By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
theprof00 on 05 June 2015
Edit Thread
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
theprof00 said:

You're using goalposts. The whole point of the thread was about what Sony is doing for support of the console. You're saying it's ok to use third party exclusives but not indies, and no multiplats.

Just even based on multiplats alone there are far more higher rated games to play on ps4.

Just because your very specific criteria (which doesn't even follow the thread argument) fits better, other criteria fit the ps4 better. Multiplats, total number of games, better first party exclusives, better indies, more media content, etc. Using such an specific metric would be like saying ps3 is superior because it supported pc to console streaming....for some individuals, yes, that makes a world of difference. For others, not so much.

Because there is so much room to debate which criterion is best from personal perspectives, it's best to just stick with the narrative of the OP, which is that humble Sony did more for the ps3 than "arrogant sony" is doing for the ps4. In terms of first party software, the simple answer is no. PS4 first party exclusives are quite a cut above the ps3's.

So let me get this straight. You originally list Bloodborne as a part of your argument which was not developed by a Sony first part studio. Seeing this example I provide other studios who put out exclusives for the PS3. Yet I'm using goalposts? Right. 

I am also shaking my head at your 3rd party comment. I never stated anything in regards to multiplats so I have no clue where the hell you are getting that from. I did state that indies are not real exclusives because the 99 percentile does not buy a console for an indie exclusive. Common sense.

I highly suggest that you do some research when comparing the multiplats offerings and stating PS4 was superior. A simple browse through meta critic should help you clear up your inaccuracies on that one. They are fairly similar in that regard.

PS3 was a superior multimedia device (streaming, video playback,etc) in comparison to what the PS4 is right now but I will admit there is currently more digital content compared to the same time frame.

You can debate to your hearts content but using games that were strictly first party (if you insist); Uncharted, Resistance, Motorstorm, Warhawk, GT5:P ,  are " a cut above Killzone:SF, Infamous:SS, Driveclub ,The Order ,Knack and even when included The Last Of Us Remaster, have a higher combined rating. No debate about it.

Sony owns the IP...smh

THe simple question here is "what is Sony doign to help the ps4" vs "what did Sony do to help the ps3".

While Uncharted was unquestionably a good game, UC2 and 3 were leaps and bounds better. Quality has improved significantly over time. Resistance wasn't even a good game, neither was motorstorm or warhawk. I would know, I had ALL of them. It was ALL Sony had in terms of their offerings. GT5:P is really the only significant title there along with uncharted.

Sony paid for PT. Sony developed all those games. Sony Japan developed Bloodborne in conjunction with FROM. It's plain to see on the wiki. Although a little thought into why Sony owns the IP, would've told you that without the source. Or if you owned the game, and saw SCE and Japan Studio right on the box.