TruckOSaurus said:
1) What wrong with decade old franchises? Do franchises have a maximum life expectancy? 2) I would argue that Sony and Microsoft are the ones who took the easy way out. Sony guy 1: "Hey, we have to make our next gen console, what should we do?" Sony guy 2: "The same thing everyone always does make it bigger and stronger" Sony guy 1: "Yeah let's do that" |
1) Yes, they do have a life expectancy, they also have a limit to how many variations of the same game can be released. I appreciate what they did with Mario Galaxy, that game was just pure fun and innovation, but other franchises have been milked to death. It's the same thing every time, it wouldn't be so bad if they didn't do it to every franchise they have (which is quite a lot).
2) On some level you are right, they both decided to flood the market with repetitive FPS's (this was more-so third party devs though, which is the same case with Nintendo). There is still more than enough variety for me, RPG, action, adventure. While I do miss and prefer the Japanese games of the past generations, I applaud Western developers for what they have came out with this generation on the PS3 / XBOX 360. You are still wrong though, Nintendo were the ones to take the easy way out.
Nothing wrong with making a console bigger and stronger either, at least you get what you pay for, rather than half of it. When it comes to hardware, the only evolution I need is in graphics. At least Sony and Microsoft innovate and deliver in the software department, features, services, and most importantly games.








