By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Are Sony's 1st Party Studios Leading The Way?

irstupid on 06 July 2010
dahuman said:
irstupid said:

Just going to prove my point here about why I find talking with Nintendo "fanboys" better than talking with Sony "fanboys"  If you want to call them that.   Here is two simple questions, one asking what makes Galaxy 2 better than Galaxy 1, and the other asking what makes God of War 3 better than God of War 1 & 2.

dahuman said:
Hynad said:

Answer this. What makes Galaxy 2 so much better than the first game?


Galaxy 2 worked on a core game design that made the game already very good and built on top of it, adding different power ups, a mount, tools for the mount, genius level design that easily outranks the 1st with those new and different power ups in mind, a world hub that is nowhere near as confusing as the original, and starts to kick your ass in the first world and still manages to hold your hand with something like super guide if you are a new gamer which is good for both serious gamers and new comers. A musical score that's even beyond the first Galaxy. Also a girlfriend mode that no longer screws you over. I still don't know how Nintendo does it, the level design they come up with are just so out there beyond the reach of other devs, it's fucking crazy. For example, look at something like Crackdown 2, then look at Galaxy 2, you just can't help but wonder sometimes. We definitely need more devs like EAD Tokyo or ND, that's for sure.
Qays said:

"what makes god of war 3 better than its predicessors?  If god of war 1 & 2 weren't the top dogs, genre defining hack and slash games before, why is god of war 3 now the top dog when it is the same as those?"

Easy: the graphics. God of War is a series whose primary purpose is to wow you with the sheer visual spectacle of killing things in grotesque and badass ways. Graphics don't matter for all games, but for some they certainly do matter.



I'm not a fanboy is the reason why I try to explain lol, I'm just a gamer. I also explained God of War3, as far as I'm concerned, UC2 was still the deal maker for me, God of War 3 was pretty awesome but it simply wasn't really a better game vs the previous 2, and I saw a lot of room for improvement since the game didn't change much.

wasn't calling you a fanboy, it was being sarcastic saying fanboy, because on this site you can't be neutral it seems.  if you say one thing good about something or one thing bad about anotehr you are a biased fanboy and can't be a neutral gamer no matter how many games or systems you own.



Around the Network
M.U.G.E.N on 06 July 2010
irstupid said:
Qays said:

"no i'm not saying these games aren't quality, i'm just merely asking what makes them so much more quality than their predecessors.

and if you read up a couple posts where i quote two different people one explaining why God of War 3 is better than its predicessors and why Galaxy 2 is better than its predecessor is my main gripe."

I don't see what your gripe is. Could you explain it?


one person gives a great detailed explanation about all the new and great things which made it better than the prior game, while you basically just say god of war 3 is so much better than its predicessors because the graphics are better.


one persons answer = truth or the complete answer? Read up on the other answers to that question as well without dwindling over and over again on one perticular answer you got...the graphics are just 'part' of what made GOW3 a great game..if you really want a proper analysis with depth I suggest reading several reviews of it, not for the score but for the details



In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!

"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"

For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!

Qays on 06 July 2010

"one person gives a great detailed explanation about all the new and great things which made it better than the prior game, while you basically just say god of war 3 is so much better than its predicessors because the graphics are better."

He gave a detailed explanation that more or less boiled down to "I like it more because it's new". Sorry, but new powerups, a less confusing world hub, Yoshi, and a superguide are in no way revolutionary or even innovative features.

And the reason that God of War III is better than its predecessors really is that simple: it's a game that is so visually flabbergasting that it can keep a room full of my stoned friends enthralled for hours.



richardhutnik on 06 July 2010
BHR-3 said:

Backwards:

God of War III

Heavy Rain

Uncharted 2

Killzone 2

inFamous

LittleBigPlant

MAG

Forward:

Uncharted 3

inFamous 2

Gran Turismo 5

Killzone 3

Resistance 3

LittleBigPlanet 2

The Last Guardian

SOCOM 4

 


Oh, don’t get it twisted. The Xbox 360 house some of the biggest titles anywhere. From the upcoming Gears of War 3 to Halo: Reach. And Nintendo’s Wii is home to some of the best selling titles like Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2, and Wii Sports Resorts amongst many others.

However when it comes to groundbreaking, genre changing, industry enhancing titles, you’ll find them under one roof: Sony’s third major console, the venerable PlayStation 3.

http://www.gamesthirst.com/2010/07/06/sony-1st-party-studios-continue-to-lead-the-way/

 

he forgot Twisted Metal, The Agent and MGS4

Ok, that last bit gets me, considering that most of the titles mentioned have numbers after them. 

Anyhow, I will say this.  

Are the titles mentioned groundbreaking?  Most would be no.  Are they the best technical prowless ever?  I question that?  Are a number of the titles outstanding and worth owning, and strong reasons for owning a PS3?  Yes.  inFamous stands as my favorite sandbox game, and I am pumped about LBP2.  And I have to say I am in awe of what they are doing with GT5 in the sheer scoping, hoping it pans out.



richardhutnik on 06 July 2010
Qays said:

"If Sony's own games are superior according to Sony fans, why does Ratchet & Clank, a franchise with nearly no competition on the same technical and gameplay level in its genre on PS3, a franchise which appeals to "core" and "casual" gamers alike (just as Super Mario games), a franchise which got good ratings and is technically undeniably excellent, struggle to sell 2 million copies of one iteration on PS3 (Tools of Destruction is at 1.96 million, A Crack in Time even sold just a little more than 1 million according to ioi's data)?"

1. I don't think anyone is arguing that Ratchet and Clank is superior to its closest Nintendo competitor. I certainly am not. Super Mario Galaxy is undeniably the better game. What I am arguing is that the overall output of Sony studios is superior to that of any other developer.

2. The reason Ratchet and Clank doesn't have any high-quality competitors on the PS3 may well be that there simply isn't a market for cartoony platformers on the system. I'm a lifelong PlayStation gamer and I certainly have fond memories of playing Crash Bandicoot and Spyro on the PS1, but my tastes have evolved since then. I'm not even sure I would buy Super Mario Galaxy if it were to be accidentally released on the PS3.

Also, would someone teach me how to quote without actually pressing the quote button?

And the Ratchet and Clank franchise is NOT a one of cartoony platformer.  It has cartoon mascots, but it is a third-person shooter, with RPG-elements  you use to improve your weapons.  It is its own animal.  It is well done, and noted for its wit and bits of social commentary.  If you get it, then it is a blast.  I am R&C fan, as I have Clank as my avatar on PSN.  It is a game, that if you own a Playstation, and want what I described, you are happy with it.  It doesn't have the same hook as Mario does, and doesn't try to do the same thing Mario does.  I will add here, if you are a Ratchet and Clank fan, you do consider the PS3 a system to own, because of them being on the system.

What you have is Nintendo put the mascot genre on the map and are masters of it.  Sony has never really had it.  The only real serious competitor to Nintendo in this area was Sonic, and we know how that went.



Around the Network
dtewi on 06 July 2010
BHR-3 said:

The games that have received the most critical praise in the graphics, narrative, gameplay enhancing, and storytelling departments can only be had on the PlayStation 3. Look backwards or forward, and the evidence will stare you in the face.

However when it comes to groundbreaking, genre changing, industry enhancing titles, you’ll find them under one roof: Sony’s third major console, the venerable PlayStation 3.


These two really bug me.

For the first paragraph, I fail to see why the best gameplay enhancing and story can only be had on the PS3.

The second paragraph, the games that were listed were not industry enhancing except a few. The Wii enhanced the industry, not the PS3. Although, I'm a bit confused by what they mean by that term.



Kimi wa ne tashika ni ano toki watashi no soba ni ita

Itsudatte itsudatte itsudatte

Sugu yoko de waratteita

Nakushitemo torimodosu kimi wo

I will never leave you

okr on 06 July 2010
Qays said:

"If Sony's own games are superior according to Sony fans, why does Ratchet & Clank, a franchise with nearly no competition on the same technical and gameplay level in its genre on PS3, a franchise which appeals to "core" and "casual" gamers alike (just as Super Mario games), a franchise which got good ratings and is technically undeniably excellent, struggle to sell 2 million copies of one iteration on PS3 (Tools of Destruction is at 1.96 million, A Crack in Time even sold just a little more than 1 million according to ioi's data)?"

1. I don't think anyone is arguing that Ratchet and Clank is superior to its closest Nintendo competitor. I certainly am not. Super Mario Galaxy is undeniably the better game. What I am arguing is that the overall output of Sony studios is superior to that of any other developer.

2. The reason Ratchet and Clank doesn't have any high-quality competitors on the PS3 may well be that there simply isn't a market for cartoony platformers on the system. I'm a lifelong PlayStation gamer and I certainly have fond memories of playing Crash Bandicoot and Spyro on the PS1, but my tastes have evolved since then. I'm not even sure I would buy Super Mario Galaxy if it were to be accidentally released on the PS3.

Also, would someone teach me how to quote without actually pressing the quote button?

Oh, I didn't argue either that Ratchet & Clank is superior or inferior to its closest competitor. I'm just saying it's one example of a franchise which sells way less - even to devoted Sony fans, who think Sony has generally the superior output - than Nintendo's competitor games to their devoted fans.

Another example: Modnation Racers, which was praised by many Sony fans (and some reviewers) to be better than Mario Kart (which I won't argue either, as these are opinions and I never care anyway which game on what system is the "better" one) and which generally got slightly higher ratings than Mario Kart afaik, sold ~340.000 copies to a  worldwide userbase of >35 million PS3 owners so far. Last week it sold around 20.000 copies worldwde, in its 6th week on the market. Why don't even the devoted Sony fans, who think Sony has the superior games, seem to buy this game?

If we use your 2nd R&C argument for Modnations Racers as well and assume for a moment that "there's no market" for cartoony racers on the system, here's two other examples for people with "evolved" tastes:
Why is Sony's own Killzone 2 with an average rating of ~90 outsold by the latest 3 CoD games on PS3? Why did inFamous, whose announced sequel is already  eagerly awaited by Sony fans, sell only ~1.6 million copies?



Arius Dion on 06 July 2010

Ok. So what we're going to do is use Metacritic as the measuring stick, instead of sales. Is that what we're doing now?



Bet between Slimbeast and Arius Dion about Wii sales 2009:


If the Wii sells less than 20 million in 2009 (as defined by VGC sales between week ending 3d Jan 2009 to week ending 4th Jan 2010) Slimebeast wins and get to control Arius Dion's sig for 1 month.

If the Wii sells more than 20 million in 2009 (as defined above) Arius Dion wins and gets to control Slimebeast's sig for 1 month.

Xbbjf9s on 06 July 2010

I agree with the op, I was looking at the lists of awards for uncharted 2 and it has as shit load, KZ2 has a few graphic awards itself...didn't bother to look up others.



Severance on 06 July 2010

they always did to me, but they can't market their games for shit!



I live for the burn...and the sting of pleasure...
I live for the sword, the steel, and the gun...

- Wasteland - The Mission.