| psrock said: They've won two generations with just having one mega franchise, Having an amazing library is far more important than a couple huge overhyped games. |
Couldn't say it better myself , that's what I like about Sony .
VXIII said:
I really don't want to get involved in this battle but .. you aware that every GOW game has outsold DMC game right? you think Devil may cay "redefined" it's genre and not God of war, doesn't that make your logic fail ? Devil May Cry 2.78 VS God of war 3.73 ( let alone the collection which sold 1.44 ) DMC2 1.82 VS GoW2 3.13 DMC3 1.93 and 0.05 VS GoW3 2.93 DMC4 1.31 1.25 VS Gow3 2.93 ( again ) , Gow shall hit 3.4 by the end of the year btw. You can't really define what " redefine " is you know , for example I could say That Geow" is more or less just another TPS game with a couple of new ideas " right ? , that such a twisted logic you're using . And what about games like Metal gear , Ico , shadow of colossus, Twisted Metal , Mag ? " just another "genre" game with a couple of new ideas ? Ah what about MW2 did it r.......... you know what , I guess I got my point clear XD Please dear sir when people disagree with you doesn't mean that your "post must have hit a nerve" , it's a matter of opinions after all and everybody have the right to disagree. I don't think that I'll take this any further . -_- |
I agree with RolStoppable. In the past Sony has really made some genre defining, or redefining games, but this generation not so much.
VXIII I agree with you on God of War, that game redefined the genre, but not mainly with it's gameplay, with it terific plot, gory battles (I mean ripping a head off!?!), and topless sex depicting cut scenes. Then again, this is one of PS3's best selling games, already selling 3 million units. Thats more then any Action game I know.
Metal Gear Solid is also genre defining, but thats the best selling PS3 exclusive, and has been among the best selling exclusives on a Sony console since the franchise started.
Twisted Metal also used to be big on the PS1 era, I'm a big fan of the franchise, but Sony butchered the series when they released "Small Brawl", and as a PS2 game, Twisted Metal Black didn't offer much (outside of the amazing cinematics). The PS3 version looks very cheap as well, why does an entire building fall when you shoot the corner? The physics and gameplay engine are simply too dated, and Sony hasn't really put enough $$$ into Twisted Metal since the PS1 titles.
As for ICO, Shadow of the Colosus, and Heavy Rain those are fairly niche games. Why didn't Mass Effect, Lost Odyssey, Alan Wake or better yet Baten Kaitos sell well? Amazing games, just poorly marketed, and they appeal to a smaller audience.
MAG was a concept, it was a game designed to show people that you can have smooth 256 player multiplayer on the PS3. What does that prove? More oponents doesn't mean better multiplayer, Gears of War 1 got away with 4 vs 4, and Halo 3 was limited to 32 players (I haven't played in a while, is this right?)? MAG didn't redefine anything.
Modern Warfare really defined realistic shooters, and by realistic I mean your not fighting Aliens, or a planet that doesn't exist. By real I mean your fighting using guns which simulate real guns, in environments which simulate real places, and battles which simulate potential wars (it's a game some fiction must be used). Modern Warfare 2 took off because many gamers missed Modern Warfare 1, or simply wanted more.
Basically, you can't blaime just marketing, there are other factors involved. Killzone is an awesome game, and it pushed the bar graphically on what the PS3 can do, but it doesn't look that much better then Gears of War 2, and the Plot is not that different from older FPS games, it's not that different from Halo. Gears of War was the first amazing third person shooter. Yes there was Kill Switch beforehand, but that was a glitchy game with a mediocre story. Halo was epic in 2001, and in 2004 it defined online console gaming.
As for LittleBigPlanet, yes it came out before New Super Mario Bros Wii, but Super Mario Bros is a 20 year old franchise, that defined platforming, and a new game after what about 20 years? THATS EPIC! I know people who don't play games who wanted a Wii for this thing because of nostalgia.
Sony makes some great games on the PS3, there is no doubt about that. However, I already forgot the Plot to Resistance 1, yet I still remember what happened in Halo 1, and going back further I still remember all the environments and level layouts to Donkey Kong Country. I cannot say that about Sonic, which was also a great game.
What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database 
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results
Michael-5 said:
Filled in the blanks |
God of War, LBP, Fable and Forza are NOT megafranchises. Animal Crossing isn't either. Smash is fine, maybe Mario and Sonic, like you say. For the others, I think the thread is leaning toward consoles, not handhelds.
|
I agree with RolStoppable. In the past Sony has really made some genre defining, or redefining games, but this generation not so much. VXIII I agree with you on God of War, that game redefined the genre, but not mainly with it's gameplay, with it terific plot, gory battles (I mean ripping a head off!?!), and topless sex depicting cut scenes. Then again, this is one of PS3's best selling games, already selling 3 million units. Thats more then any Action game I know. Metal Gear Solid is also genre defining, but thats the best selling PS3 exclusive, and has been among the best selling exclusives on a Sony console since the franchise started. Twisted Metal also used to be big on the PS1 era, I'm a big fan of the franchise, but Sony butchered the series when they released "Small Brawl", and as a PS2 game, Twisted Metal Black didn't offer much (outside of the amazing cinematics). The PS3 version looks very cheap as well, why does an entire building fall when you shoot the corner? The physics and gameplay engine are simply too dated, and Sony hasn't really put enough $$$ into Twisted Metal since the PS1 titles. As for ICO, Shadow of the Colosus, and Heavy Rain those are fairly niche games. Why didn't Mass Effect, Lost Odyssey, Alan Wake or better yet Baten Kaitos sell well? Amazing games, just poorly marketed, and they appeal to a smaller audience. MAG was a concept, it was a game designed to show people that you can have smooth 256 player multiplayer on the PS3. What does that prove? More oponents doesn't mean better multiplayer, Gears of War 1 got away with 4 vs 4, and Halo 3 was limited to 32 players (I haven't played in a while, is this right?)? MAG didn't redefine anything. Modern Warfare really defined realistic shooters, and by realistic I mean your not fighting Aliens, or a planet that doesn't exist. By real I mean your fighting using guns which simulate real guns, in environments which simulate real places, and battles which simulate potential wars (it's a game some fiction must be used). Modern Warfare 2 took off because many gamers missed Modern Warfare 1, or simply wanted more. Basically, you can't blaime just marketing, there are other factors involved. Killzone is an awesome game, and it pushed the bar graphically on what the PS3 can do, but it doesn't look that much better then Gears of War 2, and the Plot is not that different from older FPS games, it's not that different from Halo. Gears of War was the first amazing third person shooter. Yes there was Kill Switch beforehand, but that was a glitchy game with a mediocre story. Halo was epic in 2001, and in 2004 it defined online console gaming. As for LittleBigPlanet, yes it came out before New Super Mario Bros Wii, but Super Mario Bros is a 20 year old franchise, that defined platforming, and a new game after what about 20 years? THATS EPIC! I know people who don't play games who wanted a Wii for this thing because of nostalgia. Sony makes some great games on the PS3, there is no doubt about that. However, I already forgot the Plot to Resistance 1, yet I still remember what happened in Halo 1, and going back further I still remember all the environments and level layouts to Donkey Kong Country. I cannot say that about Sonic, which was also a great game. |
You think that both GoW and MGS are genre defining but as you can see they're not mega franchises like Halo or Gears , it's more like you disagree with him XD .
we can't just blame lack of innovation in Sony games ( which is not true, and you seem to agree with me about some games) as he suggests either .
I think Sony is happy with it , they seem that they don't want to focus on single franchise to make it mainstream therefore they don't launch huge marketing campaigns, building a mega library is all that matters, but I don't know for sure just like everybody else in this thread.
Because Sony developers don't realize that "playing with others" is always more fun than "playing with yourself"
And no, "playing with others on the internet" doesn't count...
Bet with Dr.A.Peter.Nintendo that Super Mario Galaxy 2 won't sell 15 million copies up to six months after it's release, the winner will get Avatar control for a week and signature control for a month.
| Zipper said: Sony has been in the console business for 15 year. They've created 3 amazing consoles, two of them being amazingly popular and one the best selling home console in the world. They own the most amazing developers, I believe today Sony is only second to Nintendo in quality when it comes to first party titles. They created dozens franchises, some of them more popular than others yet only one of them - Gran Turismo, has been extremely popular and with Gran Turismo 5 releasing soon, we will see if the franchise is still popular as it was before. I'm trying to think why, in 15 years, they couldn't make at least one extremely popular franchise among the dozens they've created? Even back in the PS2 era, Sony created some of the best titles on the system, but they still weren't crazy popular Titles that are critically acclaimed - Uncharted 2, God of War 3, Killzone 2 - Why do they fail to reach their sales potential? It obvious the potential is there Take Uncharted 2 for example. It the most critically acclaimed of the bunch, it has multiplayer, co-op and I can't take of a game that is more easy to market - yet it failed to make an impact and dropped of the NPD for good after one month of sales which weren't extremely good anyway Why do titles like Gears of War (for some reason the eastiest title to compare to Uncharted) do so much better? Why do titles like Killzone 2 which had a huge amount of hype and belongs to the most popular genre on consoles today failed to sell the millions everyone thought it will? It an interesting topic I think we should discuss |
What would you call "crazy popular" from the competitors? I think you could name everything Mario, but that's vintage strong. Then this generation Nintendo has the "Wii" series, which is something that uses the brand to sell software to casuals.
Microsoft has the huge Halo franchise, and Gears of War. Oh, that's it (in the crazy popular department that is) Everything else is third party. Same thing with many stuff from Nintendo. This is not surprising, you know? Third parties are numerous and they are good at their job, create games. No wonder the majority of "crazy popular" games outside of Nintendo's own stuff are all third party games. Just to name a few (titles and franchises) that came out of the PlayStation days of glory : Tomb Raider, Grand Theft Auto, Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk, Ridge Racer, Tekken, Resident Evil, Monster Hunter, Samurai Warriors...that enough crazy popular to you?
| raptors11 said: I don't know about you but I'd rather have several great franchises then a couple mega franchises. I just did this research real quick so correct me if I'm wrong but:
I count that Sony has 9 first party million sellers that are new IP's from this gen: Resistance 1 & 2, Uncharted 1 & 2, Heavenly Sword, Heavy Rain, LittleBigPlanet, Motorstorm and Infamous... and 2 more that are very close (Motorstorm 2 and MAG) Where as Microsoft just seems to have 4 which are Gears 1 & 2, Viva Pinata and Crackdown.
I just did a quick search in the VG database so correct me if I missed any, but it seems pretty obvious Sony gives you a lot more options when it comes to new IP's. They may not become multi million sellers like Gears, Halo and Gran Turismo but that doesn't mean they aren't great games. |
That makes 7 new I.P franchises. Resistance 2 isn't a new I.P million seller etc.
Tease.
| TheBlackNaruto said: Again the MARKET only determines how good a game SELLS not how good a game IS. We are getting those confused...Just because game A does not sell as nig as game B does not mean it is ANY form a bad game.... |
The market decides not personal opinion
RolStoppable said:
My post must have hit a nerve, because it keeps getting quoted. What I got out of this thread is that the most favorite explanation as to why Sony doesn't have more mega franchises is due to Sony sucking at marketing their games. That reasoning isn't sound, but it does what it is supposed to do: protect the games. In other words, there's nothing wrong with the games. But the games themselves are the problem. None of them with the exception of Gran Turismo are really genre-defining, so nothing that Sony makes becomes huge. Their games usually borrow elements from already popular games. Sure, Sony's games are polished, but they lack the wow-factor of offering something new. This isn't a Sony only problem, it holds true for pretty much every major publisher in the entire industry. Now I'll address some of the things you said. Do I think that GeoW was the first TPS? I said that it redefined its genre. If that isn't clear enough, in order to redefine a genre, games of that kind have to exist already. So no, I don't think that GeoW was the first TPS. Devil May Cry wasn't the first of its kind either, but it made its genre popular years before GoW. Halo changed the FPS genre on consoles and other games still take inspirations from it to this very day. Killzone brought nothing new to the table, at least not anything that other developers would be eager to imitate. Gran Turismo redefined its genre, no other racing simulation before it offered so many licensed cars. So games that do something outstanding have a chance to become mega franchises while games that do not have no chance. Since Sony mostly uses ideas that have been done before and polishes them up, their games just sell well, but not spectacular. NSMB Wii would have sold more than ten million copies even if it had only two players taking turns like previous games of the series. This franchise was already huge and had an amazing track record. What LBP had going for it was the extensive level editor, but as I already said in another post in this thread, most gamers aren't interested in building their own levels. And LBP as a platformer is really not that good of a game as anyone who has played platformers during their golden era on the 8- and 16-bit consoles will most likely confirm. Heavy Rain is unique, but never had any massmarket appeal. For what it is, it did very well commercially and exceeded everyone's expectations. |
rol please answer, your post is wrong on so many levels. im going to say it again a game wont be big if its genra refining! again example with halo and gears. which games doesnt get an insipiration? what game this generation gave you a wow factor? 3 sony games gave me a wow factor this gen: heavy rain(for the story and the interaction) little big planet(the create part) and kz2(for the weight system), now those franchises arent big, because you necessarily dont needa wow factor to become big! why cant you grasp that? also stop insulting the games of sony.
again gears of war didnt refine its genra, you guys says that because you never heard of games like kill switch which had the same elements( blind fire, cover system....) i already told you that, when will you learn?
the only thing halo did was it made fps games popular on consoles! it didnt redifine the genra.( the game which made fps popular is counter strike). also the akimbo guns the health bar the shields were all done before. only thing it had as redifining is the forge. nonetheless the first halo is one of my favorite fps games of all time.
so just because the elements in killzone arent being copied it means that its not unique? that shows it that to put such elements in a game you have to have dedication and you have to take risks.(also il have to add that battlefield bad company: 2 has in a way a weight system)
and you think that if lbp was a better platformer it would have sold more? that is ridiculous, the market on the ps3 isnt their to make it a blockbuster hit. also if most gamers arent interested in building their own levels lbp woudnt have had over 2 million levels. also if they are like somsone like me who doesnt like building levels they can just play levels, i would rather play new levels every day then play the same ones over a year.
Being in 3rd place never felt so good
| RolStoppable said: My post must have hit a nerve, because it keeps getting quoted. What I got out of this thread is that the most favorite explanation as to why Sony doesn't have more mega franchises is due to Sony sucking at marketing their games. That reasoning isn't sound, but it does what it is supposed to do: protect the games. In other words, there's nothing wrong with the games. I don't believe that it's all a marketing issue for Sony. I believe it's multiple issues. I think Sony has never been huge on multi-player / party games (Nintendo and Microsoft have done this well in comparison). They also have made some poor decisions in the past in terms of bundling. (Something Nintendo has done well dating back to NES). It's not the games being bad. You don't have the most successful console of all -time by producing bad software. Period. You don't win two consecutive generations easily by having bad or even average software. But the games themselves are the problem. None of them with the exception of Gran Turismo are really genre-defining, so nothing that Sony makes becomes huge. Their games usually borrow elements from already popular games. Sure, Sony's games are polished, but they lack the wow-factor of offering something new. This isn't a Sony only problem, it holds true for pretty much every major publisher in the entire industry. See this logic is horrible though. Tomb Raider was a 'genre' defining when it came out on PS1. Totally unique. Nothing really on the market compared to it. Yet it failed to reach, amazing sales status. It had good sales but not 'spectacular' sales (Halo/Gran Turismo/Mario etc). This still doesn't explain why Halo is successful and Kill Zone isn't close to as successful. Halo: CE wasn't genre defining. It was actually just a fun game for consoles. Beyond that, it did virtually nothing that any PC gamer hadn't seen for years prior. It still sold gangbusters despite this though. NSMB Wii certainly wasn't genre defining. It certainly didn't do anything that other games before it haven't. You can say Little Big Planet is not a good platformer till you're blue in the face, the fact of the matter is, it was an excellent platformer with creation tools to boot.
Do I think that GeoW was the first TPS? I said that it redefined its genre. If that isn't clear enough, in order to redefine a genre, games of that kind have to exist already. So no, I don't think that GeoW was the first TPS. Devil May Cry wasn't the first of its kind either, but it made its genre popular years before GoW. Halo changed the FPS genre on consoles and other games still take inspirations from it to this very day. Killzone brought nothing new to the table, at least not anything that other developers would be eager to imitate. Re-defined, in what ways? What did Gears of War do that other games before it hadn't? Blood? Gore? The Chainsaw? I mean what exactly was it that 're-defined' the genre? The cover system? Devil May Cry certainly wasn't the first of it's type, nor was it even the best selling in it's genre. (Again poking more holes in this logic). Onimusha was before Devil May Cry anyways.
Gran Turismo redefined its genre, no other racing simulation before it offered so many licensed cars. So games that do something outstanding have a chance to become mega franchises while games that do not have no chance. Since Sony mostly uses ideas that have been done before and polishes them up, their games just sell well, but not spectacular. Was Gran Turismo the first company to use licensed cars? Wouldn't offering more licensed cars just be an evolutionary step for each one of these companies? The fact of the matter is, Sony has marketed, bundled, polished Gran Turismo for a mainstream sales product. And has since the game arrived on shelves. |
The fact of the matter is, Sony has always offered a variety of games for a variety of consumers. This has been their strategy from day one. Offer some games for everybody and see where it gets you. RPGs for the RPG crowd, sports for the sports crowd, shooters for the shooter crowd, etc etc. They also have been the kings of launching tons and tons of software. So much software that it's really hard to keep up with it. In the past two generations, the Sony system might have 20 games worth owning. (Across a variety of genres) where as the Nintendo/Sega/Microsoft/Etc Platform has 5-10 at the most. This again forces the userbase into one converging direction.
Early this generation, Sony was falling into that trap. They weren't producing tons of software (Not like they were capable of) they just weren't up to speed. But as this generation has worn on. Sony is pumping out software (And good solid software) left and right.
For example, I had a lot of fun with Kill Zone 2, Loved Little Big Planet 1, Long time fan of Gran Turismo, etc etc. Yet from November till February I am going to have Gran Turismo 5 / LBP2 / Kill Zone 3. I also will have Move in September. (This doesn't even begin to count the Third party software which may or may not be good. I'm not saying this lineup will be for everyone (Some people might hate LBP and KIll zone 2 or whatever combination you wish. But the truth is, there is just tons of software for everyone to play from all walks of life.
I don't believe the competition provides nearly the same effect. Microsoft fans have Halo Reach / Kinect / Gears from September till March. And that's about as big of a lineup as they could ask for.
Sony systems have birthed more original, genre defining games debut on their system than any other system in the past two or three generations as far as I'm concerned. Some sell very well, Some sell solid, Some sell very good for their genre, some don't sell well.
As we have seen though, Genre defining and absurd sales are not always hand in hand. A lot of that has to do with the marketing involved, the game type involved, does it include multi-player, is it easy enough / appealing for everybody to play? Where does your primary user-base reside? (Japan is more into RPGs than America for example, America is more into FPS). These are the factors that lead to heavy sales for specific games and consoles.
Halo is successful not because it's anything new or genre defining. Because it was a very good game on a system with very few titles worth owning. It was an American company with a pre-dominant American userbase selling to a pre-dominant FPS crowd. It included multi-player and it became that game that if you owned an Xbox you atleast needed Halo.
Microsoft is a king at throwing money at marketing (Moutain Dew/Doritos/Movie Theatres/Wal Mart /etc) and pushed this even further. This is something that Sony would do to a much lesser extent. By building the hype off of an already solid userbase / fanbase. They have managed to turn a good game into this cultural phenomenon giving it a lot more sales than any normal game would get. (Just like Call of Duty).
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
