theprof00 said: Squilliam said: Actually the reality is this: Sony: Make the game you want to make, with the features you want to include. (This is why PSN has less features for developers but is more flexible) Microsoft: Reviewers and hardcore gamers start noticing paterns in game releases, makes games feel a little stale on release. However many of the required features are beneficial to longevity and user satisfaction such as consistancy and having basics like coop. Whilst the graphics and innovation may suffer, the titles push more of the right buttons for mainstream users. Also games start to look a little like candied hardcore games with bright lights and pastel colours, Halo/Fable/Forza especially, but the mainstream likes shiny things. I noticed something the other day about Fable. I was talking to some gurl gamers I know and they were all like, "Fable is sucha game for girls". It's shiny, it's easy, and it's really pretty. And I was like, man I didn't even think of that. No wonder girls play WoW too.  Sony must lose a lot of demographic without those shiny pretty graphics. Sony is probably the biggest offender in terms of brown and bloom. Thinking about it again, Halo is super colorful as well, to the point of awkwardness almost. Hordes are sometimes a rainbow cascade of warfare. etc etc Sony really does not to look at being pretty again. They need better artistic direction. Oh man...yaknow, I love brown and bloom and could never understand why people used it as a negative, but I totally see now why that is. Games on PS are just too gritty. It's almost like their games are stuck in the 90s.......hmmmm

Remember guys, these are VIDEO games. The video aspect is a very important part, and many people are much more visually oriented in their selection of games. I am one. If music or artistic direction is not appealing to me, I will not want it. It's great to make a game you like, but as Activision says you need to create a relationship with your customers and build the games they want, not the games you want (as a dev). (Rol, are you typing for me? :D)

pezus said: LBP and R&C beg to differ

R&C. Of course, it can't just be pretty. It needs to be appealing and have solid gameplay (which R&C does I'll admit). The series is getting outdated though. And I think story and character dev is important for this franchise, but it hasn't been handled right lately. (My understanding)

LBP. More marketing needed.

theprof00 said: Squilliam said: Actually the reality is this: Sony: Make the game you want to make, with the features you want to include. (This is why PSN has less features for developers but is more flexible) Microsoft: Reviewers and hardcore gamers start noticing paterns in game releases, makes games feel a little stale on release. However many of the required features are beneficial to longevity and user satisfaction such as consistancy and having basics like coop. Whilst the graphics and innovation may suffer, the titles push more of the right buttons for mainstream users. Also games start to look a little like candied hardcore games with bright lights and pastel colours, Halo/Fable/Forza especially, but the mainstream likes shiny things. I noticed something the other day about Fable. I was talking to some gurl gamers I know and they were all like, "Fable is sucha game for girls". It's shiny, it's easy, and it's really pretty. And I was like, man I didn't even think of that. No wonder girls play WoW too.  Sony must lose a lot of demographic without those shiny pretty graphics. Sony is probably the biggest offender in terms of brown and bloom. Thinking about it again, Halo is super colorful as well, to the point of awkwardness almost. Hordes are sometimes a rainbow cascade of warfare. etc etc Sony really does not to look at being pretty again. They need better artistic direction. Oh man...yaknow, I love brown and bloom and could never understand why people used it as a negative, but I totally see now why that is. Games on PS are just too gritty. It's almost like their games are stuck in the 90s.......hmmmm

I remember trying to get a friend to play Killzone 2 and he gave up after a few minutes, why? Because it was too dark. Bright lighting is great for people who need glasses or are more casual whereas darker titles are better for core/hardcore gamers who want that 'moody and deep' experience.

The perenial Halo vs Killzone argument is pretty clear as well. In gameplay for instance in Halo you can stick with the standard assault rifle the whole game whereas in Killzone 2/3 it is constantly switching engagement settings and making you switch guns. So if you've got a small TV or poor eyesight you'll struggle to see what is going on whereas even though Halo has big maps you can cover the ground easily and also see where the enemies are edit: and what kind of threat they are.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Sony's best selling titles are lighter in palate and brighter overall than their duskier titles. Also the story doesn't get in the way of the gameplay and user engagement, I.E. Why would I want to play Resistance 3 when almost everyone left alive from Resistance 1 died in Resistance 2?

pezus said: theprof00 said: Squilliam said: Actually the reality is this: Sony: Make the game you want to make, with the features you want to include. (This is why PSN has less features for developers but is more flexible) Microsoft: Reviewers and hardcore gamers start noticing paterns in game releases, makes games feel a little stale on release. However many of the required features are beneficial to longevity and user satisfaction such as consistancy and having basics like coop. Whilst the graphics and innovation may suffer, the titles push more of the right buttons for mainstream users. Also games start to look a little like candied hardcore games with bright lights and pastel colours, Halo/Fable/Forza especially, but the mainstream likes shiny things. I noticed something the other day about Fable. I was talking to some gurl gamers I know and they were all like, "Fable is sucha game for girls". It's shiny, it's easy, and it's really pretty. And I was like, man I didn't even think of that. No wonder girls play WoW too.  Sony must lose a lot of demographic without those shiny pretty graphics. Sony is probably the biggest offender in terms of brown and bloom. Thinking about it again, Halo is super colorful as well, to the point of awkwardness almost. Hordes are sometimes a rainbow cascade of warfare. etc etc Sony really does not to look at being pretty again. They need better artistic direction. Oh man...yaknow, I love brown and bloom and could never understand why people used it as a negative, but I totally see now why that is. Games on PS are just too gritty. It's almost like their games are stuck in the 90s.......hmmmm LBP and R&C beg to differ

2 franchises? Really? Every single one of the competitors franchises are pretty and colorful.

Secondly, you're talking about 1 kinda niche game LBP, and R&C is a like 12 year old franchise dood.

theprof00 said: If you're talking AAA as in, an outstanding game, then I'd say their AAA franchises are GoW, GT, Uncharted, LBP. Those games are all excellent games totally worth 60$ and first day buys. They could focus more on those, but you have to understand that three of those are aging franchises. Some of those B games could be pushed up to AAA if they tried a little harder or had better focus. That is not true. quality/appeal will never see the levels of sales that a strong marketing push will provide. You don't think you can advertise a B level game to make it sell like an A level? Just look at Cod and Halo for counter-evidence. Uncharted didn't even have a tenth of the marketing that halo 3 had. All the Sony first party are extremely high quality games, they just don't have enough exposure. Shit, I didn't even know resistance 3 had been released until like a month after it was. Sony just doesn't advertise. Halo 3 had a marketing budget of 40 million. As much money as a AAA game's budget. Sony instead uses that money to make a new game. MS uses it to make those Halo 3 sales explode.

I never said AAA, but by A-level, I meant in terms of quality. I would say the four games you listed are outstanding in quality. However, LBP is the only that doesn't appeal to the PS3 market much. That's probably why the remaining three are Sony's biggest IPs. Also, I never said Sony should focus on those games. I'm actually saying the same thing as you: Sony needs to push their B-Level games up to the level of UC/GoW in terms of quality. That would give Sony a lot more blockbusters.

I'd argue that Halo and CoD are outstanding quality.

@ Bolded. That's a big overstatement. A lot of Sony first party games are high quality, but many of them are not top of their genre like UC/GoW. This is the reason why they're not advertised much. A game like Killzone which isn't top of it's genre in quality/appeal probably won't receive much advertising. Sony didn't advertise Resistance 3 much (although I'd say it promoted fairly well here) because it wasn't a top tier game.

I do agree though. When advertising budgets reach heights of 40 million, then sales will come regardless, but I still think it has to be an outstanding game to reach it's full potential.

Anyway, my main point is that Sony needs to get their B-Level games to A-Level quality like UC/GoW.

pezus said: Secondly, how old is Mario lol?

You're right, age is not a factor. Mario continues to be excellent. I'm playing 3D Land these days and it is just a great game.

It goes beyond age, the question is, how well did the game adapt to the times, and the themes age? I'm not sure how that can be answered for R&C unless the franchise gets a massive overhaul and rebirth.

happydolphin said: Jay520 said: happydolphin said: However, there are lots of A-Level gems that don't get the love they deserve. That's the part I disagree on hardcore. Yes, a good game will have its love in a niche without marketing, but why do that to a good game? If it's really good, of good quality and high appeal, then it should be marketed. I'd like you to name some superb quality, appealing games that don't see high sales because of marketing, particularly PS3 exclusives. The only PS3 exclusives of superb quality & appeal that I can think of are Uncharted & God of War (and maybe GT) and those are fairly big.  Nearly every other PS3 exclusive is either a B-Level game and/or lacks appeal, two problems that marketing can't fully overcome. Killzone is not appealing (most people dislike the slow aiming) and in some cases, it's low quality (it lacks modes like competitive splitscreen). LBP is not appealing to most PS3 owners (it just looks kiddy and that's enough to put most people off), and in some cases, it's low quality (floaty physics, amateur levels, etc). InFamous & Resistance are both considered B-Level games. Heavy Rain is obviously niche. Ratchet & Clank is apart of genre not popular at all amongst PS3 fans so it's not appealing. This is why I believe most Sony games see low sales because of their own content, not marketing. Like I said, marketing would come naturally if they were good enough.Can you name me some high quality/appealing games that see low sales? I agree with everything else you said. It's a point that' really difficult to agree on, because appeal is something that's hard to have a consensus view on until the sales make it official, but since the games in question have low sales... the objective measure is lost to show the exception to the rule. :( Maybe reviews can be used as the second metric.   For instance, Pikmin. The game was fantastic, but since it was a new IP, on the less popular platform, it didn't sell as much as it could have (1.63Mil). What about Okami (1M), or Zack and Wiki (400k)? What about Billy Hatcher (250k), Maximo on PS2 (770k). These are games I haven't played, but do you think it's quality/appeal that kept them at low sales levels? I really can't tell since I haven't played them. Trace Memory for DS (270k) got destroyed by Layton. Ecco the Dolphin on DC (Sales?), Shenmue (1.18M). Lots of DC and GC games in general. I don't really know Jay, I'm not doing super good at this, but I think there are a few out there, it's hard to really find them and say those are stellar and appealing games for sure.

I wanted to mainly stick to the PS3 though. You know, so we could discuss the PS3 userbase.

But anyway, by appeal, I meant traits that determines a game's potential for success. It's hard to explain. For example, a shooter with fluid console is appealing, but a puzzle RTS game is a lot less appealing. No matter how good the RTS game is, there is a limit on the sales it could obtain due to it's small demographic. Eh, it's something like that. You get what I'm saying?

pezus said: theprof00 said: 2 franchises? Really? Every single one of the competitors franchises are pretty and colorful. Secondly, you're talking about 1 kinda niche game LBP, and R&C is a like 12 year old franchise dood. Huh? Gears wasn't colorful until Gears 3, Alan Wake isn't bright an colourful. I can't think of much else from MS besides Fable, Forza and Halo and they're all admittedly colourful. I could name Uncharted for Sony too, and GT. So now there are four Secondly, how old is Mario lol?

Wow, what is your point?

Are you saying that if it were all about the prettiness/color, then R&C and LBP should be as big as Halo, Mario, and Fable? Talk about a bad argument. Maybe I didn't illustrate my point well enough, but anyone who is able to understand the concept behind what I said wouldn't have any problem with the details.

Lemme boil it down for you:

Sony's games are very dark and grim and brown. While I like that style, a lot of people don't and I for one wouldn't have a problem with the games being more colorful. I will defend brown and bloom on a "quality" level, but on a "marketing" level, I can see how a game that looks tailored to 20-something males wouldn't appeal to younger males, women, and kids and is then overshadowed by games like Halo, fable, Mario, etc etc etc that DO have more color, and are "capable" of appealing to different demographics.

Now please, provide me a retort that is consistent with my point of "Sony could do a little more with artstyle to appeal to more demographics"

Jay520 said: I wanted to mainly stick to the PS3 though. You know, so we could discuss the PS3 userbase. But anyway, by appeal, I meant traits that determines a game's potential for success. It's hard to explain. For example, a shooter with fluid console is appealing, but a puzzle RTS game is a lot less appealing. No matter how good the RTS game is, there is a limit on the sales it could obtain due to it's small demographic. Eh, it's something like that. You get what I'm saying?

Yeah, I do get what you're saying. I don't know if it's true though. Did you notice through the past 20 years, certain genres came and left? JRPGs, where are they today? Back when FFVII came out, it sold nearly 10Million copies! FFXIII is at 6.5Mil. And then you have FPS' which sold well back in the day, but today are monsters!

RTS' can be wildly successful, as Starcraft and Warcraft will show, but of course Pikmin is a puzzle-RTS, so is it really impossible to sell well? I'd argue not tbh. Some puzzle games sold incredibly well despite their at first glance bland appearance. Games like Tetris, Doctor Mario, Bust-a-Move, Pokemon PL, Columns, and then you have games with puzzle elements like Zelda, Myst, and so on, and you get the idea that puzzles might not be as unprone to success as we might think. Put RTS with puzzle, throw in some Online mayhem, and who knows where the title can go. But to get back to Pikmin as is, the reason it probably didn't sell were more social reasons than intrinsic reasons. Maybe your point is valid, but all in all I think the social side (marketing, word of mouth) takes precedence. But, I have no proof. ;)

Reason why I think these examples (GC, DC) are valid is because the AAA/Appealing game to low sales phenomenon goes beyond platform of release, it mostly has to do with exposure in general. But I do get what you're saying.

Jay520 said: Anyway, my main point is that Sony needs to get their B-Level games to A-Level quality like UC/GoW.

By the way, I agree with this, so long as they don't dilute their efforts. They only have so much capital to count on! Then you need to market them. To have so many IPs to push is a risky business to pursue, honest.