By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
BMaker11 on 18 January 2014
Edit Thread
Aielyn said:
BMaker11 said:
Take a chill pill, man. Whenever you think Xbox, you think Halo. Whenever you think Nintendo, you think Mario, Zelda, MK, and Smash. But what do you think when you think PlayStation? A plethora of titles. And the counter is always "I would rather play a few great games then have to pay for a bunch of good games" and they back it up with sales. "Halo outsold Infamous, Resistance, and Uncharted combined" for example.

My post wasn't an attack on non-Sony platforms. I was speaking from experience. You can make a big games' list if you want. Nobody ever said that Nintendo or Microsoft didn't have a game library. But I guarantee you that when you ask someone "what're the best Nintendo games", they aren't gonna say "Excite Truck, Rabbids, and Samurai Warriors". They're gonna say the typical Nintendo games. There are no "typical Sony games". There is no "face of Playstation". GT has sold multiple millions of copies. Uncharted has sold multiple millions of copies. So has God of War. But so much more goes into the PS image than what goes into the Ninty or MS image.

Utter nonsense. When you think of Nintendo, you think of Mario, Zelda, MK, Smash, Pokemon, Metroid, Wii Sports, Brain Training, Kirby, Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and some others.

And what you've basically said about PS (unintentionally) is that there are no stand-out titles on the PlayStation... which is inaccurate, too. When people think Sony, they used to think Final Fantasy, Spyro and Crash, and more recently, they think Resistance, LittleBigPlanet, Gran Turismo, God of War, and Uncharted (and some others). And when you think Microsoft, you think of Halo, Gears of War, Fable, and Forza (and some others). That's how it works - people think of certain top-selling exclusives for the system.

And you didn't say "Nintendo and MS platforms are best known for Mario and Halo", you said, and I quote, "But I'd have multiple great games/series that don't sell as much then go with a company that throws all their eggs in one basket to make one game/series that sells a bunch." - the only possible way to read this is that you can't get other kinds of games, other than Mario and Halo, on the respective systems. And while I don't doubt that you recognise that you can get other games on the systems, you clearly have a twisted sense of reality if you really think that either Nintendo or MS are different from Sony in this respect.

You'll notice that, while my post focused on Nintendo, I also defend Microsoft just as much. And if someone were to make a claim like, say, "Sony has lost all of its exclusives and there's no reason to own a PS3 over a 360 (or a Wii)", I'd defend it (the PS3, that is). Because I'm fed up with the one-up-manship by fans of the various console makers.

Guess what? Most of those titles you named for Nintendo were adventure and platforming games. Maybe I was wrong to single out Mario, but this thread is about variety in the library, and you just proved my point. That's why naming a billion games is pointless. "Hey, PS has CoD, Killzone, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, Bulletstorm, Resistance, Bioshock, and RAGE. Look at that diversity!"

Xbox isn't known as the "shooterbox" for no reason. You named Halo and Gears. Nobody is buying an Xbox for Forza (the best selling one was bundled). 

And I do believe that the PS games aren't "stand out". As in, they don't stand out against the rest of the library. Uncharted is just as viable as GoW, and GoW is just as viable as Resistance, so on and so forth. And you named JRPG, Adventure/Platformer, Shooter, Racing, Action/Hack'n'Slash, and a TPS with puzzle and stealth elements for PS. Again, you proved my point