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

Forums - Sales - The Console Wars! - cheering for one product over another

happydolphin on 30 July 2012
BasilZero said:

Of course! I would love the smaller games to get more spotlight, games like Capcom's Breath of Fire series or Squareenix's Mana Series, but they've frozen those IPs due to low expectations from the developer's end.

As for the big named games, they can still stay in the spotlight, but would be nice to see them not hogging it to themselves ;p

There you go ;) That's what I meant. I'm sure I'm not the only one to feel this way at times, even if my value-set is different than yours it'll still happen with a different situation. For you it's smaller RPGs, for me it's certain HD games I think are filler that I wish didn't do as well, while other big games that are maybe less flamboyant but still excellent would do better.



Around the Network
Train wreck on 30 July 2012

Sports and Wars both have things that each side is trying to ultimately attain, whether its a championship or land/resources etc. So we naturally root for/against or side with what we personally believe will benefit us at that given time.

With gaming you really have to define your ultimate goal. If your goal is to see Nintendo on top of the world, thats cool, just remember that Nintendo's sole profitablity will bring in better and better competition and you'll have a repeat of:

NES > SNES (sold less) (as the sega platform stepped in) > N64 (sold less) (sega and sony) > GC (sold less) (sega, sony, microsoft)

Wii  (with sony and microsoft selling less)> Wii U (?)

If your end game is to have enjoyable gaming experiences, then you will want game developers and makers to thrive as the market expands and your choices in games become more and more



happydolphin on 30 July 2012

Honesty, I like it :)



oniyide on 30 July 2012

1) it really depends on the game, if it is a online heavy game that i enjoy playing ala Killzone 3, then i want it to do well just to ensure that their are still people playing long after release (luckily in KZ3, this is the case) if its a SP game play ala Mario 3d land or Infamous, I could really care less cause my enjoyment isnt depending on how much other people bought it or play it.

2)Yes, because more people get to enjoy it, only a person who is touched in the head would have a problem with this IMHO

3) Dont really care as it has no bearing at all on the game itself, as long as the quality is the same across the board. COD sells better on 360 but its pretty much the damn same game timed exclusive DLC notwithstanding.

4) Doesnt really matter to me, the only current gen console I dont own is 360.

5) Love portables NA

6) No, because as this gen has proven it doesnt have much barren on whether that system gets decent support or not.

7) doesnt matter.



happydolphin on 30 July 2012
Train wreck said:
Sports and Wars both have things that each side is trying to ultimately attain, whether its a championship or land/resources etc. So we naturally root for/against or side with what we personally believe will benefit us at that given time.

With gaming you really have to define your ultimate goal. If your goal is to see Nintendo on top of the world, thats cool, just remember that Nintendo's sole profitablity will bring in better and better competition and you'll have a repeat of:

NES > SNES (sold less) (as the sega platform stepped in) > N64 (sold less) (sega and sony) > GC (sold less) (sega, sony, microsoft)

Wii > Wii U (?)

If your end game is to have enjoyable gaming experiences, then you will want game developers and makers to thrive as the market expands and your choices in games become more and more

Exactly. To me, that's when Nintendo and 3rd parties work together more and more. It gives the best games.

This gen, I've enjoyed Sony's games the most I'd have to say, and that's really just thanks to one game and that's Uncharted. I missed out on certain Nintendo exclusives for lack of time, but in general I found the Sony experience to be my favorite one this gen.

However, I want to see Nintendo in the trad gamer arena more so I can get those experiences from them, those that I like.



Around the Network
happydolphin on 30 July 2012
oniyide said:
1) it really depends on the game, if it is a online heavy game that i enjoy playing ala Killzone 3, then i want it to do well just to ensure that their are still people playing long after release (luckily in KZ3, this is the case) if its a SP game play ala Mario 3d land or Infamous, I could really care less cause my enjoyment isnt depending on how much other people bought it or play it.

2)Yes, because more people get to enjoy it, only a person who is touched in the head would have a problem with this IMHO

3) Dont really care as it has no bearing at all on the game itself, as long as the quality is the same across the board. COD sells better on 360 but its pretty much the damn same game timed exclusive DLC notwithstanding.

4) Doesnt really matter to me, the only current gen console I dont own is 360.

5) Love portables NA

6) No, because as this gen has proven it doesnt have much barren on whether that system gets decent support or not.

7) doesnt matter.

Did you mean bearing? :)



happydolphin on 30 July 2012
BasilZero said:
happydolphin said:

There you go ;) That's what I meant. I'm sure I'm not the only one to feel this way at times, even if my value-set is different than yours it'll still happen with a different situation. For you it's smaller RPGs, for me it's certain HD games I think are filler that I wish didn't do as well, while other big games that are maybe less flamboyant but still excellent would do better.

Actually, I do want the smaller RPGs to do well o.O? Unless you said it wrong and meant something else xD.

Oh, yeah that's what I meant. For you it's that you want smaller RPGs to do well, for me it's certain HD games I think are filler that I wish didn't do as well.

My  bad



the_dengle on 30 July 2012
Jay520 said:

Fans of gaming are nothing like fans of sports. The entire purpose of sports is to have one particular team be victorious. And in sports, a team's victory is entirely dependent upon another team's loss. It's not possible for two teams to win in the same competition. Therefore, it would be pretty difficult for a person to root for two different teams when competiting. If you identify yourself as an X fan, you're going to inherently want the Y team to fail as they could prevent X team from maximum success.

The opposite is true for gaming fans, at least most of us. It is quite possible for multiple companies in the gaming industries to be successful. There does not need to be a loser to allow for another company's success. The problem is your definition of success, which you believe is doing-better-than-the-other-company. Most people are not glued to one 'side' like you are, they just enjoy seeing success, in quality and sales, from all companies. In order for one console to succeed, the other console does not need to lose or fail. I think it's sad that you need to go around making other companies look bad in order for your own company to look good. You're creating some sort of false survival-of-the-fittest scenario.

I think it goes both ways. Yankees fans are going to vigorously root against the Red Sox even when the two teams aren't playing each other and the Sox are so far behind in the standings that their performance is irrelevant to the Yankee's success. On the other hand, there are plenty of gamers who "root" for one company without really rooting "against" another, which you can also do in sports. You don't necessarily want the other team to play poorly -- you just want your team to play better.



Jay520 on 30 July 2012
the_dengle said:
Jay520 said:

Fans of gaming are nothing like fans of sports. The entire purpose of sports is to have one particular team be victorious. And in sports, a team's victory is entirely dependent upon another team's loss. It's not possible for two teams to win in the same competition. Therefore, it would be pretty difficult for a person to root for two different teams when competiting. If you identify yourself as an X fan, you're going to inherently want the Y team to fail as they could prevent X team from maximum success.

The opposite is true for gaming fans, at least most of us. It is quite possible for multiple companies in the gaming industries to be successful. There does not need to be a loser to allow for another company's success. The problem is your definition of success, which you believe is doing-better-than-the-other-company. Most people are not glued to one 'side' like you are, they just enjoy seeing success, in quality and sales, from all companies. In order for one console to succeed, the other console does not need to lose or fail. I think it's sad that you need to go around making other companies look bad in order for your own company to look good. You're creating some sort of false survival-of-the-fittest scenario.

I think it goes both ways. Yankees fans are going to vigorously root against the Red Sox even when the two teams aren't playing each other and the Sox are so far behind in the standings that their performance is irrelevant to the Yankee's success. On the other hand, there are plenty of gamers who "root" for one company without really rooting "against" another, which you can also do in sports. You don't necessarily want the other team to play poorly -- you just want your team to play better.



I understand rooting for only one team. I can understand wanting a company to do better. The idea I'm against is the rooting for one console / company to do poorly. There is no need to have that mentality like sports.

the_dengle on 30 July 2012
Jay520 said:


I understand rooting for only one team. I can understand wanting a company to do better. The idea I'm against is the rooting for one console / company to do poorly. There is no need to have that mentality like sports.

Of course. There's no need to have that mentality in sports, either. It seems to be an unfortunate part of human nature.