XD I find that odd as well..

It wasn't my intention to downplay Nintendo and Microsoft. I just wanted to make it clear how impressive I think the PS3 library has become and ask which games I should play before moving on with next gen titles.

I think that the 360 and especially the Wii have some fantastic exclusives as well but this thread is about third party developers. I actually thought that even big Nintendo fans like Aielyn would be able to stay honest and unbiased and be glad that the industry is thriving.

Played (as in tried) almost any of those franchises. PS+ and the public library helped a bit ;)

The studios I listed were all notable, in my opinion (and I provided specific justification). And I would consider Rare notable... but they're not third-party. Maybe not *as* notable now, but still notable. There are probably other notable studios that didn't make games for the Wii either - as Wii was my console of choice last generation, it's the developers who made games on the Wii that stood out easiest in my mind, thus making it easier to recall them - I could probably go through the list of developers or 360 titles, or PSP titles, or DS titles, and find more examples.

Like I said, the only issue I have is one of accuracy - any non-subjective interpretation of 'notable' must acknowledge some studios that have made games for other systems but not PS3. I don't challenge words like "impressive" or "varied" because I see no problem with your list in that regard. I'm all for celebrating the PS3's library (and the Xbox 360's library, and the Wii's library, and the DS's library, and the PSP's library). But I'm big on accuracy.

You're really not getting it, are you? Marvelous is the publisher, there are a number of internal studios WITHIN Marvelous. Just like Nintendo's EAD studios, just like Sony's SCE Santa Monica, just like Ubisoft's Ubisoft Montreal, just like Activision's Treyarch. These are studios fully owned by their respective publishers, internal to the company. And by the way, Treyarch was founded in 1996 and acquired by Activision in 2001. Infinity Ward was founded in 2002, but Activision didn't fully own it until 2003. Both studios, however, are now fully owned by Activision, and are entirely internal studios. They aren't a "separate entity" in any sense - what they are, now, are internal studios with names. Naming of studios can happen from internal circumstances, too - Intelligent Systems is an internal Nintendo developer with its own name. Visceral Games was originally called EA Redwood Shores, and is a completely internal EA studio, founded within EA - it got to have its own name, which gives it a stronger presence within the community, but it remains completely internal.

And by the way, the company name is Marvelous AQL, not Marvelous Entertainment.

But all of that is beside the point - as "Marvelous Entertainment" prior to the merge, they had only published PS3 games, they had not developed any. And since the merger, the only PS3 title that has been published by Marvelous AQL is Rune Factory Tides of Destiny, made by Neverland, which is not in any way owned by Marvelous AQL. Therefore, Marvelous (whether you want to call them Marvelous Interactive or Marvelous Entertainment) has not developed any PS3 games at any point. So basically, you're complaining about my description of them as "an internal studio", when in fact that part of it is irrelevant to my point. There is no internal studio within Marvelous Entertainment that has developed for the PS3, and the only internal developers within Marvelous AQL that made games for PS3 are the ones that came from AQ.

I never, not once, said that Jewel Master Twinkle was a big game. I also didn't say it about Tetris, but I'd consider it a notable game franchise in and of itself... but all of that is irrelevant. The point to bringing those games up at all was to show that they don't only make Nintendo-system games - and I made that abundantly clear in the post in which I brought them up. If you can't see that, then there's no point continuing this argument.

What I particularly like, though, is the dismissal of Devil's Third as not having hype, simply because it allows you to dismiss the developer (the studio is run by the reknowned Itagaki, by the way). I known a fair bit about the game despite it not being the type of game I'm interested in, on platforms I don't own. This would not be true of a game that has no hype around it, as the only way for me to know about the game is through hype from other people on forums, etc.

And yes, a developer that only makes PC games is just as notable as any other, if they aren't a "first-party" type developer (which would mean Microsoft if for Windows or Apple if for Mac). In fact, I went out of my way to not list studios that have only developed for a single console-maker's line of consoles just to avoid this exact argument - I knew that someone would insist that the studio doesn't count because they're clearly second-party... but "second-party" doesn't exist for PC, so I assumed that nobody would be absurd enough to make that argument.

This is the end of my contribution to this argument. The argument is going nowhere, fast, and clearly you're not going to actually listen to what I'm saying, and clearly I'm not going to be convinced by your arguments. I say we leave things as they are, now, and let people decide for themselves.

I get your point but developers of PSP or DS titles wouldn't be notable for their home console games and it's obviously these (the notable third party developers of home console games in the 7th generation) this thread is dealing with.