Whoa!! I see you didn't read my post. Do NOT reply to other people. Is that so hard?

I dislike Sony for making video games so mainstream. Too many casual gamers = too many crappy games released.

nathantay said: I dislike Sony for making video games so mainstream. Too many casual gamers = too many crappy games released.

 Uh, interesting complaint. I'll leave it at that.

Bodhesatva said: nathantay said: I dislike Sony for making video games so mainstream. Too many casual gamers = too many crappy games released. Uh, interesting complaint. I'll leave it at that.

 I couldnt have said it better... But I'll post a link to a casual downloadable PSN game for the PS3, and a full package Wii game.

PS3
Wii

 

ElRhodeo said: I'll admit it, I hate Sony :) I hate them for taking the easy way to please people: Violent games, gangster games, unimaginative games. Really, among the top selling PS2 games there's hardly one I'd like to play. BTW, on the 360: NOT A SINGLE ONE. Now, before you scream "fanboy": What am I supposed to do, play games I'm not interested in? To me, all the ShadowHaloHalfFarLifeCryQuakeDoomTheftManBioGearsHunt are more or less the same. Games with heavily armored soldiers on their covers bore me to death. So that's basically it: I think the "Sony decade" has changed gaming for the worse. Plus the Blu-Ray-thing, the arrogance, the tech-specs-over-gameplay-thing. And had they succeeded in killing Nintendo some years ago, I'd been sooo mad.

The #2 PS2 game, GT3 is roughly 40,000 units behind the #1 PS2 game, and the #2 PS2 game is a racing SIM. So no violence, ganster there. It is a very detailed game. Next up, after the 2-3 GTA3 games between GT3 and GT4... we have GT4... ANOTHER non-violent game. No gangsters, or violence. Following that is Final Fantasy X. Another non-violent non-ganster game. Look at that. There's you some non-violent non-ganster games for the PS2, that were top sellers, that you said didnt exist. You want imaganitive? Look at Viva pinyata for the 360, dead rising, Forza2, and quite a few others. Just out for the 360 is... cant rember it's name, but it's kickass unique. Kinda like pikmin.

ShadowHaloHalflifeQuoteDoomGearsHuntMetriod really are all the same. You can add resistance too if you want, since you seem to miss anything the PS3 has.

FarCry is unique, it's the only FPS to take place on massive islands, with that much 'unique' playablity.
GTA is unique, in terms of, it created the sand-box game.

I was never a fan of the PS1, PS2, or PSP. I always wanted the great games to come to my GameCube, becuase it was cool, small, and stylish. I always liked my N64 more than the PS1, and the only reason I played the PS2 more than the GameCube was the lack of games on the Cube. Now I have some rare games for the cube might I add.

You wanna lable me as a sony fanboy, like everyone else, that's fine. I have owned every console nintendo, sony, and soon, once I get a 360, microsoft have ever made. Including handhelds. I bought 2 DS close to the DS launch, I bashed the PSP, I criticized it, made fun of it, said it sucked. However my DS lost it's 'cool' factor rather fast and after that I stopped playing games on it almost completely. I still had faith in nintendo. I hadnt realised they said F* you kwaad, we only make games like Big Brain now!

I waited in line for 13 hours to get my Wii. I got a 2nd Wii to give to my brother so we could play games online together!

About 20 hours after that, I realised I made 3 mistakes.

1. I waited in line. Not for you agian nintendo, not untill you start catering to my needs.
2. I got a Wii. It's not made for me. The games are made for a casual gamer, not me.
3. I got a Wii for my brother. He never opened the box, and gave it to his friend for his birthday. He saw mine once, and said. "That cost 250$?!?!?!"

So far, both my PSPs see regular use, my PS3 is on 24/7, and soon here in a few months, I will have 2 of them running 24/7. My Wii hasnt been turned on in nearly a month, and it was turned on to format it becuase someone was gonna buy it, but found one at wal-mart. (luckily we called before I formatted it) EDIT: And for the DS, I would say my DS was last on 4 months ago, and my wifes about 2 months ago.

Nintendo is in the business to make great games. Because, for them, making great games (and systems) means making a lot of money.

Sony is in the business to dominate the living room. You need a Sony HD TV to watch your Sony Blu-Ray movies on your Sony PS3, which talks to your Sony PSP. Sony wants to be your portal to anything multimedia. The more Sony things you have, the more money Sony makes.


I hate Sony because they use all their products to try to force-feed all their other stuff down your throat. I don't want to be told what to purchase. Add this to the problems I've had with the PS1 and PS2 hardware, and I have a hatred of the way they do business.

Nintendo has had their problems in the past, but face it: the games they put out are always high quality whether or not you personally enjoy them. The systems are always very resilient, well put-together, and are nearly impossible to accidentally break. If I'm going to spend hundreds of dollars on something, I want to be damn sure it works, and works well. Nintendo's only income is from their games and their hardware. They're going to be very, very sure the product they put onto the market is the best quality and affordability for the consumer. Saying "Nintendo doesn't care about gamers because they want to make money" is completely stupid. Nintendo sure does care about games and gamers, because that is HOW they make their money, unlike Sony.

PS: I have 9 wii games now. If you count Wii Sports, Mario Party 8, and Wii Controller with Wii Play packed in, I have 6 non-minigame-based games. I estimate by the end of the year I'll have at least 15 Wii games, with no additional minigame games. Saying Nintendo "only make games like Big Brain now" is retarded, FUD, and wrong.

Bodhesatva said: ElRhodeo said: Quickdraw McGraw said: ElRhodeo said:   EDIT: Hardware: Did they progress the market? I tell you what I think: Video game consoles are low tech. Any system. No need to brag about "the great Kutaragi" or "the great N64". The trick is keeping it cheap. Now, I'm not a tech-head, but from what I've heard, PS1 and N64 were pretty much a draw. And PS2 is said to be the weakest of all last gen systems. Correct me if I'm wrong. Still, I'd like to stress that it doesn't matter. It's about the games. When I mentioned Sony progressing the hardware market, I didn't necessarily mean with the best technology or features (Although that is the route the PS3 is taking). I agree with you 100% in that it's always about the games. But by saying Sony has contributed nothing to the video game industry in it's ten-year run is way off. Whether it be popularizing disk-based gaming, multi-media features, or opening up the casual and European markets, there is a lot Sony has to be given credit far, no matter your opinion on their new system. Note that I'm not discounting Nintendo or Microsoft (Ok, maybe Microsoft, ; ) ), just trying to convey my point. I'm from Europe, and I've played tons of video games before Sony's arrival :) Disk-based gaming: Not something to be proud of, really. There's good reasons why Nintendo hesitated so long, and I'm pretty sure their nextgen handheld won't be disk based as well. Think loading times, scratch issues, no savegames, power consumption. Multimedia features: Maybe. But when you look at their Blu-Ray strategy, it leaves a strange aftertaste in your mouth: Maybe gamers are just the key to making Sony the exclusive owner of the next dominating video format? If they succeed, Sony will make Billions on licenses alone. Well you may personally have played games before Sony's arrival, but it is fair to say that Sony greatly expanded the market, and gave them much more respect (for lack of a better term) than anyone else did. They have largely launched their systems simultaneously in Europe, have Europe-based production studios, and so forth. One of the biggest reasons that the Playstation 1 sold so much better than any console previous to it is that it sold so much better in Europe than all its historical competitors. There are a couple of good reasons Nintendo waited so long on a disc format, and several enormous, overwhelmingly huge reasons Nintendo should have gone with a disc format -- most notably manufacturing and developing cost, both of which were lower on the PS1 than on N64. Don't get me wrong, I think Nintendo has innovated far more than any other company in the history of video games, but giving Sony zero credit is unfair. How about we just say: "Sony has contributed to the evolution of gaming, but probably not as much as Nintendo?" I think a lot of us can agree to that.

Ok. Depending how you want to rate it, but N64 was pretty much more powerful than PSX, Saturn was much closer, than N64. And the weakest 6th generation console was Dreamcast, not PS2. I wouldn't say that Sony opened the European markets, Sony just happened to strike at the right moment. Gaming had been gaining momemtum for years, before PSX arrived, Atari had tried with Jaguar, Philips with CD-i etc. but their timing was bad. Sony struck at the time of generation change, when there are a lot of buyers "floating" and PSX was something new and neutral; you didn't have to take part in the traditional "Nintendo vs. Sega" arguing. Anyway the PSX arrived along the growth of the market, not vice versa. Sony didn't popularize disc-based gaming, although it had part in it, Sega had discs in Saturn and it possibly had "won" without PSX. Cartriges have certain, technological and useability, advantages, when compared to discs, but the costs are higher. I hope we get cartriges back some day (propably won't happen). But Nintendo wanted to stick in cartriges mostly because they were afraid of piracy. Sony has had affect on the industry, you can't argue that, not as much as Nintendo has or has had, but still. The most affect what Sony has had, is that it made 3rd party important, and this is what people complain, when critisizing Sony. The problem was Sonys weak 1st party and that Sony let basically any kind of crap to be released on its consoles (not topping it with good 1st party games). Now the industry has today alot of crappy games, and only a few good ones, a bit different situation than what it would be if Nintendo would have accomplished with N64 and its "Dreamteam". Of course, the "Dreamteam" wouldn't have been good for the industry, but some kind of quality control should be required. Anyone can state that "shitty games don't sell", but they do.

Why does it sound on some of you that we in Europe didn't play games before Sony playstation? I had a NES and a 386 that I did game on long before PSX. I wasn't alone that is for sure, some of my friends had different Sega systems. Gaming wasn't unheard of before PS in EU.

robjoh said: Why does it sound on some of you that we in Europe didn't play games before Sony playstation? I had a NES and a 386 that I did game on long before PSX. I wasn't alone that is for sure, some of my friends had different Sega systems. Gaming wasn't unheard of before PS in EU.

Lifetime hardware sales (millions):

	America	PAL
NES	34.00	8.56
PSX	40.78	40.12

That's probably why.

 

Entroper said: robjoh said: Why does it sound on some of you that we in Europe didn't play games before Sony playstation? I had a NES and a 386 that I did game on long before PSX. I wasn't alone that is for sure, some of my friends had different Sega systems. Gaming wasn't unheard of before PS in EU. Lifetime hardware sales (millions):   America PAL NES 34.00 8.56 PSX 40.78 40.12 That's probably why.

Sure but we had Amiga, sinclair, atari PC, commodor 64 also. I mean we have just moved from one medium to another.