Out of those you listed the statement is a lie for everything but FF.

CoD was never properly on consoles till this gen, and has been supported on Wii I really don't get that point.

RE4... first on GC... was supposed to stay excusive... need I say more?

Metal Gear originally released on the MSX2, then NES got a really shoddy port, and original games with a lot of work put in them were put on GC and PSP.  Hideo Kojima is pretty good for supporting Sony products other people do his ports... there has yet to be Metal Gear on the DS for example.

GTA goes where they can put it, it was originally a PC game, the game that started 3D GTA was on N64 (pst the losing console)

As for marketing, dev teams, and budgets.... really man?  You're trying to go there?  You realize there has never been a time in the history of game making that it has taken such huge teams to make a single game, and it could be pure rubbish and a lot of the time is, but that's not how it's going to be marketed.  Most of the games that have "effort" put into them is because if they don't make a game look pretty then people will shrug it off, they put a lot of man hours into that, costs them a lot of money, a lot of time, and then to protect that investment publishers HAVE to give it high marketing budgets and even then a lot of games fail to make money...

Honestly here since you want to bring this up tell me previous gen games that HAD the same size dev teams, had the budgets, had the marketing, Shenmue is probably the closest thing... but even it's dwarfed now... which defeats the point all together, since that is not above and beyond effort into a game that's simply what they have to do to get a game to a certain graphical standard and doesn't indicate at all the quality of said product.

But it's not like I don't see what you're doing, you're throwing out a red herring to divert from the fact you have no factual basis for your claim, as franchises, IPs, etc hop around as they please and always have, and usually most IPs die out or start up in one gen.  No one franchise is a good indicator of "big game" because at any moment a "big game" could just drop off the face of the world and it has happened time and time again. 

So really there is no tangible definition of "big game" that isn't in some form rooted in opinion, unless you want to go out, do a proper survey over a period of probably 10 to 20 years to see which games and IPs people will say they know about, think of as big, and still see as a quality series, cause your definition only fits you and some people on the interwebz and even then obviously there are disputes...

I really don't know how you cannot get this.  There is no IP floating around that is in any way shape or form a direct indication of both a "big game" and has always been put on the lead console, NONE, because popularity and standards change constantly and give rise and fall to new IPs, there is no way for your definition to hold water without it being completely your opinion as what *IS* a "big game", period.

Quite simply most people define themselves through the products they consume, and advertising companies work very hard to reinforce this.

For example Sony fans will often claim their console has a library of 'hardcore' titles while the Wii just has 'casual' games. So by purchasing a PS3 you're making a statement that you like hardcore titles, and the guy down the street with a wii is a lesser, casual gamer. Another example would be the pepsi generation advertisements which branded it as the drink of choice for young, cool kids and made coke look like the antiquated drink your parents once enjoyed. So buying and drinking pepsi means that you're a hip kid, but drinking coke makes you just a square as your parents.

This sort of thinking extends to just about every facet of life - even clothing, cars and food. Tons of people shop at whole foods not because their "organic" food is better then the cheaper mass produced goods in most groceries, but because it makes a statement that they're health conscious and environmentally friendly. This is our modern culture of consumption, where goods are purchased based, at least in part, on what they can add to your personal image.

Thus when the PS3 is portrayed in a negative light most die hard take it personally, because it is. When you define yourself by the products you consume and the properties they convey any criticism of said products is quite literally an attack on that person. So when PS3 fans claim to be hardcore, its usually because thats what most people say about the PS3. They may not buy tons of games, and they may even play only mainstream titles, but the fact that they own a PS3 makes them hardcore - and anyone who argues that the PS3 isn't a hardcore console is indirectly claiming that that poster/PS3 fan isn't hardcore.

So don't expect things to change anytime soon until people start to look at goods as only something to be used. And if some of the PS3 fans zealotry resembles religions fanatics, its because it does. Consumption has taken up the function of religion for most people.

/rant - feel free to continue arguing in a completely predictable way.

Skeeuk said:
JerzeeBalla said:
Excuse the thread title, I couldnt get what the topic is into words.

My question is this. I have been registered here for a while now, but this is my first (and probably last) thread. In the last couple of months I have seen numerous complaints about the behavior of Sony/PS3 fans (or fanboys more specifically.) I thought about why people are so upset at Sony fans seemingly superhuman ability to ignore that its in 3rd place and continue to speak as if it is indeed winning the console war. Almost every thread I enter turns into a back and forth between a group of Sony enthusiasts, and a group of people who swear that this site is run by Sony Nazis and the mods dont care.

I personally think, and this is based on no kind of factual evidence, that the behavior is irritating because the PS3 is the last place console. This kind of behavior was present last gen, just in reverse. XBox fans talked as if it was God's gift to gamers, even though it was utterly destroyed sales wise. Ditto for the Gamecube. Sony fans hated when those camps had the audacity to place their "pitiful" consoles in the same breath as the almighty PS2.

Jump to this gen, and everything is switched. The Wii is crushing all comers, and the 360 is smacking Sony around in NA. Yet PS3 fans talk as if its the single most important gaming related creation ever. I think this really bothers, or annoys, a lot of people. Can anyone confirm this for me? Or tell me I am very stupid if thats the case? I just want to understand why everything that goes wrong on this board is blamed on Sony fans/fanboys. Are they the cause of every thread derailment? Are they the only ones trolling? The only ones creating threads designed to start trouble? I just want to make sense of what I am reading.

i think your missing the point.

wii is selling more than ps3, but ps3 has better games and is a better console.

if you prefer better sales fair enough, most on here prefer better games.

the best console is the one that gives the gamer the best games and best features, games are kinda comparable on ps360 and features wise ps3 is better, but i think overall ps3 will have the better games this gen.

judging from your post your obviously a little hurt!

This is what I'm talking about!
ME 2 !!!

I'm glad to see a completely objective definition of 'best'

*PS3, the Winner everyone thinks is losing.

Actually I agree with you completely, I was throwing out the sales thing as something tangible to rate on (I offered a different way to make a "big game" tangible in my last reply)

My problem isn't that sales is the indicator of quality, far from it, I even mentioned that in one reply that marketing is protecting investments.  It's that there really isn't a definition of a "big game", there is no way to obtain a non opinionated definition, and really people are looking at old IPs as the definition of "Big game" when they come and go each gen, and at one point in time a lot of them began their life on the "losing console". 

If you want to define it time and money invested... well there has never been a time in gaming it took this long or this much money to make a single game, which that doesn't answer if it's quality, it doesn't answer if it can get sales, it doesn't answer if its even known.  I could invest millions into a game with 10 years of development, oh man "big game" right? Nope that'd be Too Human, hyped, marketed, from really awesome developers, big budget, people wanted it, etc.  Then it was dead in the water and almost took the developers with it.

In the end, much like the title of AAA to a game, it simply being "big" is a matter of opinion usually defined by what someone wants like psrock flat out admitted to, its what HE wants and those games are on PS3 and 360, does that mean they're big cause he wants them?  No it doesn't.  To be honest I just believe it's furthering this whole "mine is better than yours" mentality, some people are doing it because they're coming to grips that things change and they feel threatened, some people do it cause they have to stroke their ego cause they must affirm they made the right purchases, but the common factor is they seem to want to put down what others like as not up to their standard, it isn't AAA to them, it isn't big, it isn't (insert here), and that's simply because it's not what THEY want, but when you look at many other factors you see the people claiming that isn't nearly the whole vote.

as you can see i own all 3 systems, i've always been a multi console owner and i've been gaming since the atari 2600 days. i am going to be completely honest i enjoy my ps3 more then my other two systems because of the exclusives; they have a lot of variety and they're really great to play.

i just recently finished Splinter Cell on 360 and this year has been the most i've played it in some time.

my wii gets the least amount of playtime because other then Mario Galaxy, NSMW, and Zelda it doesnt have much in the way of exclusives i want to play and even though i have the metroid prime collection im not in a big hurry to play them because im not a huge fan of the series (although i did beat MP1 on gamecube).

MG2 and Zelda will be the only two games that will have me playing my wii this year.

i the end its all preference and i'm all about playing games then arguing over who's first and who's last as i get absolutely nothing out of it. i just let the fanboys duke it out amongst themselves because they have nothing better to do with their time.

You are making me repeating myself, no matter how you want to define big games, no matter how many people are put to work on a project, the leading console is the one that usually get the best games and get it first. Just like the Wii got Dragon Quest in Japan.

If you don't think these developers are making their big games on the HD console, that's your choice. Time after time, annoucement after annoucement, games the PS2 or PS1 would have gotten first are not going to the Wii, in fact the PSP get them before the Wii. The Iphone got SF4.

It might be difficult to admit, but I am saying it again. If you are not a big fan of Nintendo games, the choices are very few compared to the competition.

Admit what? That there is nothing that makes your claim right?  You seem to be turning this into some console vs console BS only to be like yeah I don't like Wii cause the games on it are bad and not the big games I want and I haven't been going from that perspective from the very beginning, but rather trying to get you to wrap your head around some basic concepts that A IPs don't define big, B gaming changes the type of games that come out change over time, C there's been plenty of games on all consoles throughout the history of gaming you never had to get another console especially if the games on said console were what you liked, and D your argument still boils down to what you want, what you view as big IPs sounding like the people that whined about the PS1 and how Madden wasn't good, PS1 was a non gamers console, but it changed the way people viewed what games was... and currently we are in another one of those transitions and it's starting to emerge this year... I could whine everyday how SNES games aren't represented anymore and that PS1 didn't get the "big games" I liked... but it's just a new form of "big"...

Put it like this

SNES was the peak of the types of games that was started back in the Atari era

PS3/360 are the peak of the type of games that started on PS1

and Wii is creating something new and many people will eventually see those sorts of games as the new "big" games