The reason the PS2 was great was third party support, NOT first party..........

The PS2 was a great system, no one can deny that. It was bustling with great games in every genre. Not just one but several great games. But what a lot of you are forgetting is that back then, the PS2 was landing EXCLUSIVE THIRD PARTY games.

That's all gone now. The only one it got and BARELY was MGS4. Everything else it lost to Microsoft. Even the next Megal Gear will be first day on 360. So where does that leave the PS3.

Well, it's defnitely not the powerhouse the PS2 was. Not even close. It's very weak by comparison. Sony first part is big and they do make some very good games but the magic by and large is happening with the third party developers. Sony is no Nintendo. Nintendo is actually a great, actually the best software company that happens to make hardware. Sony on the otherhand makes excellent hardware but they can't really carry a system by software alone.

Sort of reminds me of the Blu-ray vs HD DVD war. It was neck and neck until Warner went exclusive to Blu-ray then it was over one month after that. Similar situation exists right now, if EA or Activision went exclusive to Sony, that would signal the end of the 360. But that's not going to happen.

Sony picture studio support never mattered in the Blu-ray vs HD DVD war and Sony first party games division really doesn't matter in the console wars.

I guess i'm making this post due to too many guys overhyping Sony exclusive games. The best one by far is still a third party game, MGS4. Uncharted 2 is good but it won't carry a console. Where are all the JRPGs? That's right, the 360 actually has them all and even more.

Finally, don't hype fps because the 360 always curb stomps PS3 when it comes to that genre. If cows want to hype something, stick to Uncharted and Metal Gear. Also the PS3 is an excellent Blu-ray player. Worthy of praise for that. But stop trying to make it seem like it's the PS2 vs Xbox all over again. Not even close. The PS3 is inferior this gen. Sorry but it's true.

Metal Gear Rising isn't part of the core series so I wouldn't really use that as a point. Its also coming the PC and the last two MGS games have been Sony exclusives and I doubt that will change. Secondly what superior third party exclusives is the 360 getting that the PS3 isn't? TheColbert

1- I dun know the point you are adressing.

2- Sony's 1st party is far better imo and it's more diverse and, I dun wanna say mature, but it suits adults more.... overall Sony is better in software and hardware imo.

3- PS3 lost many 3rd party exclusives but you still can get them on it, and the irony is you can't get them on the Wii, they are PS3/PC/x360 games and they are alot.

And a ton of that 3rd party was multiplat.

As has been said the likes of EA and Activision more or less have the power and influence that can make or break a console.Look at the dreamcast some of its demise has been atributed to poor 3rd party.

End of the day all consoles rely on 3rd party support so i dont even know what your trying to get at with your topic unless your a lem who is butthurt bout playing 2nd fiddle both gens.

[QUOTE="TheColbert"]Metal Gear Rising isn't part of the core series so I wouldn't really use that as a point. Its also coming the PC and the last two MGS games have been Sony exclusives and I doubt that will change. Secondly what superior third party exclusives is the 360 getting that the PS3 isn't? alexfla

reason why PS2 was great games wise because it was the only place to find many 3rd party games last gen. DS has all the JRPG's and not the 360, 360?! LMAODibdibdobdobo

From the home console standpoint the 360 is a better JRPG console , altho they cant captivate me like some of the older JRPGs.Ps3 is a bit lacking and the Wii i aint got a clue bout its scene cept a few games on here cause they arent easily found on my store shelves or not even released in the uk to begin with.

[QUOTE="TheColbert"]Metal Gear Rising isn't part of the core series so I wouldn't really use that as a point. Its also coming the PC and the last two MGS games have been Sony exclusives and I doubt that will change. Secondly what superior third party exclusives is the 360 getting that the PS3 isn't? alexfla

geohot didnt do much to deter me from playing my PS3 online on certain games others have become rife but hey let sony fix it not my problem i'll just politely play other games in the mean time.

And didnt you know Sony is playing the timed DLC game aswell..and tbh community wise both PSN and XBLA are populated by wise crackin 13 year olds with mics who have just read "my first profanity and how to use them online".

Okay...everyone knows that the PS2 was awesome because it has such a great library of games (both 3rd and 1st party)

MGS4 is more than enough for me :oops:

MGS4 is more than enough for me :oops:

Mozelleple112

The legacy board is ^ that way.

Ps3 has a good first party support and it alone makes the Ps3 a worthy purchase.

The PS2 was a great system, no one can deny that. It was bustling with great games in every genre. Not just one but several great games. But what a lot of you are forgetting is that back then, the PS2 was landing EXCLUSIVE THIRD PARTY games.

That's all gone now. The only one it got and BARELY was MGS4. Everything else it lost to Microsoft. Even the next Megal Gear will be first day on 360. So where does that leave the PS3.

alexfla

I think you are confused for a number of reasons.

First of all, when has anyone ever questioned the reason for PS2's success? Everyone on earth knows the PS2 had the largest library of games PERIOD, and the most variety and diversity as well. I would argue the PS2 is the best console of all time exactly for those reasons and I don't believe any console will ever come close to it.

But what you seem confused about is that third party support is the ONLY thing that matters. If that is the case then MS and NIntendo and Sony are ALL in trouble because third parties don't seem to want to be exclusive anymore, and third parties also still seem to hate Nintendo.

When third party exclusivity is no longer a reliable option, console makers STILL need a way to get people interested in their console and games. That means offering more first party exclusive titles. Because nobody is going to chose between a 360 and PS3 based on Red Dead Redemption or something. That makes no sense. They are going to chose a console based on games they want and will miss the most if they chose one console over another. So people who love Halo are going to buya 360 and people who want Infamous or Uncharted will buy a PS3.

This is why first party exclusives is so important. MS seems (in my opinion) to have dropped the ball. They have spent so much time and money buying up former Sony exclusives and Sony has instead chosen to spend their money on new IPs like the games I just mentioned. Now we are 5 years into the console cycle and MS has clearly run out of steam. Meanwhile, Sony is still going strong with new, exclusive IPs coming out like The Last Guardian, etc. Games that are not JUST exclusive to the PS3, but completely original and creative and can't be seen on the other consoles.

What MS has failed to learn is that they can't just be the "me too" console and hope to dominate the way Sony did the last two gens. They also can't just buy up a couple big franchises like Halo or Forza and coast on their success every year. It makes no difference how good the games may be.

The end really made me spit out my coffee. I guess it must be the 2011 lineup making people crazy.TintedEyes

True, but the reason the 360 sucks is because it had very poor first party support. A repetitive cycle of annual Halo/Forza/Gears rehashes just doesn't cut it. Sony lost a lot with third party exclusives this gen but from 2008 onwards they really stepped up the game with first party exclusives. The games are great - FACT, but more importantly they were fresh and they were something different.

Newsflash: The PS2 was awesome because it had a lot of exclusives that just also happened to be third party. More at 11. jg4xchamp

Hypothetically, if the gamecube and PS2 shared the exact same library last gen, they would both be great consoles.

The reason the PS2 was GREAT.... sold more then the 360 and Xbox combined

But im not too sure what the whole 1st 3rd party thing is.... Explain :)

The reason the PS2 was GREAT.... sold more then the 360 and Xbox combined

But im not too sure what the whole 1st 3rd party thing is.... Explain :)

mejiseike

[QUOTE="mejiseike"]

The reason the PS2 was GREAT.... sold more then the 360 and Xbox combined

But im not too sure what the whole 1st 3rd party thing is.... Explain :)

jasonharris48

Oh haha... well then i dont get this argument

who cares if sony themselves made a good game... there was hundreads of great games for the ps2, Nuff said

That's absolute BS from where I'm coming from. Sure I agree, the PS3 is no PS2, but gone is the time when Nintendo were the only ones that could carry a console. I actually think Sony's first party are doing excelent and can only get better.

Sure, no problem in making a wakeup call towards the PS3, but here's one for Nintendo fans--Nintendo's first party is not untouchable. And that to me is a very good sign for the industry.

Exactly who forgot this.

Oh it's you again.

The reason the PS2 was great was third party support, and first party.

[QUOTE="jasonharris48"]

[QUOTE="mejiseike"]

The reason the PS2 was GREAT.... sold more then the 360 and Xbox combined

But im not too sure what the whole 1st 3rd party thing is.... Explain :)

mejiseike

Oh haha... well then i dont get this argument

who cares if sony themselves made a good game... there was hundreads of great games for the ps2, Nuff said

[QUOTE="mejiseike"]

[QUOTE="jasonharris48"] The reason why the PS2 was great was due to the great library of games (which is the reason it sold a lot). 1st party means games that were developed by Sony internal teams or title that were published/ developed in general (Insomniac a 3rd party studio that always worked closely with Sony is a good example). 3rd means that it was develop/published by team outside of Sony studios I.E Capcom, Square-Enix, Konami

jasonharris48

Oh haha... well then i dont get this argument

who cares if sony themselves made a good game... there was hundreads of great games for the ps2, Nuff said

lol

and Dexter is awesome!!

WRONG. the ps2 had an awesome equilibrium of both exclusive 1st/3rd party and a nuge list of multiplats!

WRONG. the ps2 had an awesome equilibrium of both exclusive 1st/3rd party and a nuge list of multiplats!

Rage010101

does it really matter who makes the games? or that the games are made.... think about it

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]Newsflash: The PS2 was awesome because it had a lot of exclusives that just also happened to be third party. More at 11. hakanakumono

Hypothetically, if the gamecube and PS2 shared the exact same library last gen, they would both be great consoles.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]Newsflash: The PS2 was awesome because it had a lot of exclusives that just also happened to be third party. More at 11. Bigboi500

Hypothetically, if the gamecube and PS2 shared the exact same library last gen, they would both be great consoles.

The gamecube was a decent console, although looking back at the library it was a bit lacking. But, *equally great

I don't think the gamecube was anywhere near the PS2, really ...

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Hypothetically, if the gamecube and PS2 shared the exact same library last gen, they would both be great consoles.

hakanakumono

The gamecube was a decent console, although looking back at the library it was a bit lacking. But, *equally great

I don't think the gamecube was anywhere near the PS2, really ...

Granted, both the N64 & Gamecube had good 1st party titles, but 1st &/or 2nd party alone weren't enough to put them over the top of the PS1 & the PS2. They needed stronger 3rd party support, which is what PS1 & PS2 had, & which is why they each had over 100 million (?) consoles sold. Without excellent 3rd party support coming towards your console, the popularity & the sales of your console starts dwindling. A system can't succeed off of just 1st &/or 2nd party games alone.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Hypothetically, if the gamecube and PS2 shared the exact same library last gen, they would both be great consoles.

hakanakumono

The gamecube was a decent console, although looking back at the library it was a bit lacking. But, *equally great

I don't think the gamecube was anywhere near the PS2, really ...

Every console has had good games... the PS2 just had more then most, like a lot more... but it was also the best selling console so developers probly made more games for it just so they could make some $$$

idk why you guys care who makes them games tho... its not like a car where one company is more reliable then the next company

JS :P

• God of War
• ICO . SotC
• Socom
• Gran Turismo
• Jak and Daxter
• Ratchet and Clank
• Sly Cooper
• Hot Shots Golf
• Twisted Metal
• Dark Cloud
• Wild Arms
• Casual - (Singstar,Buzz,EyeToy games)
• Other - (MLB , ATV Offroad Fury , Syphon Filter , The Getaway , Killzone , Ape Escape , etc)

The ps2 would have been great without third party exclusives and well worth purchasing. The PS3 is the same in that respect.

• God of War
• ICO . SotC
• Socom
• Gran Turismo
• Jak and Daxter
• Ratchet and Clank
• Sly Cooper
• Hot Shots Golf
• Twisted Metal
• Dark Cloud
• Wild Arms
• Casual - (Singstar,Buzz,EyeToy games)
• Other - (MLB , ATV Offroad Fury , Syphon Filter , The Getaway , Killzone , Ape Escape , etc)

The ps2 would have been great without third party exclusives and well worth purchasing. The PS3 is the same in that respect.

Nike_Air

Indeed the PS2 had good games... who cares who made them