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?

leatherhat on 06 July 2010
MaxwellGT2000 said:
leatherhat said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
leatherhat said:
dsister said:
leatherhat said:

Commercially nintendo has had the greatest success but no doubt sony has made the best first party games *cough* demons souls *cough*


From Software isn't first party


Sony funded and the game and owns the IP. If demons souls isn't first party then neither is Halo or Metroid: Other M.


Wait where is it that Sony owns the Demon's Souls IP? 

Also Bungie was owned by Microsoft at the time of Halo 1-3, what you're trying to say is something like Halo Wars is not first party cause now Ensemble is defunct, future events don't change what it is.  

Anyway Demon's Souls is a spiritual successor to King's Field a From Software game  

Its pretty common knowledge that sony owns Demons souls and SCEJ partnered with From to make it. As for bungie, I wasn't aware MS owned them at the time, so I guess that only applies to halo reach. And yes demons souls is the spiritual successor to kings field (great games by the way) but I don't see how that would effect sonys ownership of Demons souls. 


I have yet to see a lick of evidence on who owns the IP all I know is From Software directly references the game in another one of their games and unless they get permission to do so they could get in trouble for if they do not own the IP.  And what does Kings Field have to do with anything?  Well that Sony if leading the pack as the topic says you don't really lead the pack just making a new King's Field title with the original developers :P just like Metroid Other M is satisfying the fans but it's not meant to lead the pack in what consumers want and change gaming.

Wikipedia and its official site lists sony as the owner. And Demons souls is far from just another kings field game. Its online functions, combat, and character progression are all very unique. As for saying its not meant to be what consumers want, I have to thank you. Ive been under this notion that I was a video game consumer for all these years, its great to finally clear that up. 



ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

Around the Network
Hynad on 06 July 2010
irstupid said:
Torillian said:
Arius Dion said:
Torillian said:
Arius Dion said:
rockeford2010 said:
 


what if other people think that nintendo has the best games?

 

It's all a matter of opinion


Exactly. The author of this 'article' is trying to manipulate the arena and twist things in a box where he can make such a claim, and try and justify it.

The bottom line is, if the majority of people thought Sony had the best first party games, they wouldn't be in the predicament they are in this gen. And their games wouldn't struggle to get to 5m.

Your argument about Sony not making the best games as evident by them not selling the best only makes sense in a world where the consumer is perfectly informed and gets to try every single game before buying.  Which is a world we don't live in.

It makes sense in this world. People are not as ill informed as has been spread across the web( at least in the case of gaming). The same box used to marginalize gamers i e casual gamers, hardcore gamers, etc. is just an attempt to try to explain why Wii's success is meaningless.

I mean, in that case, I could just say the GC was a better quality system than the PS2, but the ill informed consumer wasn't informed enough to understand that. That's bogus. Consumers like what the like and vote with their wallets. That's always been the case. When the PS1 was king, I remember Nintendo spouting "quality over quantity" when Wii is king, I hear sony spouting "quality over quantity'.  


You can absolutely make that argument about the gamecube.  Whether or not you are right is immaterial, but the point is that sales and quality are not connected at the hip, they may not even be holding pinkies.  Sales has too many other factors included to just look at two things and assume the one with better sales is the better quality, unless you can somehow counteract the affect of differing genres, differing advertising budgest, the name behind the game (which is why Forza could actually be better than GT even though GT will sell much much more) and people buying it because their friends have it. 

I am not margianalizing one group of gamers over another, or trying to disparage the success of the Wii.  I am simply telling you that sales and quality are not directly related enough to make conclusions on one based on the other.

and we are not solely arguing sales, we are arguing that personal tastes don't also correlate to quality

just because you don't like Barbies Pony Fun Ride doesn't mean it can't be a quality game. 

You can argue that all you want.  But would you argue that Uncharted 2, Little Big Planet, Killzone 2 or God of War 3 have reached a really high ground quality wise (in their own respective game genres), regardless of your personal bias for Nintendo?



.jayderyu on 06 July 2010

I don't think I can easily agree with anything that the article points out.

Technical. No not really. Yes it's MORE POWERFUL and I'm more than happy to agree with that, but how does that lead anything outside the standard game of leapfrogging. It's not leading it's following the standard path. XBox live only brought a gimped version of PC online style. Considering that the PS3 is practically following the Wii in terms of direction how can PS3 be leading anything.

Most of the games listed haven't broken anything nor really brought much new to the table. Games were ground breaking from PS1 to PS2 and the jump was certainly similar.

What Sony brought to this gen was the same but improved tech of last gen. Nintendo brought tech that wasn't in the generation before. If we are talking about technically speaking then Nintendo is leading the way on tech. If you want to refer to raw power then Sony has managed to come from behind for once and take the lead. When people say Technical they refer to prowess not brute force.

What I will give is that ALL developers should be given due respect. Even if a game turns out bad the effort and amount of work is considerable and nobody likes their work bashed by a bunch of tards who wank off to stupid stuff. Kudos to Sony and all the other developers who work hard to give us a rich gaming experience.



Squilliam: On Vgcharts its a commonly accepted practice to twist the bounds of plausibility in order to support your argument or agenda so I think its pretty cool that this gives me the precedent to say whatever I damn well please.

irstupid on 06 July 2010
CGI-Quality said:
Hynad said:

@CGI-Quality: Most people never really talk about second parties because of what I explained.  It just makes the whole thing a bit tedious, in fact.  As I said, the first party in charge will most of the time supervise the production.  Since the first party have its say on just about anything that is going on, even if they rarely intrude the production and usually trust/give freedom to the second party, it's usually accepted that the game is a first party one, since in the end, they do own the IP.

I guess this'll do, as it's the best explanation in here, rather than just running around saying: "it's not 1st Party, it's not 1st Party".


well i could care less if someon makes an article saying 1st party and starts throwing in 2nd party games as examples

to me i let it fly as long as the company sony, nintendo, microsoft own the IP.  Like no matter if the compnay making the game, uncharted, lbp, infamous, metroid, halo, mario, zelda, ect leave they can no longer make that game no matter what.  Only the main compnay Sony, nintendo, or microsoft can make the game or let someone else make it.

to me that is first party.  i'm not an expert on first party so i mighthave listed games that aren't first party, just showing my side or opinion.  so dont' care if someoen says second party as long as its an owned IP.  Which is why i mentioned earlier dumbh of topic maker to mention MGS4 and other totally non sony related at all. 



irstupid on 06 July 2010
Hynad said:
irstupid said:

and we are not solely arguing sales, we are arguing that personal tastes don't also correlate to quality

just because you don't like Barbies Pony Fun Ride doesn't mean it can't be a quality game. 

You can argue that all you want.  But would you argue that Uncharted 2, Little Big Planet, Killzone 2 or God of War 3 have reached a really high ground quality wise (in their own respective game genres), regardless of your personal bias for Nintendo?

no, god of war 3 seemed the same as its predicessors, uncharted is alike a mix of many old games (prince of persia, tomb raider, assassins creed, indiana jones), killzone 2 is a shitty fps.  I will say lbp is a neat creative game on the console, but the others i dn't see anything special at all in them besides visuals.

visuals are 1 small piece of a bigger puzzle in what makes a game a great quality fun game.



Around the Network
dahuman on 06 July 2010

This is a horrible articles written by someboyd ill informed about the gaming industry. Not to mention PS3 does not lead the technology in anyway or form, we should be praising the devs who  can code around it, not Sony. I have not seen a game better than SMG2 this gen yet on PS3 even though I have a plat trophy from UC2, lead the way my ass.



Qays on 06 July 2010

The Nintendo fans whose arguments boil down to "Nintendo has sold the most software this generation therefore it is the best!" baffle me. In no artform do sales have anything whatsoever to do with quality.



Hynad on 06 July 2010
irstupid said:
Hynad said:
irstupid said:
 

and we are not solely arguing sales, we are arguing that personal tastes don't also correlate to quality

just because you don't like Barbies Pony Fun Ride doesn't mean it can't be a quality game. 

You can argue that all you want.  But would you argue that Uncharted 2, Little Big Planet, Killzone 2 or God of War 3 have reached a really high ground quality wise (in their own respective game genres), regardless of your personal bias for Nintendo?

no, god of war 3 seemed the same as its predicessors, uncharted is alike a mix of many old games (prince of persia, tomb raider, assassins creed, indiana jones), killzone 2 is a shitty fps.  I will say lbp is a neat creative game on the console, but the others i dn't see anything special at all in them besides visuals.

visuals are 1 small piece of a bigger puzzle in what makes a game a great quality fun game.

So, applying your reasoning, Zelda, Super Mario seires and especially Mario Kart are not quality titles since no matter how fun they are, they're still more of the same. ¬_¬

 

I was expecting, wishing,  for something more objective on your part than that.



dahuman on 06 July 2010
Hynad said:
irstupid said:
Hynad said:
irstupid said:
 

and we are not solely arguing sales, we are arguing that personal tastes don't also correlate to quality

just because you don't like Barbies Pony Fun Ride doesn't mean it can't be a quality game. 

You can argue that all you want.  But would you argue that Uncharted 2, Little Big Planet, Killzone 2 or God of War 3 have reached a really high ground quality wise (in their own respective game genres), regardless of your personal bias for Nintendo?

no, god of war 3 seemed the same as its predicessors, uncharted is alike a mix of many old games (prince of persia, tomb raider, assassins creed, indiana jones), killzone 2 is a shitty fps.  I will say lbp is a neat creative game on the console, but the others i dn't see anything special at all in them besides visuals.

visuals are 1 small piece of a bigger puzzle in what makes a game a great quality fun game.

So, apllying some of your own criterias, Zelda, Super Mario seires and especially Mario Kart are not quality titles since no matter how fun they are, they're still more of the same. ¬_¬

SMG was definitely not the same, it literally blew my mind when I first saw game footages and I've been a PC gamer since the early 90s'. It's a game that doesn't require super duper graphics to impress true gamers with and one of the reasons I got a Wii.



irstupid on 06 July 2010
Hynad said:
irstupid said:
Hynad said:
irstupid said:
 

and we are not solely arguing sales, we are arguing that personal tastes don't also correlate to quality

just because you don't like Barbies Pony Fun Ride doesn't mean it can't be a quality game. 

You can argue that all you want.  But would you argue that Uncharted 2, Little Big Planet, Killzone 2 or God of War 3 have reached a really high ground quality wise (in their own respective game genres), regardless of your personal bias for Nintendo?

no, god of war 3 seemed the same as its predicessors, uncharted is alike a mix of many old games (prince of persia, tomb raider, assassins creed, indiana jones), killzone 2 is a shitty fps.  I will say lbp is a neat creative game on the console, but the others i dn't see anything special at all in them besides visuals.

visuals are 1 small piece of a bigger puzzle in what makes a game a great quality fun game.

So, apllying some of your own criterias, Zelda, Super Mario seires and especially Mario Kart are not quality titles since no matter how fun they are, they're still more of the same. ¬_¬


no i was talking individual games.  what makes uncharted 2 so much better than uncharted 1?  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?   When Killzone 1 sucked ass and come killzone 2 which has much worse controls than most other fps out on market how come it is top dog?

i'm not saying these games aren't good, i'm just curious what made them top dog NOW.  What did they add in these sequals that made them go from Zero to Hero.  (figure of speech, they weren't zero's before)