Did you actually read the post I was responding to? It wasn't a "Hey, PS3 has great games", it was "Hey, PS3 has great games, and the only thing MS and Nintendo have are Halo and Mario". That was NOT a positive comment about Sony, it was an attempt to minimise MS and Nintendo. And I take umbrage at people denigrating ANY of the systems. I use the examples of Nintendo games to demonstrate the absurdity because Nintendo games are what I know best. I can't afford to own multiple consoles, and Nintendo consoles are cheapest and have some of the franchises I enjoy the best - like Zelda, for instance. Not just Mario.

And the list itself was a demonstration that the Wii also had an impressive and varied library from a wide variety of developers, challenging the assertion that Sony systems are the only ones with variety (check the quote, it's pretty much a direct statement by BMaker11).

But hey, it's funny how you say this here, but when someone says something positive about Nintendo in that thread saying we should celebrate Nintendo, you call them delusional, mock them extensively, and you took umbrage at the idea that the topic creator might have even suggested that Nintendo had more cash than MS, despite never having done so. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Utter nonsense. When you think of Nintendo, you think of Mario, Zelda, MK, Smash, Pokemon, Metroid, Wii Sports, Brain Training, Kirby, Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and some others.

And what you've basically said about PS (unintentionally) is that there are no stand-out titles on the PlayStation... which is inaccurate, too. When people think Sony, they used to think Final Fantasy, Spyro and Crash, and more recently, they think Resistance, LittleBigPlanet, Gran Turismo, God of War, and Uncharted (and some others). And when you think Microsoft, you think of Halo, Gears of War, Fable, and Forza (and some others). That's how it works - people think of certain top-selling exclusives for the system.

And you didn't say "Nintendo and MS platforms are best known for Mario and Halo", you said, and I quote, "But I'd have multiple great games/series that don't sell as much then go with a company that throws all their eggs in one basket to make one game/series that sells a bunch." - the only possible way to read this is that you can't get other kinds of games, other than Mario and Halo, on the respective systems. And while I don't doubt that you recognise that you can get other games on the systems, you clearly have a twisted sense of reality if you really think that either Nintendo or MS are different from Sony in this respect.

You'll notice that, while my post focused on Nintendo, I also defend Microsoft just as much. And if someone were to make a claim like, say, "Sony has lost all of its exclusives and there's no reason to own a PS3 over a 360 (or a Wii)", I'd defend it (the PS3, that is). Because I'm fed up with the one-up-manship by fans of the various console makers.

Once again, you're defining "notable" based on your own personal viewpoint (that is, from the perspective of a PS3 fan), and thus rejecting developers that, by any reasonable, console-neutral perspective, would be called "notable" on the basis that they didn't make games for the PS3, and thus you don't know about them. Kind of like how there are some studios on the original list (like Eden Games, MachineGames, Splash Damage, Tango Gameworks, CyberConnect2, and Dontnod Entertainment, and that's just from the first 20 developers you reference) that I've never heard of because I don't have a PS3.

Just writing "Notable" in capitals doesn't really convince me any further, when my whole point is that your definition of "Notable" is circular, and thus that you are ignoring notable developers for no other reason than that you don't know them, as a result of them not making games on the PS3.

It is not rational to call the studios made by the creators of Sonic and Final Fantasy "not notable". It is not rational to dismiss the makers of the Harvest Moon games as "not notable". Indeed, I'd suggest that anybody who doesn't know who Natsume is cannot reasonably call themselves gamers in the sense most frequently used on these forums. Also, The Last Story was released in 2012 outside of Japan, and Mistwalker had to do work on it for those regions. It's kind of insane to go "they haven't released a non-mobile game in two years, and therefore they weren't notable enough in the last generation".

So... yeah. Like I've said a few times, now, this is an easy fix - just replace "literally all" with "practically all" or "nearly all". It carries the same intent without being demonstrably false.

It is amazing how the PS3 went from 'it has no games' to having such a diverse range of games.

I'm going to stop you right there. If you really think that developer is the same thing as publisher, then you have no idea what you're talking about. Marvelous has multiple studios, just as Activision has Treyarch, Infinity Ward, and Raven Software, amongst others, or like Nintendo has Retro Studios, Intelligent Systems, HAL Laboratories, etc. In the case of Harvest Moon, the studio's name is Marvelous Interactive.

Beyond that, here's the list of studios that Marvelous has published games from on PS3: Access Games, Feelplus, Neverland, and AQ Interactive. Of these, Access and Neverland are/were separate developers (not owned by Marvelous in any sense), while Feelplus was owned by AQ Interactive, which then merged with Marvelous in 2011, after all of the PS3 games had already been released. So Marvelous hasn't developed a single game for PS3.

To quickly address your other claims... I didn't say XBLA games made it notable, I said XBLA games prove it's not first-party. If making three big games doesn't make you notable, then the number of notable studios is much, much smaller (and yes, Valhalla Game Studios is notable - have you not heard of all of the hype around Devil's Third? But I didn't list them because they haven't released any of their games, yet). The fact that you, specifically, haven't heard of a developer doesn't mean they're not notable - kind of like how you probably couldn't name the king of Norway, but he's still an influential person. That they've mostly made PC games doesn't mean they're not notable, and the claim was "all notable third-party developers". If the studio has been notable, and still exists, it's still notable. If they make one notable game from the generation in question, they're notable within that generation.

Guess what? Most of those titles you named for Nintendo were adventure and platforming games. Maybe I was wrong to single out Mario, but this thread is about variety in the library, and you just proved my point. That's why naming a billion games is pointless. "Hey, PS has CoD, Killzone, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, Bulletstorm, Resistance, Bioshock, and RAGE. Look at that diversity!"

Xbox isn't known as the "shooterbox" for no reason. You named Halo and Gears. Nobody is buying an Xbox for Forza (the best selling one was bundled). 

And I do believe that the PS games aren't "stand out". As in, they don't stand out against the rest of the library. Uncharted is just as viable as GoW, and GoW is just as viable as Resistance, so on and so forth. And you named JRPG, Adventure/Platformer, Shooter, Racing, Action/Hack'n'Slash, and a TPS with puzzle and stealth elements for PS. Again, you proved my point

Look up Victor Interactive (the group that made the Harvest Moon games) right now and tell me what pops up. Then look up Marvelous Interactive. If you don't want to, I'll let you know that they don't exist anymore. They aren't a subsidiary of Marvelous. They aren't an internal studio. It's all "Marvelous Entertainment" now. That company is merged into Marvelous Entertainment. Note how that link says "former" subsidiary. "On March 20, 2007, Marvelous Entertainment Inc. announced Marvelous Interactive Inc. would be merged into its parent company, Marvelous Entertainment Inc., effective on June 30, 2007". They are fully merged into Marvelous Entertainment. It'd be the equivalent of Naughty Dog becoming "Sony" or "SCE". 

If Treyarch, Raven, or IW merged into Activision, it'd be the same thing as well. But they remain separate entities. MI isn't a separate entity. Look up A Tale of Two Towns. It'll say "developed by Marvelous Entertainment" not "developed by Marvelous Interactive". But enough of the semantics.

Tetris and Jewel Master Twinkle are "big games" now? Guess the bar has been lowered. And there's like...no hype around Devil's Third. Barely anyone has talked about it, and it's not on many people's list of games they want for 2014. And the fact that a developer only makes PC games is noteworthy in this conversation. I should be implied that third parties, in the context of this thread, means parties that develop games on consoles. It's disingenuous to say "ArenaNET haven't made a console game. Haha! You're wrong!" when they don't even make console games, period. Otherwise, you might as well list off a bunch of iOS devs as well

Keywords: 7th generation, home console, notable

You can argue that Mistwalker was notable a couple of years ago, but in your opinion which other third party console game developers that were notable in the 7th generation haven't released a game on PS3?

I really can't see why you include studios that were notable a long time ago. Would you say that Rare is as notable now as it was in the 5th generation?

Please give me honest and unbiased answers.

He won't because he doesn't want to concede that PS has the most diverse library. He's (I'm assuming) in bed with Nintendo, who's getting a bad rap right now, so he's in mega defense mode. Why else would he bother to bring up ArtePiazza....a company that has only made shovelware and remakes. You never said "all 3rd parties" but that's how he read into it, so he's gonna go find some random company just to say you're wrong. Seriously, who's heard of "Gunstar Heroes" and "Mischief Makers" in order to say that Treasure is a notable studio? Only unique game they've made is Sin & Punishment....and nobody bought that. If nobody knows the studio, they aren't notable

Moderated,

-Mr Khan

You've seriously played all of those games this generation?

Madness, I say.