| Kresnik said:
I understand the point he's trying to make but this is an awful, awful article. He doesn't even seem to understand basic concepts such as what is a third party title (i.e. nothing to do with Sony) and what is a first party title (i.e. developed by Sony). He lists games such as Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid & Tomb Raider like they haven't appeared on the PS3 or something. We're getting a new instalment of each of those franchises THIS YEAR. Jesus Christ. If his complaint is about the quality of the games now vs. how they were on the PS1, then again, why is this a complaint he's leveraging towards Sony? Heck, the fact that those types of games are mentioned is just a testiment to the fact that - even with his rose-tinted glasses on - mature games have always been a staple of Sony's systems, mixed in with more light-hearted stuff. Which is exactly_the_same situation the console is in now, not least due to Sony's efforts to keep the 'other' side going. Sony ran, by my count, 4 platforming IP's on PS1 (Crash, Spyro, Ape Escape, Tomba). Sony are running 4 platforming IP's on PS3. They're different from the ones they ran on PS1, but they're still there. Speaking of which, he goes on this big rant about platformers. Now, I do get that. Heck, I was having a nostalgia-fueled discussion with ConeyGamey just last week about Spyro! But Sony do the best with what they've got. They cannot develop new Spyro and Crash titles, they never owned the IP. The platforming IP's they do have - say, Ratchet & Sly Cooper, we have seen on the PS3. Sure, they're not up there with Nintendo for keeping their platforming franchises going, but I'll be damned if you're going to tell me that they didn't try. What I love - probably most of all - about Sony is their IP rotation. I feel like they know better than their competitiors when to keep something going; when to revive something and when to introduce new IP's. A simplistic way to look at it would be examining platformers this generation. Ratchet has been a staple throughout PS3's lifespan - preserving a popular heritage. LittleBigPlanet was introduced early on and became a core new IP - introducing new IP's early. Sly Cooper was given a new instalment this year - bringing back fan-loved old games. We're getting Puppeteer later in 2013 - again, a new IP. I understand the broad point he's trying to make, and there's plenty of scope to discuss the core issue here, which is Sony's preservation of their old IP's vs. introducing new stuff. It's a debate we've had countless times already on this forum within the topic of PSABR. But if this article is an attempt to debate that point further, then it's a truly awful way to go about it. Nostalgia is a lovely thing, no doubt about it, but when it causes you to throw logic out of the window & eschew basic principles of how the industry works just to get hits for your article, then it's time to stop. edit: Sorry if this post is a bit disjointed. This is the second time I typed it out, since I was typing it from my phone but the whole thing decided to crash. So, some of the gist of the post may have gotten lost through typing it again. |
well said :)
In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!
"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"
For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!
bananaking21 said:
crab bandicoot? craB? crabbbBB!!!!!!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! |
Launch title for the PS4, Giant enemy crab bandicoot.
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/profile/92109/nintendopie/ Nintendopie Was obviously right and I was obviously wrong. I will forever be a lesser being than them. (6/16/13)
| leatherhat said: No company makes games like they did in the nineties. Except for a few notable franchises that go back 20-30 years. |
Exactly. The market has changed. Platformers are no longer dominant beyond the Mario games and the occasional PSN/XBL game. Games have also evolved beyond the simple Crash Bandicoot and Spyro gameplay.
RazorDragon said:
And, actually, Nintendo has a third-person shooter games, like Batallion Wars and Kid Icarus: Uprising. And MS also has platformers, it owns the Battletoads IP and has the awesome Comic Jumper game. Agreed about the interactive drama part and free to play games, though games like Pandora's Tower and Distaster(both from Nintendo) focus a lot in that interactive drama part. About Action Adventure games, no need to say, MS has Banjo-Kazooie and Kameo. I guess we could both end it here. |
Sony might not have the end all be all shooter, or the nostalgic childhood platforming plumber, but they have a wealth of games aimed at the experienced and tech savy teenage to adult gamer. That is their focus even though they have casual games, they don't market them anywhere
What seems to have been overlooked is the genres that lack games are pretty much the same ones across the platforms there are lots of reasons why but it mostly comes down to sales and any way a lot of niche titles are there you just have to look for them , they most likely will be digital or portable and surpise surpise not heavily advertised '
also people can be hypocritical do they want more new Ips or is it give us all the old ones we liked regurgitated , take crash why would Sony be interested in pursuing it knowing full well that Activision would jack the price up and anyway they most likely wouldn't sell and will take it in the same direction as spyro, the other thing is ND that made the originals dumped crash because they thought it had run it's race and so jak and daxter was born then when they ran out of creative ideas for that they once again moved on it's not like you can turn every mascot charaacter into a mario who spans both genres and generations even sonic found that out and sackboy hasn't a chance.
Research shows Video games help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot
| Kresnik said:
I understand the point he's trying to make but this is an awful, awful article. He doesn't even seem to understand basic concepts such as what is a third party title (i.e. nothing to do with Sony) and what is a first party title (i.e. developed by Sony). He lists games such as Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid & Tomb Raider like they haven't appeared on the PS3 or something. We're getting a new instalment of each of those franchises THIS YEAR. Jesus Christ. If his complaint is about the quality of the games now vs. how they were on the PS1, then again, why is this a complaint he's leveraging towards Sony? Heck, the fact that those types of games are mentioned is just a testiment to the fact that - even with his rose-tinted glasses on - mature games have always been a staple of Sony's systems, mixed in with more light-hearted stuff. Which is exactly_the_same situation the console is in now, not least due to Sony's efforts to keep the 'other' side going. Sony ran, by my count, 4 platforming IP's on PS1 (Crash, Spyro, Ape Escape, Tomba). Sony are running 4 platforming IP's on PS3. They're different from the ones they ran on PS1, but they're still there. Speaking of which, he goes on this big rant about platformers. Now, I do get that. Heck, I was having a nostalgia-fueled discussion with ConeyGamey just last week about Spyro! But Sony do the best with what they've got. They cannot develop new Spyro and Crash titles, they never owned the IP. The platforming IP's they do have - say, Ratchet & Sly Cooper, we have seen on the PS3. Sure, they're not up there with Nintendo for keeping their platforming franchises going, but I'll be damned if you're going to tell me that they didn't try. What I love - probably most of all - about Sony is their IP rotation. I feel like they know better than their competitiors when to keep something going; when to revive something and when to introduce new IP's. A simplistic way to look at it would be examining platformers this generation. Ratchet has been a staple throughout PS3's lifespan - preserving a popular heritage. LittleBigPlanet was introduced early on and became a core new IP - introducing new IP's early. Sly Cooper was given a new instalment this year - bringing back fan-loved old games. We're getting Puppeteer later in 2013 - again, a new IP. I understand the broad point he's trying to make, and there's plenty of scope to discuss the core issue here, which is Sony's preservation of their old IP's vs. introducing new stuff. It's a debate we've had countless times already on this forum within the topic of PSABR. But if this article is an attempt to debate that point further, then it's a truly awful way to go about it. Nostalgia is a lovely thing, no doubt about it, but when it causes you to throw logic out of the window & eschew basic principles of how the industry works just to get hits for your article, then it's time to stop. edit: Sorry if this post is a bit disjointed. This is the second time I typed it out, since I was typing it from my phone but the whole thing decided to crash. So, some of the gist of the post may have gotten lost through typing it again. |
I could agree with this. Well put, even if it is a tad disjointed...
I actually really enjoyed playing through Spyro on PS3 with my GF at the time was really a blast. :)
I don't really blame Sony for how gaming has turned over the years.
I think a lot of it has to do with what people buying now days and people not being aware of certain games being out there. There are still a few good games out there.
I think what has been lost though, is a certain fun vibe gaming in the 1990s and early 2000s had. Its more of an overall change in aesthetics, gameplay, cutscenes, etc.
And they way people are so extreme with the metacritc crap now days is ridiculous, I buy tons of fun games that got 60%-80% ratings since forever. I think that a lot of the change came with the overwhelming prevalence of online media/advertising now days.
Sometimes it takes a bit to just step back and enjoy those few gaming gems left. Wherever you can find them.
But yeah, I don't really buy any games that take themselves seriously now days, just not worth it for me
So, I say, play for fun, or seriously just go do about anything else for fun (like walking the park, or swimming, or climbing trees, or doing yoga, or meditating, or tumbling, or building with legos, or sparring with foam weapons, etc., etc.).
Life is too short to be worrying about the state of the entertainment industry. :P
| Conegamer said: From IGN:
R.I.P. Sony ....February 5, 2013 by MegabusterLegends3
I just realized something the other day, and I find it super depressing.... Sony is dead. At least the Sony I knew and loved as a kid. Let's say you meet a girl (or a guy, for you ladies out there!), and you really like her (or him). She's quirky (He's - argh, you know what, while we are pretending, just pretend you like girls for a second), she's funny, she's colorful, even though she's a little clumsy and awkward. She is always surprising you, coming up with something new ideas, and even though not everything she does is perfect, you know she has the best of intentions. But then, she grows up a little. She really wants people to like her, so she works on getting rid of her eccentricities, and her sense of humor changes along with it. She starts dressing differently, with colors a little more subdued, because being bright and colorful just isn't as cool as it used to be. She starts following the latest fashion trends, thinking through her decisions more, and in the process, she becomes more predictable. All of a sudden she has a lot of friends, and she tries to please them all, including you. But eventually, as time goes on, she begins to gravitate towards her other, newer friends and forgets all about you, because you haven't changed with her. That's what's happened to Sony. They are a business, first and foremost, after all. They've gone all Darwinian on us and changed to fit the current trends, what people are willing to spend money on, what marketing says people want the most, and to an extent, that has worked out for them. And in general, a lot more people have gotten into videogaming in the past generation or so, which means a lot more people to appeal to (and get money from).
But this wasn't always the case for them. The Sony I remember was just plain crazy. They had games about monkey catchers, jill sandwiches, rapping dogs, solid snakes, pink haired cavemen, orange bandicoots, orphaned crocodiles, blue bombers, purple firebreathing dragons, and well endowed tomb raiders. And none of these games took themselves too seriously either (something I've always treasured in games). I loved them for that reason, even when I was a hardcore Nintendo 64 fanboy. But somewhere along the way, Sony decided they were done with all of these franchises. They easily gave up the likes of Crash Bandicoot, Spyro the Dragon, and Parappa as soon as they found new IP that made just as much money (Jak & Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, Sly Cooper). Other franchises, like Ape Escape, held on a little longer, though their best years outside of Japan remain on the PS1 and in the early PS2 days. Games like Sly carried the torch of this old, experimental Sony for a while, but some of them grew more serious with each entry, or at the very least targeted a more mature audience. The progression of Naughty Dog from Crash, to Jak and Daxter, to Uncharted, to The Last of Us is a perfect embodiement of this. Especially during the Jak years, Naughty Dog evolved into a much more adult-oriented studio.
Of course, Sony, as a company is still alive and kickin', and there is no doubting that they still have a quality platform with quality games to play, and they probably always will. And regardless of what some Sony cynics may say, I'm sure they won't be going anywhere anytime soon, and they will continue to be part of the gaming industry. But Playstation, as a platform, has a complely different identity now. As Playstation All Stars so clearly showed, Sony doesn't even have the rights to most of those old mainstays anymore. That isn't to say that Sony isn't still an awesome hardware and software company. They still put out some quality entertainment and make some mean hardware. In reality, there is nothing horribly wrong about what Sony is doing. But they aren't a company I feel nostalgia for anymore, now that they've essentially given up their heritage. I won't buy the PS4/Orbis because I loved the PS1, or even the PS2. I'll buy the PS4 on its own merits, and on its own merits alone. And while that's totally fine, in my opinion it is a shame to let a gaming heritage as rich as Sony's go to waste, especially with how few companies (especially hardware developers) survive as long as they have. Personally, I'm happy for Sony and all of their successes, but they just aren't my cup of tea anymore. _____________________________________________________________________________________
I'm not 100% certain if I agree with the main points of the article, but it raises some intersting questions, no?
|
Article author is foreveralone guy.
But on a more pressing note, name one company that is the same, right now, as it was in 1995 - it's call progression.
| Tachikoma said:
But on a more pressing note, name one company that is the same, right now, as it was in 1995 - it's call progression. |
For better or worse, Nintendo.
Also, I don't know why, but this picture makes me laugh:
Dat dudebro transformation^^
Ongoing bet with think-man: He wins if MH4 releases in any shape or form on PSV in 2013, I win if it doesn't.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
