But I'm only happy that Sony doesn't have any mega franchises.

I don't like mega franchises because they always tend to dominate everything else and overshadow other great games (at least in the eyes of casuals they do).

I always hated GTA for being so huge. In this generation that game is Call of Duty. All other shooters are compared to Call of Duty and they even have to adjust release dates in fear of CoD.

I love Assassin's Creed but I'm starting to feel it's getting too big (I mean AC II is on track to sell 10 million. 10 million!)

I hate Mario because everyone buys Mario instead of other platformers which I think are far more interesting.

I love Xbox but I don't like the extreme hype for Halo as if it's the only game on earth. Same with Gears of War.

And most of all I hate World of Warcraft and Starcraft because I don't like the style of Blizzard and it pisses me off that everyone is playing WoW and ignoring better MMOs. I will get Diablo but I think it's extremely overrated and it pisses me off.

And Age of Empires slays Starcraft.

Sony has the best first party developers which create new ips all the time.

Why doesnt Microsoft do this? Because they buy their exclusives and have almost zero first party devs.

Why doesnt Nintendo do this? Because they have a legacy of Mario and Pokemon and Metroid which they rarely go away from for a new ip.

Halo is Halo, Gears is popular because outside of those 2 games there is really only Fable and Fortza, that IS microsofts first party.

Sony does infact get recognized for Mega franchises. Gran Turismo > Halo world wide

Metal Gear, Uncharted, Little Big Planet, Ratchet and Clank > Gears.

You ask why arent there more mega franchise games, I ask why isnt there more diversity in the competition?

Seriously, awesome post. All you said was very intelligent and I agree with a lot of things there, especially your las sentence. Sadly, there are not a lot of people who think Age of.. games slay Star-Warcraft games.

Ummm...  Nintendo fanboy speaking here.  This might be out of context but as a hardcore gamer and Nintendo fanboy here, the titles you listed does almost nothing to enhance and strengthen the hardcore/core gaming experience.  But then again, I think I'm on context here.

Filled in the blanks

Gears isn't Microsofts IP, and fable,crackdown,forza sells the same as Uncharted, LBP, Infamous, ratchet.

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.