no, read the whole threadSo you're saying that all Sony first party games suck, Ninja Vox?
Storm_Marine
This topic is locked from further discussion.
How is your fabricated measurement of post-release "buzz" an indicator of substance, anyway? I don't see the correlation.
I read your last post and decided there was no point in getting into this.How is your fabricated measurement of post-release "buzz" an indicator of substance, anyway? I don't see the correlation.
OldSkoolGamer04
[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]Yes, that is what i'm saying. That is exactly what i said. All Sony first party games suck. :| *applies palm to face*So you're saying that all Sony first party games suck, Ninja Vox?
Ninja-Hippo
It seems to me that that's what you're implying. ;)
Yes, that is what i'm saying. That is exactly what i said. All Sony first party games suck. :| *applies palm to face*[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]
So you're saying that all Sony first party games suck, Ninja Vox?
Storm_Marine
That seems to me that that's what you're implying. I'm sure Jandurin and Grinning Demon would agree if they were here.
I'm not familiar with Grinning Demon but Jandurin certainly wouldn't thanks to his odd habit of reading the things he comments on.[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]no, read the whole threadSo you're saying that all Sony first party games suck, Ninja Vox?
Giancar
You don't get the joke.
:lol: My bad. I forgot about that. Classic stuff. Apologies man. :PYou don't get the joke.
Storm_Marine
[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]:lol: My bad. I forgot about that. Classic stuff. Apologies man. :PYou don't get the joke.
Ninja-Hippo
There we go.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Couth_"]
If your not talking about that, then you have no way of guaging the lasting appeal of a game. On my friends list, the most platinumed game I have seen is Uncharted. Which would require multiple playthroughs.. Resistance Killzone and LBP have really big communities. The first Resistance community was strong all the way until the second came out.. So I don't know what you mean..
And I don't see how any other first party has any more 'substance', explain that to me
Giancar
Once again, if you actually READ the post there are plenty of ways to gauge the interest in a game. Online community, discussion/conversation, fanbase, DLC and patches, talk about the prospect of sequels. It's a general awareness of how 'big' a certain game is with the gaming community. And people can disagree, sure, and argue that they feel x game actually has quite a following behind it. I just dont think a lot of Sony's first party games do. MGS4, for example. Epic following. People adore that game. Months after release and people are still hyped about it. Halo 3. Same deal. People were in a frenzy trying to get mythic map packs. Half Life 2. Again, discusses daily, has a massive online following and a dedicated fanbase. What about Too Human? Um, not really. It came, it went away. Heavenly sword? Forgotten about. Little Big Planet? Great at the time, but not for long. Killzone? There was more interest for it BEFORE it came out than there was when it was released.
LBP has a very big fanbase, you can look by the new levels posted everyday! it has a lot of patches, weekly dlc, it is discussed a lot in videogame forums, the online community s awesome you are wrong with the LBP example I haven't seen it mentioned much recently. In addition, I'd hazard a guess that if you tracked statistics of play time, the total amount of time spent on the game, as well as the length of the time blocks spent playing it, has decreased astronomically. Recently, I had a few friends of mine at college do a study on PS3 usage on their friends lists, just like the one I had them do back in November (I'm a bit OCD so I do things like that), and one of the things I found particularly interesting was the immense decline in LBP usage. Amongst the people on their friends lists, average play time per person has decreased to only about 15% of what it used to be. NOTE: due to the small sample sizes, these statistics may not be entirely accurate, and because they were not corrected for other factors (such as possible overall decreases in gaming time), it is quite possible that your results may vary.If you mean it also lacked long-term appreciated and following i'd agree. I did so earlier as well.*still staring at Geow2* :P
joopyme
[QUOTE="joopyme"]If you mean it also lacked long-term appreciated and following i'd agree. I did so earlier as well.*still staring at Geow2* :P
Ninja-Hippo
glad to have caught your attention :P
still, the original post of yours was a little too opinionated ....
well worth the discussion though some people here in SW would quickly, heavily, disagree... in more ways than one :P
[QUOTE="tok1879"]. ...mmm, is Halo 3 really discussed more on SW than KZ2 these days? Because from what I see, it's quite the opposite. Again, just rhetoric talking around a point. Dont jump on it and make this into 'which game gets the most threads per day'. That wasn't my point. Okay, i guess, you can consider me confused now. I'ld think the one being discussed more would have the more threads than the other? Is my reasoning wrong?[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]
It seems to me that Sony's games just dont hold any interest in either System wars or the gaming community as a whole. If we take Killzone 2, easily the biggest blockbuster to hit the PS3 this year, and it's all but dead in just a couple of months. Halo 3 tops the Live charts week after week and is still discussed here pretty much daily, yet Killzone 2 appears to have had it's brief flash in the pan and then faded away in no time at all. I think this is because the game's graphics were its selling point. Once you'd seen it in action, admired the pretty effects and grown accustomed to them, there just isn't that much else to get you excited about the game.
Same with games like Ratchet and Clank and Uncharted. Decent enough gameplay, but real emphasis on the visuals. I think this approach adds up to generally dull games in the long-term. Take a movie like Wanted. Visually striking, and pretty fun while you're watching it, but once you're done it's completely forgettable. You dont want to go see it again. You dont want to go talk about it.
Take Little Big Planet - remember how that game was going to rule the world? What happened? It fizzled out in a matter of weeks.
I think Sony are trying to hard to convince gamers that their system is the 'premium' piece of tech by investing so much in graphics and effects, often at the behest of truly outstanding gameplay. So long as it looks fantastic, and plays competently enough, they seem happy to release the game, and people want something more than that.
EDIT:
I'm not saying Sony game suck by any means, nor is this a simple matter of total threads on system wars per day.
Ninja-Hippo
That's what discussion forums are for. The honest discussion of opinions and points of view, not senseless bickering over who gets owned today.still, the original post of yours was a little too opinionated ....
joopyme
[QUOTE="Giancar"] this posts sums pretty good your question besides you state that game like Uncharted have "decent enough" gameplay aspects, when I find the gameplay of it pretty awesome, same as KZ2 Sony have focused in both aspects, gameplay and graphics, which it is just great So I couldn't disagree more with the TC thread...Ninja-HippoI disagree. Picking out one line from a paragraph, never mind a whole post, which goes on to say much more is just silly.
Then I guess the only thing left to say is that nobody here knows what you are talking about...including yourself. You say it isn't about the quality of the games, but the title says otherwise. You say this isn't about support for games, but as pointed out, your post says otherwise. You claim it is about people on SW talking, but your post doesn't hint at that, and if that is all you are basing your opinion on, then you are starting with a shaky foudnation anyway.
[QUOTE="joopyme"]still, the original post of yours was a little too opinionated .... Ninja-HippoThat's what discussion forums are for. The honest discussion of opinions and points of view, not senseless bickering over who gets owned today. Indeed. "Opinionated" simply means "has an opinion". Since opinions aren't inherently bad, why is being opinionated inherently bad? Hint under spoiler tag: [spoiler] It isn't.[/SPOILER/
My friend, you completely missed the point, and i'm not explaining it again. Plenty of people posted who knew exactly what i was talking about and i've found their comments very interesting. I'm not going to accept any notion that i am somehow at fault just because the majority of posts didn't bother to give what i said any reasonable consideration before hitting reply.Then I guess the only thing left to say is that nobody here knows what you are talking about...including yourself. You say it isn't about the quality of the games, but the title says otherwise. You say this isn't about support for games, but as pointed out, your post says otherwise. You claim it is about people on SW talking, but your post doesn't hint at that, and if that is all you are basing your opinion on, then you are starting with a shaky foudnation anyway.
ZIMdoom
CLIFF NOTES because i'm tired of people posting aggressively toward me having not bothered to even read the post:
Sony's first party games almost always feature state-of-the-art technology powering them, but the gameplay seems to have a lower benchmark. Not to say that any of Sony's games are bad - far from it - however i feel the emphasis on making their games a showcase for the PS3's graphical capability is selling them short in terms of really innovative, outstanding gameplay and design. Instead, they release consistant and 'solid' games which garner good reviews and are generally enjoyed by those who play them, but which quickly die down in terms of general enthusiasm and interest in the game, much like a summer action-flick at the movies which, while fun to watch, leaves no lasting impression on the viewer.
ORIGINAL POST:
It seems to me that Sony's games just dont hold any interest in either System wars or the gaming community as a whole. If we take Killzone 2, easily the biggest blockbuster to hit the PS3 this year, and it's all but dead in just a couple of months. Halo 3 tops the Live charts week after week and is still discussed here pretty much daily, yet Killzone 2 appears to have had it's brief flash in the pan and then faded away in no time at all. I think this is because the game's graphics were its selling point. Once you'd seen it in action, admired the pretty effects and grown accustomed to them, there just isn't that much else to get you excited about the game.
Same with games like Ratchet and Clank and Uncharted. Decent enough gameplay, but real emphasis on the visuals. I think this approach adds up to generally dull games in the long-term. Take a movie like Wanted. Visually striking, and pretty fun while you're watching it, but once you're done it's completely forgettable. You dont want to go see it again. You dont want to go talk about it.
Take Little Big Planet - remember how that game was going to rule the world? What happened? It fizzled out in a matter of weeks.
I think Sony are trying to hard to convince gamers that their system is the 'premium' piece of tech by investing so much in graphics and effects, often at the behest of truly outstanding gameplay. So long as it looks fantastic, and plays competently enough, they seem happy to release the game, and people want something more than that.
EDIT:
I'm not saying Sony game suck by any means, nor is this a simple matter of total threads on system wars per day.
Ninja-Hippo
That's just the way entertainment works. You get a bunch of games that do things right, but only a few will be remembered as classics. Nintendo has Mario, Zelda, and Metroid, Microsoft Halo and Gears of War, Sony God of War and Gran Turismo.
By that same logic, most studios are guilty of not having enough substance. Look at the first Fable. It was good, but it fell short of the hype it generated. Zelda games have been repeating the same formula for YEARS. Same with Metroid. In fact, Metroid's pretty much Zelda, but in a different setting. You don't have good items in the beginning, you get them, they allow you to go to other places where you find more important items. What I'm getting at is that it doesn't apply to just Sony. If you run down the list of IP of Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo, you'll see a ton of games that are easily forgotten. Here's to name a few:
Microsoft: Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey
Sony: Killzone, Lair, Haze
Nintendo: Zelda (Ever since they've been compared to OoT. Which is to say... all of them after that), Mario Sunshine
They don't need to reinvent an entire genre. They just need to do things well. I mean, look at Halo. It's an FPS. You take guns and you shoot people. Bungie did things right with an interesting plot and new guns. They just made it so it work well on a console. I'm not downplaying Halo's merit, but that's just how I see it.
I'm slightly annoyed by your LBP argument though. To me, it's a case of having TOO much substance. So much that people don't really know what do with it. I mean, if you had the creativity and patience for the level creator, the possibilities are endless. People just don't want to spend the time or can't come with revolutionary new levels.
I'm amazed that by looking at the time this thread is only about 2 hours and there's 18 pages on it. But to the topic, TC I think you need to play some sony games, or else I would think you're crazy. If its all flash no substance, I wouldn't be playing so much resistance 2 lately. And emphasis on visuals have always been around this generation, right before killzone 2 was released everyone was bragging about gears 2 being graphics king or whatever, so this goes both ways.
I disagree. Picking out one line from a paragraph, never mind a whole post, which goes on to say much more is just silly.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Giancar"] this posts sums pretty good your question besides you state that game like Uncharted have "decent enough" gameplay aspects, when I find the gameplay of it pretty awesome, same as KZ2 Sony have focused in both aspects, gameplay and graphics, which it is just great So I couldn't disagree more with the TC thread...ZIMdoom
Then I guess the only thing left to say is that nobody here knows what you are talking about...including yourself. You say it isn't about the quality of the games, but the title says otherwise. You say this isn't about support for games, but as pointed out, your post says otherwise. You claim it is about people on SW talking, but your post doesn't hint at that, and if that is all you are basing your opinion on, then you are starting with a shaky foudnation anyway.
You should remove that guy on the far right of your PSN ID. I forget his name and the game he was in (totally forgettable action flick game), but I bet you did too. You should get Snake and some MGS4 love in there. Check and see if they have any Halo ones with Master Chef.100% agree
When 360 does innovation in full 3D with Banjo 3, PS3 has the 2.5D LBP with the hop around gameplay
When 360 has huge open worlds to epxlore with huge AI, evolving world etc in Fable 2, Fallout 3 (complete version), Two worlds Temptation etcPS3 has some random startegy JRPG in Valkyria where you can only move from mission to mission and linear JRPGs
When 360 has a huge open adventure/action world in Kameo, PS3 has a 100% linear basher in Heavenly Sword
When 360 gets Halo 3, with real huge levles, AI, and vehicle use, PS3 gets another coriddor shooter in KZ2, R2, Uncharted
When 360 gets a huge open adventure world in Alan Wake, PS3 gets Heavy Rain, a movie game as developers themselves call it
etc etc etc
360 is a about big, innovative and epic, PS3 is about small, short and hyped stuff for fans
Thank you for agreeing, but cant say i really agree with anything you've said there. Apologies.100% agree
When 360 does innovation in full 3D with Banjo 3, PS3 has the 2.5D LBP with the hop around gameplay
When 360 has huge open worlds to epxlore with huge AI, evolving world etc in Fable 2, Fallout 3 (complete version), Two worlds Temptation etcPS3 has some random startegy JRPG in Valkyria where you can only move from mission to mission and linear JRPGs
When 360 has a huge open adventure/action world in Kameo, PS3 has a 100% linear basher in Heavenly Sword
When 360 gets Halo 3, with real huge levles, AI, and vehicle use, PS3 gets another coriddor shooter in KZ2, R2, Uncharted
When 360 gets a huge open adventure world in Alan Wake, PS3 gets Heavy Rain, a movie game as developers themselves call it
etc etc etc
360 is a about big, innovative and epic, PS3 is about small, short and hyped stuff for fans
obamanian
100% agree
When 360 does innovation in full 3D with Banjo 3, PS3 has the 2.5D LBP with the hop around gameplay
When 360 has huge open worlds to epxlore with huge AI, evolving world etc in Fable 2, Fallout 3 (complete version), Two worlds Temptation etcPS3 has some random startegy JRPG in Valkyria where you can only move from mission to mission and linear JRPGs
When 360 has a huge open adventure/action world in Kameo, PS3 has a 100% linear basher in Heavenly Sword
When 360 gets Halo 3, with real huge levles, AI, and vehicle use, PS3 gets another coriddor shooter in KZ2, R2, Uncharted
When 360 gets a huge open adventure world in Alan Wake, PS3 gets Heavy Rain, a movie game as developers themselves call it
etc etc etc
360 is a about big, innovative and epic, PS3 is about small, short and hyped stuff for fans
obamanian
Aren't you the one that does all the graphics comparison only by screenshots and not playing the games?
Your credibility went out the window when you said Resistance 2 and Uncharted are corrider shooters.100% agree
When 360 does innovation in full 3D with Banjo 3, PS3 has the 2.5D LBP with the hop around gameplay
When 360 has huge open worlds to epxlore with huge AI, evolving world etc in Fable 2, Fallout 3 (complete version), Two worlds Temptation etcPS3 has some random startegy JRPG in Valkyria where you can only move from mission to mission and linear JRPGs
When 360 has a huge open adventure/action world in Kameo, PS3 has a 100% linear basher in Heavenly Sword
When 360 gets Halo 3, with real huge levles, AI, and vehicle use, PS3 gets another coriddor shooter in KZ2, R2, Uncharted
When 360 gets a huge open adventure world in Alan Wake, PS3 gets Heavy Rain, a movie game as developers themselves call it
etc etc etc
360 is a about big, innovative and epic, PS3 is about small, short and hyped stuff for fans
obamanian
The OP doesn't state "no substance". It states "less emphasis on substance than flash". Titles are often used in that way simply to draw readers in.I think saying "no substance" would just be going too far.
Mordred19
[QUOTE="obamanian"]Thank you for agreeing, but cant say i really agree with anything you've said there. Apologies. Niice, i respect this move. I was just about to ask you if you noticed any similarities in most of the people who agree with you.100% agree
When 360 does innovation in full 3D with Banjo 3, PS3 has the 2.5D LBP with the hop around gameplay
When 360 has huge open worlds to epxlore with huge AI, evolving world etc in Fable 2, Fallout 3 (complete version), Two worlds Temptation etcPS3 has some random startegy JRPG in Valkyria where you can only move from mission to mission and linear JRPGs
When 360 has a huge open adventure/action world in Kameo, PS3 has a 100% linear basher in Heavenly Sword
When 360 gets Halo 3, with real huge levles, AI, and vehicle use, PS3 gets another coriddor shooter in KZ2, R2, Uncharted
When 360 gets a huge open adventure world in Alan Wake, PS3 gets Heavy Rain, a movie game as developers themselves call it
etc etc etc
360 is a about big, innovative and epic, PS3 is about small, short and hyped stuff for fans
Ninja-Hippo
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the OP's rationalization of using some nebulous "buzz" indicator isvalid regarding a game's substance.
[QUOTE="Mordred19"]The OP doesn't state "no substance". It states "less emphasis on substance than flash". Titles are often used in that way simply to draw readers in.I think saying "no substance" would just be going too far.
thepwninator
It definetly drew me in, and I did read the cliff notes post in my half-awake state. Now, I do have to disagree that the games don't leave an impression.
LOL, speak for yourself, friend. I will take Sony's first party ANY DAY over Microsofts.ironcreedAnd I'd take my decade old PC games over either :P Just can't give up my Planescape and Deus Ex :P Long time no see, BTW.
I can tell you don't own a PS3 because you seem to know nothing about it. I hope you don't really believe what you just typed.CLIFF NOTES because i'm tired of people posting aggressively toward me having not bothered to even read the post:
Sony's first party games almost always feature state-of-the-art technology powering them, but the gameplay seems to have a lower benchmark. Not to say that any of Sony's games are bad - far from it - however i feel the emphasis on making their games a showcase for the PS3's graphical capability is selling them short in terms of really innovative, outstanding gameplay and design. Instead, they release consistant and 'solid' games which garner good reviews and are generally enjoyed by those who play them, but which quickly die down in terms of general enthusiasm and interest in the game, much like a summer action-flick at the movies which, while fun to watch, leaves no lasting impression on the viewer.
ORIGINAL POST:
It seems to me that Sony's games just dont hold any interest in either System wars or the gaming community as a whole. If we take Killzone 2, easily the biggest blockbuster to hit the PS3 this year, and it's all but dead in just a couple of months. Halo 3 tops the Live charts week after week and is still discussed here pretty much daily, yet Killzone 2 appears to have had it's brief flash in the pan and then faded away in no time at all. I think this is because the game's graphics were its selling point. Once you'd seen it in action, admired the pretty effects and grown accustomed to them, there just isn't that much else to get you excited about the game.
Same with games like Ratchet and Clank and Uncharted. Decent enough gameplay, but real emphasis on the visuals. I think this approach adds up to generally dull games in the long-term. Take a movie like Wanted. Visually striking, and pretty fun while you're watching it, but once you're done it's completely forgettable. You dont want to go see it again. You dont want to go talk about it.
Take Little Big Planet - remember how that game was going to rule the world? What happened? It fizzled out in a matter of weeks.
I think Sony are trying to hard to convince gamers that their system is the 'premium' piece of tech by investing so much in graphics and effects, often at the behest of truly outstanding gameplay. So long as it looks fantastic, and plays competently enough, they seem happy to release the game, and people want something more than that.
EDIT:
I'm not saying Sony game suck by any means, nor is this a simple matter of total threads on system wars per day.
Ninja-Hippo
[QUOTE="obamanian"]
100% agree
When 360 does innovation in full 3D with Banjo 3, PS3 has the 2.5D LBP with the hop around gameplay
When 360 has huge open worlds to epxlore with huge AI, evolving world etc in Fable 2, Fallout 3 (complete version), Two worlds Temptation etcPS3 has some random startegy JRPG in Valkyria where you can only move from mission to mission and linear JRPGs
When 360 has a huge open adventure/action world in Kameo, PS3 has a 100% linear basher in Heavenly Sword
When 360 gets Halo 3, with real huge levles, AI, and vehicle use, PS3 gets another coriddor shooter in KZ2, R2, Uncharted
When 360 gets a huge open adventure world in Alan Wake, PS3 gets Heavy Rain, a movie game as developers themselves call it
etc etc etc
360 is a about big, innovative and epic, PS3 is about small, short and hyped stuff for fans
PSdual_wielder
Aren't you the one that does all the graphics comparison only by screenshots and not playing the games?
Yup thats him and he also claims Fable 2 to be better looking than Killzone 2 and MGS4.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment