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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - PlayStation Studios and Nintendo Entertainment Planning and Development - Which is the better first party group?

Can sony please revive Legend of Dragoon 2 , Um Jammer Lammy 2 , Ape escape 4 , and Wild Arms 6



Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.

Around the Network
Leynos said:

Nintendo is more talented. Better quality games with smaller teams. Nintendo is greatly unmatched in first-party studio talent. Sony outs out a lot of good looking highly produced games but standard game mechanics that don't stand out for the most part. Nintendo is often innovative in software as well as hardware. People may clown on Wii sports but it brought in people who don't normally play games. Sony tried to copy that with PS Move and Move sports.

Horizon and BOTW going for that open world. BOTW has a lot more attention to details like shooting the grass with fire and the grass burns for example. (not saying Nintendo invented this btw) Horizon nothing happens as everything is just a setting but not really an interactive world. HZD is pretty typical of most AAA big world games. Games like that are more worried about completing a character animation than a character's action.

I've seen plenty of times Sony try to chase a Nintendo idea in software. Most notably Smash Bros. Before someone tries to say Mario Maker copied little big planet. Mega Man Powered up for one came out before LBP and two Nintendo had the concept for Mario Maker in the 90s but didn't have the ability to do it. Oh and Excitebike track editor Not Saying Sony copied them but I am saying Nintendo didn't.

I think the most ambitious Sony franchise the last decade or at least one of them didn't have a large budget. Gravity Rush. Don't get me wrong it had some problems esp in mission design but the flying in that game is genuinely the best sense of superhero flying ever in a game. Spiderman did have a great Swinging mechanic...but the open world is pretty Ubisoft. So once the checklist in the map is done and the story is done. Nothing brings me back. BOTW I can always go back. Sony and MS are not. "dur Naughty Dog" yeah in the visual set-pieces but not in gameplay. Pretty standard shit. Feels dated. Days gone everything from visuals to characters to writing to menus to UI to gameplay feels like every game released that gen. It is just so damn generic. Not terrible but just another one of those. 

Despite how much money MS has spent. All those studios put out glitch filled problematic games and do anything but innovate as they have to keep the status quo t appeal to the mass. They are just studios that put out stuff that suffers from every bad AAA game habbit. So meh.

Nintendo can make anything they want and usually be great. Nintendo puts a focus,philosophy and level of critical thought into their gameplay with attention to the smallest details that are unmatched in the industry by a long shot. Nintendo are master craftsmen at game design. Mechanics and little gameplay touches.

ftr I do like some first party games. I liked Spider-Man a lot. Just because I don't think Sony are the craftsmen Nintendo is. Doesn't mean I dislike Sony nor love every Nintendo series. NOt into a lot of Nintendo franchises tbh.

Disagree.

Sony is more talented. They need bigger teams, because they need to bring everything in their games. Not just fun gameplay mechanics, but high end graphics, motion capture, acting, well written and deep characters and enjoyable and emotionally impactful stories that will resonate with people. They can create a whole new world that has no connection to anything they've done before and make it a success. That is craftsmanship.

Simpler games can do with smaller teams and it's easy to perfect a simple formula. Nintendo has these 4 or 5 core franchises they have been honing for decades now, it would be odd if they weren't as good as they can be by now. Only talent needed there is to not slip up and start degenerating. And gimmicks, I guess you can call them "innovative" but at the end of the day they are just new way of buttering your sandwich. I don't like gimmicks on any platform.

BOTW chose to have burning grass as a game mechanic, Horizon didn't. Maybe they just didn't think of it, or maybe it wasn't worthwhile in a game that was already extremely pushing the hardware.

Copying others is what everybody does in any business, so that's that. No point in trying to untangle who did what first and when.

I guess it comes down to what makes you tick as a gamer, not trying to hate on anybody here.



If we include all history, then EPD clearly leads by a mile. Playstation Studios have stepped up their game though in recent years, so it is interesting to watch how it develops. But keep in mind, that EPD still is great as shown by BOTW and Mario Odyssey (among others). So Playstation Studios will have a very hard time to compete, but I will watch it with interest.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

SegaHeart said:
faustian.empire said:

they have different Audiences.

Nintendo - Childish

Playstation - Mature


I prefer Playstation

Fire Emblem

Xenoblade

Sin and Punishment

Metroid

Zelda

Golden Sun

Have you played these?

i know the games you mentioned above have mature themes but even their Art-Style is Cartoony not like Playstation and Xbox Art-Styles.

Its not just the story themes that matter but even the Graphic Styles they use which are more relatable to a kid and shows what audience the creators are targetting



faustian.empire said:
SegaHeart said:

Fire Emblem

Xenoblade

Sin and Punishment

Metroid

Zelda

Golden Sun

Have you played these?

i know the games you mentioned above have mature themes but even their Art-Style is Cartoony not like Playstation and Xbox Art-Styles.

Its not just the story themes that matter but even the Graphic Styles they use which are more relatable to a kid and shows what audience the creators are targetting

Have you ever seen an Anime?



Around the Network
Spindel said:

So many answers and not a correct one.

Nintendo will continue be to be undisputed master because they put game play first.

There are a lot of words in this thread and they are all about how pretty Sony games are and how polished the games looks. But not a word about game play.

Unknowingly they answer the question to why Sony plays second fiddle to Nintendo.

Humm, but Sony's games gameplay are great though. Looking at The Last of US 2 I don't think there is a single bad thing about it 

What Nintendo has is creativity and disruptive ideas about gameplay, they are often releasing things that plays a lot different than what the majority of AAA games offer, in this sense Sony lacks Nintendo's novelty and is more about polishing mechanics that they already feel comfortable with 



Everyone is just going to pick what they like the most. Both have some great highs and some bad lows, and it's just going to be very subjective.

Heck it's going to be subjective based on the games you've played and not played. A lot of people really love the heck of Horizon, but it's not even in the top 10 games I think of when I think of PlayStation games. You might think Sony games suck until you play Astrobot: Rescue Mission, God of War (2018) and they might change your mind on that. You might think Nintendo games suck until you play Super Mario Odyssey or Breath of the Wild. 

Maybe you really don't like games as open ended as BotW, and you really prefer the gameplay of Horizon. They're very different games, and they have very different focuses, and I don't think it really makes sense to compare the two.

They make very different kinds of games in general. Nintendo doesn't make anything like Gran Turismo, The Last of Us, Uncharted, and some people are happy about that. Sony doesn't make anything quite like Breath of the Wild, Animal Crossing or Mario Kart, and some people are happy about that.

Sony isn't less talented because they have a 300 person team making a game like Horizon, whereas Nintendo does not need anywhere near that many to make Breath of the Wild. If Nintendo wanted to make Horizon, they would also need a 300 person team. It's just they don't want to make that kind of game, and that's absolutely okay. They're both great at making the kinds of games they want to make.

Sony has some great technical teams like Naughty Dog, Guerrilla Games, Santa Monica, Bluepoint.

Santa Monica, Naughty Dog, Team Asobi make some of my favorite games.

Nintendo also makes a lot of my favorite games. 



Dante9 said:
Leynos said:

Nintendo is more talented. Better quality games with smaller teams. Nintendo is greatly unmatched in first-party studio talent. Sony outs out a lot of good looking highly produced games but standard game mechanics that don't stand out for the most part. Nintendo is often innovative in software as well as hardware. People may clown on Wii sports but it brought in people who don't normally play games. Sony tried to copy that with PS Move and Move sports.

Horizon and BOTW going for that open world. BOTW has a lot more attention to details like shooting the grass with fire and the grass burns for example. (not saying Nintendo invented this btw) Horizon nothing happens as everything is just a setting but not really an interactive world. HZD is pretty typical of most AAA big world games. Games like that are more worried about completing a character animation than a character's action.

I've seen plenty of times Sony try to chase a Nintendo idea in software. Most notably Smash Bros. Before someone tries to say Mario Maker copied little big planet. Mega Man Powered up for one came out before LBP and two Nintendo had the concept for Mario Maker in the 90s but didn't have the ability to do it. Oh and Excitebike track editor Not Saying Sony copied them but I am saying Nintendo didn't.

I think the most ambitious Sony franchise the last decade or at least one of them didn't have a large budget. Gravity Rush. Don't get me wrong it had some problems esp in mission design but the flying in that game is genuinely the best sense of superhero flying ever in a game. Spiderman did have a great Swinging mechanic...but the open world is pretty Ubisoft. So once the checklist in the map is done and the story is done. Nothing brings me back. BOTW I can always go back. Sony and MS are not. "dur Naughty Dog" yeah in the visual set-pieces but not in gameplay. Pretty standard shit. Feels dated. Days gone everything from visuals to characters to writing to menus to UI to gameplay feels like every game released that gen. It is just so damn generic. Not terrible but just another one of those. 

Despite how much money MS has spent. All those studios put out glitch filled problematic games and do anything but innovate as they have to keep the status quo t appeal to the mass. They are just studios that put out stuff that suffers from every bad AAA game habbit. So meh.

Nintendo can make anything they want and usually be great. Nintendo puts a focus,philosophy and level of critical thought into their gameplay with attention to the smallest details that are unmatched in the industry by a long shot. Nintendo are master craftsmen at game design. Mechanics and little gameplay touches.

ftr I do like some first party games. I liked Spider-Man a lot. Just because I don't think Sony are the craftsmen Nintendo is. Doesn't mean I dislike Sony nor love every Nintendo series. NOt into a lot of Nintendo franchises tbh.

Disagree.

Sony is more talented. They need bigger teams, because they need to bring everything in their games. Not just fun gameplay mechanics, but high end graphics, motion capture, acting, well written and deep characters and enjoyable and emotionally impactful stories that will resonate with people. They can create a whole new world that has no connection to anything they've done before and make it a success. That is craftsmanship.

Simpler games can do with smaller teams and it's easy to perfect a simple formula. Nintendo has these 4 or 5 core franchises they have been honing for decades now, it would be odd if they weren't as good as they can be by now. Only talent needed there is to not slip up and start degenerating. And gimmicks, I guess you can call them "innovative" but at the end of the day they are just new way of buttering your sandwich. I don't like gimmicks on any platform.

BOTW chose to have burning grass as a game mechanic, Horizon didn't. Maybe they just didn't think of it, or maybe it wasn't worthwhile in a game that was already extremely pushing the hardware.

Copying others is what everybody does in any business, so that's that. No point in trying to untangle who did what first and when.

I guess it comes down to what makes you tick as a gamer, not trying to hate on anybody here.

Xenoblade isn't simple so I stopped reading.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

I don't really view myself as a PS guy or Nintendo guy. WIth that said, I'll give the nod to Nintendo since they actually make JRPG's, unlike Sony's 1st party.



Between Sony and Nintendo, I'd edge Nintendo. If Sony didn't abandon a lot of their platformer IPs (Sly, Jak and Daxter) and had more of a presence in the Japanese games space, I'd give it to them, also I'm still annoyed at no Days Gone sequel. To me Nintendo has the better diversity