If you had to choose between Nintendo and SONY exclusives...

@KBFloYd: and apparently still didn't learn from yesterday

Also, I wasn't aware I had to explain to others why I'm here

Yeah why'd you have to bring him up particularly? Pretty sure we were talking about things in general. Then you go cherry picking an extreme example.

Do you talk semantics in such a weird way with every person you meet? Generally speaking, that thing most people do when talking small talk, we don't go to extremes to prove we're always right like some douche.

@Zen_Light: because it was to show that simply because someone has survived a long time on earth, doesn't mean they deserve respect.

Respect should be given based on someone's actions

Easily Sony.

I played amazing diversity of exclusives / time exclusives on PS systems. So many different genres to choose from let alone countless of third party exclusives/time exclusives under literally all gaming genres compared to Nintendos. Such diversity of exclusives that Nintendo cant even dream of. That alone makes Sony an automatically winner for my taste.

Also numbers speaks for themselfs.

PS1 vs N64 total AAA/AA exclusives/time exclusives

PS2 vs GC total AAA/AA exclusives/time exclusives

hell even the super problematic PS3 vs Wii delivered more AAA/AA exclusives/time exclusives ...

The same thing will happen with Wii U vs PS4 ... No doubt.

Nintendo on the other hand does an amazing job in handheld area , the king of hh gaming though they dont even have any competition so not much to say about it. We all know whos the man there.

nintendo games are more timeless sony has made some great games however when i look back at my life nintendo makes the games that matter in the end.

Nintendo's not dumb, but they are very shortsighted. Let me ask you something: would you be content if, from now on, Sony slapped TLoU's/Uncharted's dressing on all of their 1st party output? I mean, they are proven successes, right? All their new games would exist solely in those universes. "The Gran Turismo 9 of Us". "Bloodborne IV: Drake's Die Edition." This would be their M.O. from this point on for many decades to come. Would you be alright with this?

Yes or no? Why or why not?

Because that's precisely what you're advocating for Nintendo here. What's a horrible business strategy is what Nintendo is currently doing, and this is plain to see because it's not working to expand their business, but is actively shrinking it. Despite the poll results and accolades they are receiving in this thread, this is a minority vocalization from the core die-hards on a dedicated gaming forum. Take a look out into the real world in terms of the broader spectrum of consumer appeal and the success it's affording Nintendo when viewed in a context far past the breadth of that core: a continuing slide into more and more niche territory. Do their games sell well to that niche? Absolutely, they are always great games, but it nevertheless remains a niche, and a seemingly fast growing one at that. Why? Because this strategy and software approach is incredibly limiting and not conducive to growth.

People drastically downplay aesthetics. Gaming is a creative medium and that extends to more than gameplay. I desire new games for the gameplay, sure, but I also do so to be able to experience new worlds, new characters, new sound effects and music. I WANT NEW, and a good portion of that does not involve just gameplay. I have been playing in the goddamn Mushroom Kingdom and Hyrule (or some slightly different take on them) for decades now. How many times can you play Mario, hit the jump button, and hear, "Wahoo!" without getting tired? How many times can you put on the green tunic and go about rescuing the princess in Zelda?? How many time can you play Smash and Mario Kart? How many "different" IPs can you stomach using the same assets that have been around for many years now?

Again, gaming is a creative medium, and sorry, that does not just restrict it just to gameplay. Despite what fans believe, aesthetics do matter and Nintendo has largely suffered because of this conservative and safe approach to design philosophy. It is dismissive of a large part of the equation and is nothing but a recipe for stagnation. (One) of the main reasons Nintendo is having trouble selling consoles is exactly what you are claiming is a smart strategy for them. You (as well as Nintendo) have it backwards. You say Nintendo's software strategy is a consequence of their poor console performance, when in fact it's the opposite: their poor console performance is a direct consequence of this particular software strategy.

"Only Nintendo fans buy Nintendo games". That statement says all we need to know.

Sony, I haven't had a ninty console in 26 years which is my age.

Nintendo. By a landslide.

Don't get me wrong. Uncharted is pretty fun for a weekend. But I return to Nintendo games years later and still enjoy them.

1.) Sony doesn't have to do that. They haven't lost their marketshare. They can afford to take bigger risks without hopes of alienating their fanbase.

2.) Smash Bros was the 8th best selling game in the US. Every other game in the top 10 was multiplatform and came out no later than October Link (I believe this does include 3DS numbers). Mario Kart sales were at 3.5 million as of October Link Not too bad for a company that is becoming a niche company.

3.) Bayonetta 2, W101, Lego City Undercover, Zombi U, XCX, Project STEAM and I'm sure a bunch of 3DS games that I'm not too familiar with. Not many I agree but I think you'd be surprised at the few amount of Sony exclusives that do the same. I'd pick the next Mario game in the same Mushroom Kingdom over The Order 1886 10 times out of 10.

4.) False. The reason why Nintendo is having trouble selling consoles is because their branding sucked. Their marketing failed to distinguish between the Wii and Wii U sufficiently, they have little to no third party support and they have an underpowered console that is stuck in no man's land between last gen and this gen. The fact that they have a Mario Kart, Smash Bros, NSMBU and Zelda is the only reason the console hasn't sold sub 5 million.

I don't know what country you are from, and that may alter your perception of the world; however, unless you are stuck in a war-torn area or living in a 3rd world country in the worst sense of poverty, the world isn't as dangerous or difficult to survive in as you are making it out to be. You make it seem like this is the 5th century or something.

The word "videogame" consists of two distinct terms: it is equal parts play and presentation (video + game). Developers whose works wind up successfully balancing those criteria are the ones I find most worthy of championing. I enjoy playing games just as much as I enjoy watching movies, listening to music, or reading books - each scratch a particular itch. But I don't want videogames that are just "games," in the traditional sense (like Monopoly or Poker). The medium has the capability of meaningfully incorporating the best aspect of all of the above and I place particular interest in developers who emphasize and attempt doing so.

I haven't felt that Nintendo has made that effort, much less achieved such, in a very long time. Their goals are different and they target a different demographic as a consequence. That's why I selected Sony.

Sony for me their exclusives appeal to me more. The only Nintendo exclusives I have had an interest in are fire emblem and monster hunter. Not to mention ninty have done some silly stuff recently thats given them a reputation hit.

Them being hit or miss would mean they aren't consistent, which I never contested, but their skill (their handle on the interactive aspect of this medium and player psychology) set puts them in a place where they know how to deliver in areas that are exclusive to this medium.

I also find the notion of "anything to say" to their audience, is a bit of a cheap knock given that most video game developers and their games really don't have a lot to say to begin with, or present a facade that gives the vague impression it had something to say, but really it was ridiculous when held under any scrutiny: Bioshock, Mass Effect, etc. The games that deliver on that front are on a short list, and those that pull it off sure as hell haven't come from Sony unless we're talking about Shadow of the Colossus.

Journey falling into a weird limbo of hooray it had something to say, oh yeah but the actual playing it part in its minimalistic nature has very little to offer the medium in the first place.

The range thing has no counter argument these days. Their internal studios cover a wider selection of game genres in comparison to their closest competitors in that department: Sony, Capcom, and Ubisoft. The latter has turned their games into a formula, the middle one is a shell of its former self, and Sony, would be stretching it.

I don't mind your mentality, because I like knocking Nintendo for wasting all that amazing talent on comfort zone franchises, but here's my usual beef. If someone who is well versed in other mediums, be it literature or film, and recently the expanding quality of Television, and you present to a bunch of video game plaeyrs that what they experienced from the "creative" side of things is duller, poor imitation of something vastly superior in another space, you're met with lazy counters like "it has to be judged by video game standards", and half the time i want to go **** you why?

Gaming isn't in a vacuum, if I want characters, worlds, stories, narratives, and I can get significantly better then just because you did something new with your setting doesn't do anything for me. Exceptions to that exist, Shadow of the Colossus and its narrative beats can't be replicated. It's plot isn't anything special, but how it conveys itself is. Ditto for Demon's Souls and Metroid Prime. The Last of Us wouldn't hold under any scrutiny to anyone that has read The Road or seen Children of Men, but how it conveys its narrative, and its place in the triple A space presents it in a different light. Ditto for something like Spec Ops. But that's also rare, likewise when Nintendo is on their A game, making a game with stellar design decisions, that's not a dime a dozen game. New Super Mario Bros is a dime a dozen soulless creation, but Mario Galaxy 2? That's a beast, and it's not lacking in a creativity department.

And if all that fails you get called an elitist, which I admittedly I don't mind. I'd rather be a dickhead elitist with standards than not demand better from my entertainment, when I have better alternatives.

Me and you are on a similar page though: I want new.

I also think way too much of this thread is Nintendo's first party against Sony's first party (which is fucking weak by any measure), and completely ignoring that like the PS3 it's going to get exclusives that are third party like Valkyria Chronicles (excellent), Demon's Souls (excellent), Ni Nu Kuni (eh, allegedly it was good), Journey or what have you. Besides I'm not fond of pretending Guilty Gear and Persona 5 aren't defacto exclusives.

Sony. Nintendo doesint offer much I want.

1) That doesn't answer what I asked, but I'll take it as a "yes". You believe Nintendo doing such a thing as they are now is a way to retain marketshare, much less grow it? You are being proven wrong every single day the U lags. The Wii U is tracking to be the slowest selling console they've ever produced. Alienating a fanbase? I think they have far more pressing issues at hand.

2) In view of a niche context, yes, I suppose it could be seen as not all that bad. But is this the standard Nintendo fans are pleased with now? Niche?

3) You're right, not many, and how many of those are AAA sized? Most IPs Nintendo does are on the eshop or their handheld. Again, the standards Nintendo fans are being reduced to? I'd take what Sony has to offer any day of the week over Nintendo with few exceptions.

4) Their marketing and branding is poor, sure, but it in no way is the main problem as to why their system isn't selling. You're really going to try to tell me (at the end of it's life), a probable disparity of 80-90 million systems lay contingent solely upon branding and marketing? No. Mario, Zelda, and Nintendo's mainstays are the reason it's sold as much as it has, sure, but again......the Wii U will more than likely end up being Nintendo's worst console to date, save the VB. That being the case, you still believe they can remain on the course they are and remain a viable business?

lol oh yeah look at mario

hasnt changed in over 3 decades

I apologize in advance if this offends (not my intention) but the underlined are phrased quite oddly, are grammatically confusing, and the point is vague. I want to make sure I'm understanding what you're trying to say before responding in full. Again, my apologies if English isn't your native tongue, but I'd just like some clarification on these because the remainder of your post seems to elaborate on them.

Nah I just prefer completely ignoring any context of grammar, since I just type, post, and go. No proof read lol.

What I'm saying is; let me meet you half way and say Nintendo should and could do newer worlds, characters, settings, plots etc, let's say they can be like other developers in that regard. My annoyance with this is the following: that just like you want something new, someone who isn't tied to just gaming as their source of entertainment is going to want for new things. Right? it's only natural, and likewise when you get better, you aren't going to be as accepting of less. So as someone who does watch a lot of films, admittedly doesn't read a lot of books (i'm working on it, truly), and binge watches plenty of television I come into a similar problem you have with Nintendo, but wither other developers. Specifically on their narrative decisions.

And when I present my counter argument that said gaming story doesn't hold any genuine merit, because it's a poor imitation of a better done film plot, it is usually met with this mentality that it isn't being fair to games. Which I don't enjoy because I would prefer to not judge that shit in a vacuum.

Reductionist of that would be:
-Other mediums are better at this stuff: world building, characters, stories, etc
-Gaming is actually really poor at this stuff
-So just because it is new for a game it wouldn't really actually be new to someone who is well versed in films

Not to say there aren't any exceptions to my knock, quite a few exist, but I would argue it isn't Sony's front that always delivers on that. If anything it's more often third party and indie, which is where Sony's real advantage is.

Easily Nintendo, which is why they can survive with almost no 3rd party support.

It surprises me that Kidtendo still has fans when they do the same old shit for decades. It take s a real loser to dominate the game industry then lose badly to a newbie over and over (sony). Obviously if exclusives made by kidtendo were so great they would be running shit. So clearly exclusives by kidtendo are NOT the path to victory. Even the wii the that won in sales race had a horrible attach rate vs the hd twins. That is why kidtendo killed the wii and the hd twins are still selling today.

Sheep wake up kidtendo's leadership is a bunch of tards that only know how to play it safe. Next gen same shit mario in 1080p lolz with NOOOOOOO 3rd party support. No hard drive and NOOOO blu-ray playback with last place online gaming with a gimmick controller. Kidtendowillclaim 3rd party support but as usual kidtendo will drive 3rd parties away.

To find a common accord it'd be helpful to identify what we each consider "elements exclusive to this medium." Otherwise I think we're bound to talk past one another. Intuitive, responsive interactive mechanics is what I imagine you're getting at, but there are additional elements - including the complete conglomeration of non-exclusive elements and how they relate - that I contend amount to exclusive elements (ala gestalt), among others.

I don't disagree with your second contention: most games don't have something to say. But the games that do manage to escape the typical compartmentalization offer unique experiences other games do not (and yes, I would consider SotC is in that conversation, along with Journey and others. Likewise, as I consider it, more of the titles on the "short list" originate from Sony than Nintendo, which is the theme of the thread and one of the bases for my decision - were other publishers/developers under consideration, my answer might be different).

I principally disagree on the question of range; the question is quite debatable. Any discussion necessitates clear criterion, otherwise it flips depending on the rules we're applying (i.e. are we looking at their entire publishing history? Just consoles? Are we looking at games published or only those developed in-house? Are we sticking with the thread's theme based on exclusives, even if the game is itself not published or developed by the parent company [a valid interpretation based on the thread title]?).

I have a principled opposition to this.

WHY lost in the sauce bro ???

Range being what they have shown they can develop as a company
-Platformer = I mean come on
-Action Adventure = Zelda being the big one, and the part where they own the important half of Metroidvania. Yes important half.
-FPS already did it with Metroid Prime, one of the more unique entries in that genre to boot
-Fighting game=smash
-turn based strategy games= Fire Emblem, Advance Wars, and soon Codename Steam
-Racing game=Fzero, Mario Kart
-Sports games=arcady centric
-JRPG=Xenoblade, Pokemon, Paper Mario, Mario and Luigi series
-Flight combat games=Starfox, could be lazy and say shooters which works for me too, in which case Icarus and Sin and Punishment go here

And I'm probably forgetting things like paying your bills simulator like animal crossing, but they also have things like Fatal Frame under their internal umbrella. They just suck massive cock and won't bring the game here. When I mean range, I mean they can over multiple genres, and they have competent studios that can deliver on that front. Which fair enough is overruled when you throw in the third party stuff Sony gets, but I prefer being crystal clear. It's the third party that are swinging this. But I'm pretty sure when I wrote range, I strictly said no other company could match Nintendo on their range, and then proceeded to list third party companies that would hold, separate from Sony. Which again I don't think it's a debate. Sony's franchises at best exist, but are complete throw away. Nintendo can legit claim a great game in at least half those genres, and at least one of them the undisputed king of the mountain in Mario.

Now lets get to the main thing: I would say semi-fair enough, except my disagreement is this the non-exclusive elements have more impact to me when they compliment the interactive elements. When they exist to just tell a story in a passive manner in an interactive medium, I'm not exactly funshong territory about this, but I know how lame it is to be given a passive story telling method in an interactive medium. Which Nintendo on a damn good day has shown the ability to knock that shit out of the park with things like Metroid Prime and Majora's Mask. More traditional telling a story like everyone else: Xenoblade exists, so does Fire Emblem, and what have you. Presentation wise the worst you can consistently knock them for is dated hardware (fair argument) and shit voice acting (also fair argument). Writing, I mean come on.

Otherwise that short list, I would say more of those games are on the multiplat side, and rarely exclusives. But hey at that point it's just more subjectivity and name dropping games. Basically the larger thing I'm being OCD about is Sony showing range or being able to deliver on other elements, because their teams barely hold any scrutiny. And specifically this is more Nintendo vs the third party stuff Sony will get. Round a bout, but whatever.

And really I have a huge problem with the notion that a game that knows it's a game and kicks ass at being a game (Bayonetta 2, non Nintendo as an example), is somehow more toy than some admittedly cool experiment, but highlights no strength in this medium: Journey. Which for all of Journey's minimalistic nature, it had to achieve by effectively by being as simplified a game as humanly possible. More cool and clever, and less something powerful from where I'm sitting.

I wrote allegedly. It's right there. I didn't play it, so I had no real reason to act like it was good or not.

Don't care, they don't belong in the same sentence :P

Or para. Or post.

So correct me if I'm wrong: that because you are privy to much better in other forms of entertainment you hold what Sony offers in contrast to that and are making it analogous to my problem with Nintendo vs Sony's games?

Is that accurate? If so, a few things:

-It's not being fair to games to judge them on the merits of another medium even if they take elements from them. They're unique in what they do, yes, even those such as Beyond 2 Souls.

-I'm not "tied to gaming" as my only form of entertainment, it covers a wide spectrum of genres and tastes. I always want new regardless of what medium I partake in, and just because I entertain one type doesn't negate my desire for novelty in another. I value novelty in games, I believe that aesthetics play a significant role in it, and on that front Sony delivers far more in line to what I currently value than Nintendo does, while also providing competent gameplay. TLoU, Journey, Ico and SotC. These are games that I wouldn't trade for 5 more Marios or Zeldas each.

Bring on a great Metroid or Pikmin, and you'll hear me sing another tune very fast. Until that time arrives though, Sony has me by the balls.

@charizard1605: What's your actual problem with Ni No Kuni?

In a similar context yes. Because for all of Nintendo's short comings they fundamentally make a good game an aspect I can't deny, but Sony's studios are a little too presentation focused to the point it comes at the expense of the game. Which is almost fine as I am more than willing to tolerate a middling game for interesting plot stuff ala Spec Ops, but I don't think sony covers that, certainly not on a consistent level. Nintendo as a game maker? I mean on bad days they make good games.

-Actually I think it's being very fair. if games are going to tell a story, if devs want to present themselves as story tellers, and if devs want to act like they are story tellers, then they don't get a pass to be judged in a vacuum. A great plot is a great plot is a great plot. A mediocre one is a mediocre one. I understand a game won't be as a detailed as a book, but considering I'm getting better written scripts, better acted dialogue, and all around more attention to details on the plot a game should still be judged by that standard. I'm not expecting a game to make me react the way The Godfather did, but let me put it this way Red Dead Redemption for all its brilliant character work, completely loses its plot for large stretches of Mexico and then presents these contrived connections to the final segment of the game. Likewise there was also this weird mission where I'm lighting up the rebels and bringing fire to their homes, and then we're buddy buddies next mission and I'm on their side unconditionally. In a film? that film gets crucified for a **** up like that, and deservedly so, in a game? it's like glossed over, because John Marston's ending completely overrules anything else about the plot. There is a certain drop off in expectation and standards that is just as damaging as not calling out Nintendo for being creatively deprived.

I'm not a hater of gaming stories (eh, okay maybe), but I am not fond of the idea that they need to be appreciated in a bubble. Journey's execution is effective regardless of my interaction with the other medium. So that's beef one.

-I didn't say you were tied to gaming, nor did intend to imply it. The rest of that is a difference in value. Aesthetically I'm only interested when it feels genuinely well thought out, and especially more interested in those decisions when they compliment gameplay.

Beyond that as I said earlier we're on a similar page when it comes to Nintendo and really games in general: I want new experiences and fresher ideas, and in that simple context Sony is more willing to fund things.

@MonsieurX said:

@no-scope-AK47 said:

Looking at the poll Kidtendo should be crushing Sony (LOLZ} guess in the real world people know bullshit when they see it. IMO Kidtendo gets a pass on their mistakes gen after gen. Sony fucked up 1 gen but recovered now it's whipping Kidtendo like a run away slave (same shit different platform).

A console does not live by exclusives alone Kidtendo (derp). How many times is Sony going to destroy them before the tards at Kidtendo get that though their thick fucking skulls???

Really ps1/2 ass rape no lube. Then ps3 Sony cocky fucks themselves but they recover and make the best console IMO of all time. Now ps4 is here and Kidtendo just break out the knee pads and spread it cause you got no chance in hell.

Moral is the only time Sony ever lost is when they beat themselves.

Thread is about exclusives,derp

Yeah cause exclusives are all that matters right ??

The premise here is that exclusives are what determines the success of a console. Nintendo has a shit ton of exclusives and is losing the console race badly. One could argue that kidtendo's exclusives while many in number lack mass appeal but that is not acceptable to sheep either. However you slice it you can NOT exclude 3rd parties or match the output and diversity of of said 3rd parties. Kidtendo has made consoles where there is little reason to buy them besides (drum roll) to play mario (or insert your favorite game here).

From jump Kidtendo makes a SECONDARY console. Think about that. Unless you have another console the kidtendo experience is one of frustration for most gamers. You use the kidtendo a couple times per year to play insert exclusive and the vast majority of the time your kidtendo is a dust bunny.

Yep....

What's wrong did Mommy not love you enough or do you have a severe case of gerontophobia ???

I don't find it to be a fair comparison because you have to take player agency into account. This is why I think they need to be viewed in and of themselves.

You can view a movie's narrative and judge it solely on that merit as that's all a film ultimately entails. It's passive and has no rules or expectations to abide by other than its own. Not so with games. If you view and treat games simply on the criteria of what constitutes a good film, you are neglecting to account for the implementation of mechanics, the competency of their execution and incorporation when placed into the context of the overallnarrative, and the compromises player agency oftentimes inflicts upon the overall experience. These are all issues that you don't have to deal with in cinema. Player intrusion fundamentally changes things. In that, I'd argue games need to be afforded their own set of qualifiers and a different set of standards and feel that their stories should be granted a bit more leeway in how they're dealt with than what would be considered as unacceptable elsewhere, such as films that strictly dictate what they have to say to the audience.

That's not to say just because games are interactive they are suddenly absolved of all responsibility to decent writing and the way a story is presented and told. Good writing is good writing as is storytelling as is gameplay, and games need to live by the expectation of competent execution in combining all of those well if they decide to walk that path. While I agree games shouldn't be viewed in a vacuum in criticism to areas, techniques, and formulas proven to be successful in other mediums, they also shouldn't be viewed exempt of their unique peculiarities exclusive to their own. Even though a game tells a story doesn't mean it still doesn't hold varying degrees particular to its form; as such those elements are part of the equation to be accounted for. Games and movies are not equal in terms of their creation or intention. This is why judging 'writing+incorporating player agency' vs. 'writing on its own' seems to strike me as a tad unfair.

Games that tell stories hold a hefty burden that movies don't, because at the core they fundamentally stand in direct contrast to one another in their objectives: telling vs. doing. Very few games that I've played have hit the proper balance between narrative and gameplay, but it is possible. Hopefully we will continue to see improvement as this industry is in relative infancy. When it comes down to it though, it's really just a matter of how far you're willing to let the rules you know for one thing stretch in accommodation in favor of another. I don't have much of a problem doing so, but it seems many apparently do.

@no-scope-AK47:

1. Not what the thread is about. So, if anything, it sounds like Nintendo winning this poll just struck a nerve with you.

2. Again, with the "Nintendo gets a free pass" BS when it's comments like yours and their flogging sales prove that ISN'T the case.

I understand that poll has no basis in fact sir.

I'd play both. Nintendo would probably have the higher rated exclusives over the Sony ones however. Can't wait for Zelda, Star Fox and Splatoon. May have to use my tax refund and get a Wii U.

No, really? Polls have nothing to do with fact? What a shock. :roll:

Yep, it definitely struck a nerve with you. Although your showing that only your opinion should be taken as a fact.

Now your just being facetious.

I'm completely burned out on Nintendo games and believe they need to diversify. However, there really aren't that many great Sony exclusives. As of right now, ND is the only great thing going for them, but are completely overrated imo. Uncharted is the most overrated franchise known to man. TLOU had a fantastic story, but the game play has been done to death. Nintendo clearly wins.

Can't see myself missing out on Nintendo games... even with 3rd party included... even if they are the same franchises over and over.

Thing is, even through all that, Nintendo games offer me the best gaming experiences. Yeah New Super Mario series and Mario Party are rehashed but games like Galaxy make up for it. Where else can I get an experience like Smash series? Metroid? And with Zelda, the games follow the same pattern but the experience on each game feel unique and that's why I never get tired of them. That being said, more new IP's would be great but it seems that their top IP's are taking most of the budget and don't leave must for else.

I respect Sony for trying new IP's more but most of their attempts didn't catch my attention. I think last gen only Uncharted, inFamous and The (no where to be seen) Last Guardian :'( did. Killzone and HS were ok and LBP a big desapointment. I enjoyed Pupperteer but can't force myself to finish it. :/ I kinda miss Sony PS2 era. The exclusives were better then imo. I played many HD releases on my PS3... too many, even.

Neither, and I'm not sure why you feel the need to personally attack me over this

1. SONY broke
2. Nintendo isn't niche (just cuz xyz doing bad doesn't mean niche)
3. Now you just farting
4. Yesh Nintendos marketing sucks they advertised SONY's products on there webpage lol

If I had to pick one it'd be Nintendo exclusives with out a doubt.

Sony exclusives I tend to play though them once and thats it, with Nintendo games I tend to get more bang for the money with multiple playthoughs and lasting appeal with games like smash bros.

@no-scope-AK47 said:

@MonsieurX said:

@no-scope-AK47 said:

Looking at the poll Kidtendo should be crushing Sony (LOLZ} guess in the real world people know bullshit when they see it. IMO Kidtendo gets a pass on their mistakes gen after gen. Sony fucked up 1 gen but recovered now it's whipping Kidtendo like a run away slave (same shit different platform).

A console does not live by exclusives alone Kidtendo (derp). How many times is Sony going to destroy them before the tards at Kidtendo get that though their thick fucking skulls???

Really ps1/2 ass rape no lube. Then ps3 Sony cocky fucks themselves but they recover and make the best console IMO of all time. Now ps4 is here and Kidtendo just break out the knee pads and spread it cause you got no chance in hell.

Moral is the only time Sony ever lost is when they beat themselves.

Thread is about exclusives,derp

Yeah cause exclusives are all that matters right ??

The premise here is that exclusives are what determines the success of a console. Nintendo has a shit ton of exclusives and is losing the console race badly. One could argue that kidtendo's exclusives while many in number lack mass appeal but that is not acceptable to sheep either. However you slice it you can NOT exclude 3rd parties or match the output and diversity of of said 3rd parties. Kidtendo has made consoles where there is little reason to buy them besides (drum roll) to play mario (or insert your favorite game here).

From jump Kidtendo makes a SECONDARY console. Think about that. Unless you have another console the kidtendo experience is one of frustration for most gamers. You use the kidtendo a couple times per year to play insert exclusive and the vast majority of the time your kidtendo is a dust bunny.

Because that's what the thread is about

For 1st party I'd say Nintendo by a landslide.

3rd parties included? Probably Sony. We aren't seeing it just yet this gen, but history has shown some great 3rd party exclusives on Sony consoles.

Good stories in sony games? Sure its good if you are a kid or teen and dont know any better. George Lucas would be ashamed to put that kind of story out.

Most people with home training respect their elders but for some reason you seem opposed to that idea.