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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Is PlayStation Just As Iconic As Nintendo?

sc94597 on 22 August 2015

The last time I heard somebody call video games generically as "PlayStation" was when I had an N64 and PS1 in the early 00's. Since then, it has either been Nintendo or Xbox, despite PlayStation consoles selling more. I think it might be because the PS2 was viewed for more than gaming with DVD playback, and then the brand declined with PS3, and it is only since 2010 has it been recovering.



Around the Network
ArchangelMadzz on 22 August 2015

IP = Nintendo, as I don't see Sony continuing an IP for as long as it would take (maybe gran turismo).

Hardware is not even close, the words "gamecube" "wii" "n64" doesn't cause as near as an iconic reaction or image than "ps1" or "ps2".



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

MatrosRx on 22 August 2015

The name Playstation would have the same level of recognition as the name Nintendo. But I can't think of any Sony characters that would have the same level of recognition as Mario, the closest I can think of is Sack Boy, and he is light years behind Mario in terms of recognition to the market at large.



NNID: TanukiTrooper - PSN: MatrosRx - STEAM: TanukiTrooper

Goodnightmoon on 22 August 2015
DerNebel said:
Goodnightmoon said:
DerNebel said:

I didn't deny that, but classifying the changes made between different Mario or Zelda titles as taking a real risk is laughable at best.

But making huge changes on widely iconic franchises with milions of fans is always a huge risk because you risk yourself to lose all those fans doing something they don´t want, is a different kind of risk than to make a new IP, sure, but is also a risk. Just look the backlash that Wind Waker had because the artstyle was completely new and different even if today is considered one the most beautiful games Nintendo has ever made.

They're not changing them beyond recognisability though. If Nintendo came out and said "We've made the next 3D Mario into a FPS" then you'd have a point, that would be a real risk, but taking a highly iconic franchise and character, keeping the core game very much in tact and then giving it a new artstyle and some other bells and whistles is only risking to make less profit but not actually risking to lose money. You use Wind Waker as an example, that game still sold 4.6 million copies on Gamecube, despite the differences.

Not that wouldn´t be a risk, that would be retarded, changing the chore of a franchise is killing it, just look Banjo Kazooie: nuts and bolts, you have to be wise to make huge changes on your game while you respecting the chore that defines it.

And is not only the aesthetics, the level design (the real protagonist of mario platformers) is completely different on Mario Galaxy compared to Sunshine, 64, world, bros, etc, same as Zelda Wind Waker, the gameplay also changes on those games, they keep the chore but they change. And yes Wind Waker was a success at the end because it was so freaking amazing that people shut up, but the backlash was real and it would probably have sold more with a serious artstyle and a standart hyrule (instead of the big ocean), just watch the sales of Twilight princess, a game way less risky and original.

Super Metroid/ Metroid Prime/ Metroid Other M is also a proof of this kind of risk, this time other M was a bad movement with an incredible (and deserved) backlash, because it changed too much and didn´t respect the chore as well as the others, but it was a huge risk.



AZWification on 22 August 2015
Aeolus451 said:
AZWification said:

I would argue that Zelda and DK are bigger than  other ( or at least on par) "big" Sony/MS franchises like God of War and Gears of War though.


The majority of gamers can live without a zelda or DK game. Nintendo's franchises use to be a big deal to gamers but it hasn't been in a long time. Otherwise, people would be buying their console to play those games but people don't. I think gamers as a whole care more about COD, GTA, forza, TLOU and halo than what nintendo has to offer. 

Ard you sure about that? Donkey Kong Country Returns sold 6.5 million and Twilight Princess sold almost 9 million ( GC+Wii).



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

Around the Network
DerNebel on 22 August 2015
Wright said:
DerNebel said:


Hence my point. Games are what makes a videoconsole "iconic", not the videoconsole itself; thus the reason why you'd call Playstation iconic in the first place is because of the Sony franchises and healthy third-party support you can play on it. Same goes for Nintendo, or are you implying Nintendo would have been iconic relying only on Love Hotels?

 

Remove the games from the console and the brand itself might manage to carry on towards a new generation, but it'd die along with its iconic status on the next one.

Sorry but that's a really confusing point you're making here to me. Of course the games are important, but the PlayStation brand goes way above Sonys first party, which I thought your initial point was.

That's what I meant, sure if you compare only first party then Nintendo is more iconic, but there is more to a console brand than first party games, it's about the impact it had on the market and just general things that are associated with the brand (which of course includes games).

I guess I was just thrown off by your going third party argument, I mean Atari is also iconic to gaming and nobody is asking for those games, so that seems like a weird comparison to make.



ArchangelMadzz on 22 August 2015
Goodnightmoon said:
DerNebel said:
Goodnightmoon said:
DerNebel said:

I didn't deny that, but classifying the changes made between different Mario or Zelda titles as taking a real risk is laughable at best.

But making huge changes on widely iconic franchises with milions of fans is always a huge risk because you risk yourself to lose all those fans doing something they don´t want, is a different kind of risk than to make a new IP, sure, but is also a risk. Just look the backlash that Wind Waker had because the artstyle was completely new and different even if today is considered one the most beautiful games Nintendo has ever made.

They're not changing them beyond recognisability though. If Nintendo came out and said "We've made the next 3D Mario into a FPS" then you'd have a point, that would be a real risk, but taking a highly iconic franchise and character, keeping the core game very much in tact and then giving it a new artstyle and some other bells and whistles is only risking to make less profit but not actually risking to lose money. You use Wind Waker as an example, that game still sold 4.6 million copies on Gamecube, despite the differences.

Not that wouldn´t be a risk, that would be retarded, changing the chore of a franchise is killing it, just look Banjo Kazooie: nuts and bolts, you have to be wise to make huge changes on your game while you respecting the chore that defines it.

And is not only the aesthetics, the level design (the real protagonist of mario platformers) is completely different on Mario Galaxy compared to Sunshine, 64, world, bros, etc, same as Zelda Wind Waker, the gameplay also changes on those games, they keep the chore but they change. And yes Wind Waker was a success at the end because it was so freaking amazing that people shut up, but the backlash was real and it would probably have sold more with a serious artstyle and a standart hyrule (instead of the big ocean), just watch the sales of Twilight princess, a game way less risky and original.

Super Metroid/ Metroid Prime/ Metroid Other M is also a proof os this kind of risk, this time other M was a bad movement with an incredible (and deserved) backlash, but it was a huge risk.


The problem is, is that when Nintendo do make big gameplay changing or sometimes different games in general they often throw Mario into the mix.

They wanted to make a cool fun golf game, awesome. Then call it "Mario Golf". Mario has been featured or appeared in a game every year since 1981.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

DerNebel on 22 August 2015
Goodnightmoon said:
DerNebel said:

They're not changing them beyond recognisability though. If Nintendo came out and said "We've made the next 3D Mario into a FPS" then you'd have a point, that would be a real risk, but taking a highly iconic franchise and character, keeping the core game very much in tact and then giving it a new artstyle and some other bells and whistles is only risking to make less profit but not actually risking to lose money. You use Wind Waker as an example, that game still sold 4.6 million copies on Gamecube, despite the differences.

Not that wouldn´t be a risk, that would be retarded, changing the chore of a franchise is killing it, just look Banjo Kazooie: nuts and bolts, you have to be wise to make huge changes on your game while you respecting the chore that defines it.

And is not only the aesthetics, the level design (the real protagonist of mario platformers) is completely different on Mario Galaxy compared to Sunshine, 64, world, bros, etc, same as Zelda Wind Waker, the gameplay also changes on those games, they keep the chore but they change. And yes Wind Waker was a success at the end because it was so freaking amazing that people shut up, but the backlash was real and it would probably have sold more with a serious artstyle and a standart hyrule (instead of the big ocean), just watch the sales of Twilight princess, a game way less risky and original.

Super Metroid/ Metroid Prime/ Metroid Other M is also a proof os this kind of risk, this time other M was a bad movement with an incredible (and deserved) backlash, but it was a huge risk.

Yeah but even Other M sold 1.33 million, that is not excessively worse than other Metroid games aside from the 2 outliers Metroid Prime and the original Metroid. But sure Metroid going into first person mode is something I'll give you, that's a pretty significant change.

Edit: Lol, I didn't even know Other M was third person, I thought the only change was that they made Samus whiny, fine I guess they were pretty open to risk with Metroid.



Abun on 22 August 2015

Sony been passed Nintendo once they changed how we play games with the dual shock.I don't know a soul who thinks Mario 64 broke ground for 3D gaming so I don't know where that came from,but Ocarina of Time is the last game I hear people praise Nintendo for,while Sony recently has TLoU.



Abun on 22 August 2015
Qwark said:
Nintendo may have saven the industrie but Sony Let the industrie to bloom again and continue doing this. Diversity is Key even now Sony comes with until dawn and Dreams and creates New genres. In which they are kind of unique, unlike Nintendo which is operating mostly in there safe zone of 2d platformers, partygames, sportgames and games From an era where Nintendo had bigger balls, like Zelda, Metroid and Starfox and Pikmin aND rarely a new IP. Whereas Sony dares to write of succesfull IP's as uncharted Jack and probably GOW after GOW 4 to create something New like TLOU.


These points are true too.Most people I know including myself only still play games because of Sony.The Wii and casual market only existed because of Sony and CDROM(disc) took over because of Sony.Each generation they create NEW experiences that became the face of PlayStation,no one else has done that.EyeToy games gave birth to the Wii games.It was Sony's ideas that inspired Nintendo's most successful console.