind how people are saying that Sony is the only one with some sort of diversity.  As if Nintendo and Microsoft only make games like Mario and Halo.  Is it THAT easy to pretend that games like Animal Crossing, Viva Pinata, Fire Emblem, and Banjo Kazooie don't exist? 

Everybody has some sort of diversity.  Just because the other two have some sort of mega-franchise (and Sony does, too) that sells 10 million copies, that doesn't mean that's ALL they have.  C'mon!  I'd rather people point out that Sony always pushes for new formats (like they did with CD, UMD, DVD, and Blu Ray) or that Playstation has always been the home of blockbuster 3rd party franchises, or that they do their best to make sure Playstation owners aren't missing out on anything the other companies are pushing (motion control, rumble controllers, deep online).  Settling on the "Playstation means diversity" answer is a little lazy. 

For every inFamous, there's a Crackdown.  For every Gran Turismo, there's a Forza.  For every Uncharted, there's a Legend of Zelda or Alan Wake.  All companies are all things to all people.  Maybe Playstation has the preffered version of these genres?

In fairness, the OP seems to imply that Sony lacks an identity. So people are spot on when they say that Sony's diversity is their trump card. I agree that Sony doesn't have diversity in a vccuum, but as Euphoria pointed out, they've taken more risks on niche titles than their competitors, leaving them with more IPs, overall, than them as well.

So it's not that MS & Nintendo lack variety/diversity, but that Sony has it in spades, which is truly their identity.

What are these niche titles of which you speak?  And more IP's than Microsoft (likely since they've been at it since '95) but Nintendo!?  The only niche titles I can think of are Heavy Rain and Little Big Planet.  Hardly an avalanche.  How is this any different than how Nintendo backed Wario Ware or Animal Crossing or how MS backed Rare with Viva?

I'm not just being a dick (I AM being a dick but that's not all I'm being.)  I just want to challenge what people are thinking.

It's not just about the PS3, but the PlayStation in general. In fact, much of the PS1's library were very niche titles. Some just went big and became phenomenons. Nintendo isn't defined by their niches, that's the difference. They are defined by Mario (and to a higher extent of today) The Wii brand). Neither strategy is bad, but it's worked for Sony in a big way. Microsoft isn't defined by niches either, but a select few IPs that are either huge, big, or moderate.

And if you want to challenge anyone, it should be the OP of this thread. Most Sony fans in here have intelligent, reasonable answers. I mean, how did you read the OP, read the responses in here, and only want to challenge PS fans, while ignoring the fact that the OP sees nothing more than Gran Turismo as a noteworthy representation of the PlayStation brand?


I'm just quirky like that, I guess.

I think I gave a couple of pretty good replies about what made the Playstation brand awesome, too.  I read every post in this thread.  I just woke up this morning (about to go back to sleep, btw) and it seemed like everybody has settled on the "Playstatio diversity" answer.  For the record, I never challenged you, CGi.  I just responded when you quoted me (I have a tendancy to do that).  Anyhoo, whatever people's reasons are, it's THEIR reason.  I'm just playing devil's advocate.  And the OP is wrong, too.  The Playstation brand is bigger than the sum of it's parts.  For over a decade (since '95), nobody can deny that Playstation was (and still is, in the hearts of many) THE video game platform.  A couple of years of whatever negative media attention (PS3 launch) isn't going to change that.