By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Pyro as Bill said:

Sony always has variety but if you mean games like TLoU, Uncharted and GoW then it's true that most of their biggest/most popular games are 'sad dad' games.

Sony's other games either aren't as good/appealing or Playstation doesn't attract a big enough audience for those types of games.

TLOU would be the only game to even be about a dad. Uncharted had the protagonist being a dad just at the epilogue and GoW on the last game. And to tell the truth they aren't even sad.

Almost all the IPs on PS4 sold great so you are really wrong on their games not atracting a big audience.

Mnementh said:
DonFerrari said:

Are we really inventing genres to fit?

Everybody Golf is a sport game with RPG elements if you want to go like that. The SIMS is a life simulation. fitness adventure?

For me it just seems like you are pretending there is a whole genre to cover a single game Nintendo created to pad the numbers.

Everyone does actually. As you look at it, you actually could put TLOU in the same genre as Zelda: action adventure. With that Sony has nothing special. But as I see it, there are differences. But that is exactly what I said: everyone defines genres differently. You argued that position only to circle back and deliver an expample yourself. And I said before: as people define their genres some can come to the conclusion PS4 has the most diverse library ever, while others think that Switch has that price. It is all a question of your viewpoint.

No, there isn't something as defyning genres differently, genres are classifications so they aren't to be individualized. If you want to put TLOU as action adventure instead of surviving horror that is on you or when you don't consider Zelda a RPG. You are torturing definitions to try and make a point to give Nintendo a win.

hinch said:
Mnementh said:

I would argue Rayman and Lara Croft are quite iconic. But true, Nintendo has a great talent to develop lasting characters. Maybe because they don't give up on them and jump to a different series. Sony abandoned Spyro and Crash, maybe if they had stick with them they would be as iconic today as Mario.

I'm pretty sure Sony has never owned those IP's. As far as I'm aware Spyro was owned by Universal Studios, then acquired by Activison. Crash Bandicoot was also owned by Activision and currently still is. Sony just published their games.

Yep they never owned but the IPs were created by the studios they bought.

pikashoe said:
KLXVER said:

The only thing I would like Sony to focus more on is replayability. I love several of their games, but I feel like story is too much of a focus in many of them. I just never seem to go back to their games once Ive finished them.(A few exceptions of course) Thats just a bit of a selfish wish I know, since I know many people play their games over and over. I just feel the gameplay could be a bit more fun and random I guess.

That's a good point. With a few exceptions there games have very little replay value. I found this very noticeable when I tried to replay a chapter in uncharted 4 and just finding it so tedious and dull on a second play through. Although I find bloodborne very replayable. 

Considering I have platined Uncharted 1 to 3 twice and once for 4 and Lost Legacy (having to play 3 times per plat) I would say I found a lot of replayability.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."