NON biased theory on why a lot of PS3 games flop

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

either that or thier just not very good games...BigGimp77

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

curono

very few PS3 games have "flopped", so that destroys your whole theory.

I like how people single out the PS3, just because of the few flops it has had. The only ones I can really think of are Motorstorm, and Lair. Resistance was a flop too, but *shrug*.

Anyway... People are acting like EVERY game EVER MADE for the PS3 flopped... The 360 has more flops than the PS3. its just cows were hyping the ones that flopped.

Either way... Stop this bull. It's not that bad.

[QUOTE="curono"]

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

Koalakommander

very few PS3 games have "flopped", so that destroys your whole theory.

What hyped PS3 games hasn't flopped.

Lair floped , What else?

[QUOTE="Koalakommander"][QUOTE="curono"]

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

shadowrun69

very few PS3 games have "flopped", so that destroys your whole theory.

What hyped PS3 game hasn't flopped.

Warhawk.

[QUOTE="shadowrun69"][QUOTE="Koalakommander"][QUOTE="curono"]

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

Wil4hire

very few PS3 games have "flopped", so that destroys your whole theory.

What hyped PS3 game hasn't flopped.

Warhawk.

And?

[QUOTE="Wil4hire"][QUOTE="shadowrun69"][QUOTE="Koalakommander"][QUOTE="curono"]

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

shadowrun69

very few PS3 games have "flopped", so that destroys your whole theory.

What hyped PS3 game hasn't flopped.

Warhawk.

And?

Ninja Gaiden.

[QUOTE="curono"]

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

Koalakommander

very few PS3 games have "flopped", so that destroys your whole theory.

I don´t want to get agressive, but Resistance was a letdown, Lair flopped, Gengi was a letdown, Ratchet and Clank got bad, Motorstorm got a 7.9. Those are just on top of my mind, and to even support my theory, there is warhawk, which isn´t graphically impressive AT ALL, but it has great gameplay. See?? More time on gameplay=not so good graphs, yet, better game.

[QUOTE="shadowrun69"]

And?

Wil4hire

Ninja Gaiden.

Keep going, two games really isn't impressive.

now, explain why outstanding games like Zelda and Metroid get 8.8 and 8.5 on Wii, and then games like Wario Ware and Mercury Meltdown get 9.1 and 8.5.

I dont get it! :cry:

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

curono

1) The console itself is too expensive

2) The games aren't worth the money.

PS3 exclusives flop because they worry about presentation so much and TEH POWER OF THE PS3, they forget they are making a game and not a cinematic animated movie.usmcjdk6

[QUOTE="curono"]

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

Why_Me-

1) The console itself is too expensive

2) The games aren't worth the money.

[QUOTE="Wil4hire"][QUOTE="shadowrun69"]

And?

shadowrun69

Ninja Gaiden.

Keep going, two games really isn't impressive.

I am not here to impress you. You asked what is a title that didn't flop. I responded. Perhaps you can to your own research.

now, explain why outstanding games like Zelda and Metroid get 8.8 and 8.5 on Wii, and then games like Wario Ware and Mercury Meltdown get 9.1 and 8.5.

I dont get it! :cry:

kansasdude2009

[QUOTE="shadowrun69"][QUOTE="Wil4hire"][QUOTE="shadowrun69"]

And?

Wil4hire

Ninja Gaiden.

Keep going, two games really isn't impressive.

I am not here to impress you. You asked what is a title that didn't flop. I responded. Perhaps you can to your own research.

Resistance, Genji, MotorStorm, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Lair.

Face it, people are just buying these games to compliment their home theatres and they could care less about the actual quality of the game.

now, explain why outstanding games like Zelda and Metroid get 8.8 and 8.5 on Wii, and then games like Wario Ware and Mercury Meltdown get 9.1 and 8.5.

I dont get it! :cry:

kansasdude2009

Nobody Does ...

[QUOTE="curono"]

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

Koalakommander

very few PS3 games have "flopped", so that destroys your whole theory.

[QUOTE="curono"]

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

Koalakommander

very few PS3 games have "flopped", so that destroys your whole theory.

Not flop, but since you spent more money on it, you should expect better games for it. So when multiplats score lower or the same as the 360, it's dissapointing b/c you should be getting a better experience since you paid more.

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

curono

no, that's not it. didn't you know? all third party developers are in a giant conspiracy together against sony after they announced the 600$ price tag of the ps3.

[QUOTE="Koalakommander"][QUOTE="curono"]

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

ManningBowl135

very few PS3 games have "flopped", so that destroys your whole theory.

Not flop, but since you spent more money on it, you should expect better games for it. So when multiplats score lower or the same as the 360, it's dissapointing b/c you should be getting a better experience since you paid more.

that doesn't make sense.

hey man... i didn't play 500 just for ps3 games, which i will be getting great ones any way. the 2008 lineup just blows away the 360's 2008 lineup. it was for for blu-rays and ps2 games also... which the ps3 is a great value if you play ps3 games ps2 games and watch blu ray movies a lot.

[QUOTE="Koalakommander"][QUOTE="curono"]

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

curono

very few PS3 games have "flopped", so that destroys your whole theory.

I don´t want to get agressive, but Resistance was a letdown, Lair flopped, Gengi was a letdown, Ratchet and Clank got bad, Motorstorm got a 7.9. Those are just on top of my mind, and to even support my theory, there is warhawk, which isn´t graphically impressive AT ALL, but it has great gameplay. See?? More time on gameplay=not so good graphs, yet, better game.

K, no one expected Genji to be good, it was a mediocre launch title, that drew people in by the bloom and shiny effects.

Lair flopped because the devs were idiots. If were talking strictly GS SW rules, than yes, Motorstorm flopped. I have no idea why it was hyped in the first place, but by my standards, it's just your fun race and crash game, not really a flop, just nothing special. Resistance got good scores, and I played it. I thought it was awful, and the graphics were worse than Call of Duty 1 for the PC, but i guess people enjoyed it. So not really a flop, and since its graphics were terrible, it has nothing to do with your theory. Plus - it was a launch title.

Ratchet and Clank hasn't been released yet, and it looks liek it will be more enjoyable than the previous ones, plus it looks visually amazing. Warhawk didn't flop, it looks good. NGS didn't flop, it looks good. The problem isn't flopping with the PS3, it's just we can count all of it's worthy games on one hand. We have to wait for games to come out, instead of claiming that all of its games have flopped, out of the total like, six games the system has.

[QUOTE="ManningBowl135"] [QUOTE="Koalakommander"][QUOTE="curono"]

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

mistervengeance

very few PS3 games have "flopped", so that destroys your whole theory.

Not flop, but since you spent more money on it, you should expect better games for it. So when multiplats score lower or the same as the 360, it's dissapointing b/c you should be getting a better experience since you paid more.

that doesn't make sense.

So I should expect the same picture from my $100 1996 Sony Triton and my $1100 Toshiba 41" HD plasma? When people spend more money on something, they usually expect more quality. BTW, I'm in a gaming forum talking about a next gen gaming system. Next gen games are my primary concern with the PS3, not PS2 games or blu-ray.

[QUOTE="mistervengeance"] [QUOTE="ManningBowl135"] [QUOTE="Koalakommander"][QUOTE="curono"]

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

manningbowl135

very few PS3 games have "flopped", so that destroys your whole theory.

Not flop, but since you spent more money on it, you should expect better games for it. So when multiplats score lower or the same as the 360, it's dissapointing b/c you should be getting a better experience since you paid more.

that doesn't make sense.

So I should expect the same picture from my $100 1996 Sony Triton and my $1100 Toshiba 41" HD plasma? When people spend more money on something, they usually expect more quality. BTW, I'm in a gaming forum talking about a next gen gaming system. Next gen games are my primary concern with the PS3, not PS2 games or blu-ray.

You get a Blu-Ray player for just that extra $200, not to mention 80gigs and motorstorm. Sure the system has no games, but that is a pretty sweet deal.

[QUOTE="Wil4hire"][QUOTE="shadowrun69"][QUOTE="Wil4hire"][QUOTE="shadowrun69"]

And?

shadowrun69

Ninja Gaiden.

Keep going, two games really isn't impressive.

I am not here to impress you. You asked what is a title that didn't flop. I responded. Perhaps you can to your own research.

Resistance, Genji, MotorStorm, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Lair.

Face it, people are just buying these games to compliment their home theatres and they could care less about the actual quality of the game.

The only game out of all of those that is terrible is Lair. The rest are great games. Clearly you are 360 biased here. But maybe you have some common sense. You sound completely envious here with your "Compliment their home theaters." comment. I have my Bluray player and uncompressed audio to support my custom NHT home theater, not a game. I seriously doubt you have played any of the games or demos.

While Resistance,Motorstorm,Folklore,HS bring nothing new to the world of games, Lair attempted. I am going to return Lair today because it is a terrible game. The story is amazingly bad, the voice acting is just as bad, and the game has a choppy framerate. The exact same is said for games that I own on my 360. Gears is a basic shooter, as Forza/PGR is a basic driving game. Two worlds has terrible reviews, but I still like it. since its a 7 I guess that means its fine. Let a PS3 Game get a 7 and you will rejoice in its mediocrity. The only new games I see in this world are games on the Wii, and Little BIg World for the ps3. These are games that I think all gamers look forward to, something NEW for once.

Im waiting just as inpatiently as everyone else for halo3. However I'm not from the camp that it has the best Graphics EVAR#%?! or that its some how new and innovative. When its not. GOLDENEYE showed the world how an FPS should be on a console. NOT Halo.

For some reason the basic PS3 titles are held to harsher criticisms and standards than other titles. No one is developing a new genre of games. Hell we already have 2000000000 FPS's to prove this. My titles on my 360 while fun, are still the same games I was playing 4 years ago, just with enhanced graphics. SAME is said for my ps3. Every Gamer I know cares about the quality of their games. Thats why people on the ps3 forums are bashing the hell out of Lair.

When the 360 has a terrible port, no one says peep. Tigerwoods 08 is a great example of this. The contrast between the 360 version and the PS3 version is very apparent. Since its golf though, I can understand no one caring that much.

I'm looking forward to all of the games that I bought the system for. MGS/Gran Turismo/Killzone/Little Big World and some others. The Demos of said games are already proving that the PS3 is capable of bringing superior graphics to the console market. I know from sonys track record that they will be perfectly fine.

[QUOTE="shadowrun69"][QUOTE="Wil4hire"][QUOTE="shadowrun69"][QUOTE="Wil4hire"][QUOTE="shadowrun69"]

And?

Wil4hire

Ninja Gaiden.

Keep going, two games really isn't impressive.

I am not here to impress you. You asked what is a title that didn't flop. I responded. Perhaps you can to your own research.

Resistance, Genji, MotorStorm, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Lair.

Face it, people are just buying these games to compliment their home theatres and they could care less about the actual quality of the game.

The only game out of all of those that is terrible is Lair. The rest are great games. Clearly you are 360 biased here. But maybe you have some common sense. You sound completely envious here with your "Compliment their home theaters." comment. I have my Bluray player and uncompressed audio to support my custom NHT home theater, not a game. I seriously doubt you have played any of the games or demos.

While Resistance,Motorstorm,Folklore,HS bring nothing new to the world of games, Lair attempted. I am going to return Lair today because it is a terrible game. The story is amazingly bad, the voice acting is just as bad, and the game has a choppy framerate. The exact same is said for games that I own on my 360. Gears is a basic shooter, as Forza/PGR is a basic driving game. Two worlds has terrible reviews, but I still like it. since its a 7 I guess that means its fine. Let a PS3 Game get a 7 and you will rejoice in its mediocrity. The only new games I see in this world are games on the Wii, and Little BIg World for the ps3. These are games that I think all gamers look forward to, something NEW for once.

Im waiting just as inpatiently as everyone else for halo3. However I'm not from the camp that it has the best Graphics EVAR#%?! or that its some how new and innovative. When its not. GOLDENEYE showed the world how an FPS should be on a console. NOT Halo.

For some reason the basic PS3 titles are held to harsher criticisms and standards than other titles. No one is developing a new genre of games. Hell we already have 2000000000 FPS's to prove this. My titles on my 360 while fun, are still the same games I was playing 4 years ago, just with enhanced graphics. SAME is said for my ps3. Every Gamer I know cares about the quality of their games. Thats why people on the ps3 forums are bashing the hell out of Lair.

When the 360 has a terrible port, no one says peep. Tigerwoods 08 is a great example of this. The contrast between the 360 version and the PS3 version is very apparent. Since its golf though, I can understand no one caring that much.

I'm looking forward to all of the games that I bought the system for. MGS/Gran Turismo/Killzone/Little Big World and some others. The Demos of said games are already proving that the PS3 is capable of bringing superior graphics to the console market. I know from sonys track record that they will be perfectly fine.

Ok you're a little biased too sir.

Genji is not a great game.

Heavenly Sword is so far said to be "godly"......as arental.

Resistance got good scores, but I thought it was awful. Oh well, launch title right?

Lair was terrible, Motor Storm is your basic race and crash game. Folk Lore looks fresh though.

Ninja Gaiden Sigma is awsome, Warhawk I hear is a lot of fun.

Gears of War is a bit overrated, but it is not basic. Forza 2 is awsome, but there is not a doubt in my mind that GT5 will be revolutionary and far better. Halo 3 will fun as hell, even if it isn't the best looking game ever made.

Ratchet and Clank will be awsome, so will Uncharted, and UT3. Haze has a chance, and as for 2008, I am positive PS3 will have the most impressive library.

But as it stands, it is just not worth buying right now.

manningbowl135,All of the PS3's non ported titles are graphically superior to any console product that is available now.There is no difference in QUALITY of a Game port for reasons. A game is made to be ported over to systems. If you wanted your port of Madden 08 to be superior on the PS3, this would require a different engine as well as different player models and other effects. Why would EA make develop 1 unique game for the PC. 1 unique game for the 360, 1 for the wii. 1 for the PS3 etc. What does that say to Microsoftnintendosony? There are no financial reasons to do this outside of alienating one partner in the partnership. They are all sold to make sales equally.

its because sony says they are reviewing theyre games rite ¬_¬

http://ps3.joystiq.com/2007/09/07/sony-sends-out-lair-reviewers-guide-must-not-laugh/

There are two reasons why PS3 games "flop" or at the very least tend to score lower than 360 versions, the PS3 is hard to develop for, and Sony trusts big titles with unproven developers. I think we can all agree that the PS3 is much more complicated to develop for than the 360, which is what has lead the PS3 to have multiplats that are usually either of inferior qualtiy and/or released well after the 360 version. Now while this difference will be negligible for most games as developers become more and more comfortable developing for the PS3, chances are 9/10 times the 360 version will be better than the PS3 version because the 360 will most likely be the lead development platform. The difference may just be the odd glitch, pop-in, framerate issue etc. but because of Sony's downright crazy plan to seemingly make their consoles as hard to program for as possible (vs MS's plan to make the 360 as easy to developer for as possible) there will be very few PS3 multiplats that will be superior to the 360 version.

The reason why the PS3's exclusives are flopping left right and centre is because for whatever reason (I tend to throw thatphrase around alot more than I'm comfortable with when talking about Sony) Sony's major exclusives tend to be developed by some pretty questionable developers. Obviously we can look at the Killzone series, who's developer (Guerrilla) had developed exactly one game prior to Killzone. That game (Shellshocked: Nam 67 I believe) scored a 5.something, yet Sony decided to trust them with a major exclusive that was supposed to combat Halo. We can then look at Lair, developed by Factor 5. Now while Factor 5 has more experience than Geurrilla and has made some great games (Rogue Squadron 2, which scored a 9.4), but they also had some downright terrible games, and their collection of games averages a score in the 7's. Again we see where Sony's choice of developer kills the game, the poor level design and horrid controls were mistakes than a premier developer wouldn't make. Finally we come to Heavenly Sword, made by Ninja Theory AKA Just Add Monsters. This may in fact be the worst choice of developer by Sony, simply because of the fact JAM made only one game, Kung Fu Chaos for the Xbox. Now while KFC scored decently (I believe around a 6.8) we have to look at the publisher for some more insight. That publisher was Microsoft Game Studios. After KFC MS dropped JAM, yet for whatever reason Sony believed that a developer that wasn't up to the competitions standards was good enough to develop a premier title. And once again, the knocks against Heavenly Sword are of the same variety as those of Lair and Killzone, boring combat, poor level design, short gameplay etc, the kind of mistakes great developers just don't make.

Oh boy, system wars logic.

Only in System wars, a 8.5 or 7.5 game is a flop because it didn't live up to surreal expectations based on PR releases and pictures of CG animations.

Oh boy, system wars logic.

Only in System wars, a 8.5 or 7.5 game is a flop because it didn't live up to surreal expectations based on PR releases and pictures of CG animations.

lordxymor

[QUOTE="Wil4hire"][QUOTE="shadowrun69"][QUOTE="Wil4hire"][QUOTE="shadowrun69"]

And?

shadowrun69

Ninja Gaiden.

Keep going, two games really isn't impressive.

I am not here to impress you. You asked what is a title that didn't flop. I responded. Perhaps you can to your own research.

Resistance, Genji, MotorStorm, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Lair.

Face it, people are just buying these games to compliment their home theatres and they could care less about the actual quality of the game.

Folklore and Heavenly Sword haven't even come out yet, how have they already flopped?

Lair floped , What else?

AgentA-Mi6

resistance, motorstorm...

[QUOTE="curono"]

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

Koalakommander

very few PS3 games have "flopped", so that destroys your whole theory.

every exclusive game on ps3 flopped except warhawk

you fail

manningbowl135,All of the PS3's non ported titles are graphically superior to any console product that is available now.There is no difference in QUALITY of a Game port for reasons. A game is made to be ported over to systems. If you wanted your port of Madden 08 to be superior on the PS3, this would require a different engine as well as different player models and other effects. Why would EA make develop 1 unique game for the PC. 1 unique game for the 360, 1 for the wii. 1 for the PS3 etc. What does that say to Microsoftnintendosony? There are no financial reasons to do this outside of alienating one partner in the partnership. They are all sold to make sales equally.

Wil4hire

Um...most of the multiplats that came out so far have a lower rating on the PS3 than the 360. I'm not talking about unique games. PS3 should have the higher rated version of a multiplat, not the 360. When you pay more for a product, you expect it to produce better than it's competitors. So far, in terms of gaming, PS3 isn't doing that. And yes, there is difference in quality, that's why most gaming sites (GS not often) review them seperately, b/c the quality is often different. Check out Madden360 on Gamerankings and MaddenPS3 on gamerankings. Which one is rated higher? 360. Not by alot obviously, but it's still ahead. The more expensive product should not have the inferior version of a game. Right now the PS3 does.

very few PS3 games have "flopped", so that destroys your whole theory.

Koalakommander

Resistance Fall of Man

Motorstorm

Virtua Fighter 5

Calling All Cars

Lair

Stardust

F.E.A.R.

Call of Duty 3

[QUOTE="curono"]

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

mistervengeance

no, that's not it. didn't you know? all third party developers are in a giant conspiracy together against sony after they announced the 600$ price tag of the ps3.

That is silly, if that were true then 3rd parties would also loose money (bad business) when making bad games.

[QUOTE="Wil4hire"][QUOTE="shadowrun69"][QUOTE="Wil4hire"][QUOTE="shadowrun69"][QUOTE="Wil4hire"][QUOTE="shadowrun69"]

And?

Koalakommander

Ninja Gaiden.

Keep going, two games really isn't impressive.

I am not here to impress you. You asked what is a title that didn't flop. I responded. Perhaps you can to your own research.

Resistance, Genji, MotorStorm, Folklore, Heavenly Sword, Lair.

Face it, people are just buying these games to compliment their home theatres and they could care less about the actual quality of the game.

The only game out of all of those that is terrible is Lair. The rest are great games. Clearly you are 360 biased here. But maybe you have some common sense. You sound completely envious here with your "Compliment their home theaters." comment. I have my Bluray player and uncompressed audio to support my custom NHT home theater, not a game. I seriously doubt you have played any of the games or demos.

While Resistance,Motorstorm,Folklore,HS bring nothing new to the world of games, Lair attempted. I am going to return Lair today because it is a terrible game. The story is amazingly bad, the voice acting is just as bad, and the game has a choppy framerate. The exact same is said for games that I own on my 360. Gears is a basic shooter, as Forza/PGR is a basic driving game. Two worlds has terrible reviews, but I still like it. since its a 7 I guess that means its fine. Let a PS3 Game get a 7 and you will rejoice in its mediocrity. The only new games I see in this world are games on the Wii, and Little BIg World for the ps3. These are games that I think all gamers look forward to, something NEW for once.

Im waiting just as inpatiently as everyone else for halo3. However I'm not from the camp that it has the best Graphics EVAR#%?! or that its some how new and innovative. When its not. GOLDENEYE showed the world how an FPS should be on a console. NOT Halo.

For some reason the basic PS3 titles are held to harsher criticisms and standards than other titles. No one is developing a new genre of games. Hell we already have 2000000000 FPS's to prove this. My titles on my 360 while fun, are still the same games I was playing 4 years ago, just with enhanced graphics. SAME is said for my ps3. Every Gamer I know cares about the quality of their games. Thats why people on the ps3 forums are bashing the hell out of Lair.

When the 360 has a terrible port, no one says peep. Tigerwoods 08 is a great example of this. The contrast between the 360 version and the PS3 version is very apparent. Since its golf though, I can understand no one caring that much.

I'm looking forward to all of the games that I bought the system for. MGS/Gran Turismo/Killzone/Little Big World and some others. The Demos of said games are already proving that the PS3 is capable of bringing superior graphics to the console market. I know from sonys track record that they will be perfectly fine.

Ok you're a little biased too sir.

Genji is not a great game.

Heavenly Sword is so far said to be "godly"......as arental.

Resistance got good scores, but I thought it was awful. Oh well, launch title right?

Lair was terrible, Motor Storm is your basic race and crash game. Folk Lore looks fresh though.

Ninja Gaiden Sigma is awsome, Warhawk I hear is a lot of fun.

Gears of War is a bit overrated, but it is not basic. Forza 2 is awsome, but there is not a doubt in my mind that GT5 will be revolutionary and far better. Halo 3 will fun as hell, even if it isn't the best looking game ever made.

Ratchet and Clank will be awsome, so will Uncharted, and UT3. Haze has a chance, and as for 2008, I am positive PS3 will have the most impressive library.

But as it stands, it is just not worth buying right now.

Ninja Gaiden is a remake, so there is no great deal about development, and warhawk as I said, is not graphically impressive AT ALL

[QUOTE="Wil4hire"]

manningbowl135,All of the PS3's non ported titles are graphically superior to any console product that is available now.There is no difference in QUALITY of a Game port for reasons. A game is made to be ported over to systems. If you wanted your port of Madden 08 to be superior on the PS3, this would require a different engine as well as different player models and other effects. Why would EA make develop 1 unique game for the PC. 1 unique game for the 360, 1 for the wii. 1 for the PS3 etc. What does that say to Microsoftnintendosony? There are no financial reasons to do this outside of alienating one partner in the partnership. They are all sold to make sales equally.

manningbowl135

Um...most of the multiplats that came out so far have a lower rating on the PS3 than the 360. I'm not talking about unique games. PS3 should have the higher rated version of a multiplat, not the 360. When you pay more for a product, you expect it to produce better than it's competitors. So far, in terms of gaming, PS3 isn't doing that. And yes, there is difference in quality, that's why most gaming sites (GS not often) review them seperately, b/c the quality is often different. Check out Madden360 on Gamerankings and MaddenPS3 on gamerankings. Which one is rated higher? 360. Not by alot obviously, but it's still ahead. The more expensive product should not have the inferior version of a game. Right now the PS3 does.

Go cry to cheap dev houses rather than sony. They make these games for the 360 FIRST and then port them to the PS3. The system architectures are vastly different. I can guarantee that Madden is not using the cells SPU's at all. The whole PS3 architecture is built to run everything through the cell and if a dev isn't doing that what do you expect to happen. Also why do you expect this to happen right away. It took crappy EA 2 iterations of Madden to get to 60 FPS on the mighty 360. Why would a PORT get there in 2. Wake up.

[QUOTE="Koalakommander"]

very few PS3 games have "flopped", so that destroys your whole theory.

Mercenary343

Resistance Fall of Man

Motorstorm

Virtua Fighter 5

Calling All Cars

Lair

Stardust

F.E.A.R.

Call of Duty 3

When were half of those games hyped as AAA? Resistance/Motorstorm/Lair were well hyped. I don't recall anyone saying much about Stardust until after it came out. Big deal if it "flopped" here because everywhere else it got very good reviews. This community thinks too highly of itself. The reviews here are a joke. Using these reviews as proof of floppage is about the stupidest idea since greedo shooting first.

[QUOTE="Wil4hire"][QUOTE="shadowrun69"][QUOTE="Koalakommander"][QUOTE="curono"]

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

shadowrun69

very few PS3 games have "flopped", so that destroys your whole theory.

What hyped PS3 game hasn't flopped.

Warhawk.

And?