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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Nintendo 1st party actually reminds me of Microsoft 1st party or vise versa

celador on 24 January 2017

MS may focus more on gameplay, problem is, it's the same gameplay in the same franchises over and over again. Nintendo does something similar, but their games are far better and take more risks and introduce more new mechanics in the long run. And Nintendo have more new IPs than people give them credit for



Around the Network
Snoopy on 24 January 2017
celador said:
MS may focus more on gameplay, problem is, it's the same gameplay in the same franchises over and over again. Nintendo does something similar, but their games are far better and take more risks and introduce more new mechanics in the long run

True, but their gameplay evolves for MS as well. Halo 5 is the perfect example. Gears is a little bit more of the same, I agree.



sub-zero-TM on 24 January 2017

LOL are you for real ??



Snoopy on 24 January 2017
KLXVER said:
Snoopy said:

I liked it when Sony made Medieval, Crash, Twisted Metal,Ect. However, now it seems more and more their games are going to the story route and cinematic experiences. Even GOW looks like cinematic experience now which frustrates me.

I kinda agree with that. Crash I can play again and again, but Uncharted, TLOU, Heavy Rain etc. is enough to just play once. The gamplay is built around the story.

Exactly. Once I get the story, thats just the end for me. I get the story and I don't feel the suspense anymore. I'm actually thinking about replaying legend of zelda wind waker again. So much fun in that game to be had.



Goatseye on 24 January 2017
celador said:
MS may focus more on gameplay, problem is, it's the same gameplay in the same franchises over and over again. Nintendo does something similar, but their games are far better and take more risks and introduce more new mechanics in the long run

Halo 4 does not play like Halo 5. There hasn't been anything riskier than that on the market from the first party.

MS games evolve gameplay wise more than most games on market because they rely heavily on game mechanics.



Around the Network
celador on 24 January 2017
Snoopy said:
celador said:
MS may focus more on gameplay, problem is, it's the same gameplay in the same franchises over and over again. Nintendo does something similar, but their games are far better and take more risks and introduce more new mechanics in the long run

True, but their gameplay evolves for MS as well. Halo 5 is the perfect example. Gears is a little bit more of the same, I agree.

well I understand Gears 4, it was a new team who didn't want to take risks on their first go. Hopefully they are a bit more brave with the next game



Spade on 24 January 2017
celador said:

MS may focus more on gameplay, problem is, it's the same gameplay in the same franchises over and over again. Nintendo does something similar, but their games are far better and take more risks and introduce more new mechanics in the long run. And Nintendo have more new IPs than people give them credit for

All three are guilty of this. And I can't say that's necessarily true for the Wii U era, Switch is looking much more "risks and new mechanics." or ambitious. 



https://www.trueachievements.com/gamercards/SliferCynDelta.png%5B/IMG%5D">https://www.trueachievements.com/gamer/SliferCynDelta"><img src="https://www.trueachievements.com/gamercards/SliferCynDelta.png

pokoko on 24 January 2017
Goatseye said:
pokoko said:
Did I just stumble into an alternate reality where Quantum Break doesn't exist?

Did the OP say there are few exceptions? Wait for it... yes he did.

When you make very few games there are no "few exceptions".  



celador on 24 January 2017
Slade6alpha said:
celador said:

MS may focus more on gameplay, problem is, it's the same gameplay in the same franchises over and over again. Nintendo does something similar, but their games are far better and take more risks and introduce more new mechanics in the long run. And Nintendo have more new IPs than people give them credit for

All three are guilty of this. And I can't say that's necessarily true for the Wii U era, Switch is looking much more "risks and new mechanics." or ambitious. 

Of course they all do it, just to varying degrees, where imo, MS are worst at it and Nintendo best



Intrinsic on 24 January 2017
Snoopy said:
Slade6alpha said:

To an extent I agree with that you're saying. Where MS and Nintendo both strive for gameplay over interactive story telling. Which is why I prefer both Nintendo and MS' first party to Sony's (as of now). Would love it if Sony went back into their platform repitore. 

I liked it when Sony made Medieval, Crash, Twisted Metal,Ect. However, now it seems more and more their games are going to the story route and cinematic experiences. Even GOW looks like cinematic experience now which frustrates me.

Uncharted 4 has more "gameplay" than something like gears..... at the very least uncharted has platforming and puzzles.

But that aside while I agree that sony has a lot of "cinematic" games, I don't understand how gams like Infamous, driveclub, bloodborne, killzone, horizon, uncharted, GTS, wipeout, days gone, GoW....etc all fall under that category, 

I feel that if you want to see it, you can just as easily list out a large number of gameplay focused games from sony; because sony also ensures that those games are packaged with great cinematography/story and that sony also has titles that are story heavy isn't a bad thing.

Itslike take the new zelda for instance, Its gonan probably have a more fleshed out story than any zelda game before it. Does that now make it a story heavy cinematic game?

Anyways, to each their own.... I just don't feel the claim you are making is valid. 

oh, try playing the last of us on hard without aids.... come back and tell me if you think a game like is story focused.