[QUOTE="Shinoto"]

"By three methods we may learn wisdom, First by reflection, which is the noblest;Second by imitation, which is the easiest; and thrid by experience which is the most bitter." Confuscious

If you want to argue about Iktagaki or whateve. Make sure what your protecting isn't the same. Imitation is in essence...just learning. How many highly original games do we see a year? Uncharted is looking like it is combining what it likes from GeoW, RE, and Tomb Raider. Original!!! yet all the ideas are pilfar from others games. Not like they came up with them. Oh Okami with Zelda. Get it now? 90% of making a game or anything seems to truly been just imitation. Then that 10% putting your own creative spin on it. Gow? Dynasty Warriors. Games sadly enough from a gameplay/combat prespective pretty much play the same game..except they add in a mini game(QTE ^_^) and replace your musou with magic.

Also for the most part, QTEs are a lazy design. Its a way to get out of trying to make it work with normal combat and more so get it into a cutscene...but while keeping minimal action.

Anyways on Itchy or whatever you like to call him. For the most part...He is one without a single original idea in his head. That doesn't make the ideas bad. If your going to imitate...then do it on the best and he did. I loved NG...I still think DMC is leagues better. But NG is just another great action game which we need more of. Hardcore Action Combat...not Kiddie pool ones like GoW:P Which replace strong gameplay with Presentation. Even though I do give credit where it is deserve..the Level Designs and platforming were bar none in an action game. But pretty much though...it was the perfect action game for a casual. Of course I heard they upped it a bit with the Sequel so Ill need to try that one day. But after GoW turned out the way it was for me...Pretty much just a rental game. Ill wait on it.

Anyways, I can see why. God or War's Came out in earlier 2005. Close to E3 2005 ala PS3. They really ended in that perfect time to start development for it on the PS3 instead of the Ps2. But my guess is Sony thought they wouldn't need it. Remember everyone at the time was oozen over the Ps3. And then by the time. the **** hits the fan. Too late.

CarnageHeart

Your attempt to defend the clown is interesting, but unsuccessful. I'm not arguing the quality of NG (the wildly seesawing level of challenge indicated that playtesting was kept to a minimum, but I'll let that slide) but is one game. Also, one shouldn't lose sight of the fact there there are other important facets of game design (Ninja Gaiden and DMC both boast great gameplay which is the most important thing for action games, but their puzzles and level designs are garbage). Moving back to Itagaki, if he had a string of quality products under his belt I could understand his diarreah of the mouth but he made one good game three years ago and his last game was DOAX2. Rather than go toItagaki for amusing quotes, someone needs to say 'Healer, heal theyself.'

He is easily more accomplished than developers like Jaffe, and in my opinion, deserves more respect than the likes of Kojima. Whom is often championed as some sort of "genius" by fans of the Metal Gear series.

You may not care for his attitude, but trying to put down his works only serves to make yourself look foolish.

[QUOTE="AlwaysSoft"]Perhaps he does'nt have to play it. Plenty of reviews seem to have echoed many of our initial concerns. Citing such reviews should not be seen as a cop out byposters like yourself. They are cited to reinforce this person's stance.

It's the reason I don't put much weight into your "Itagaki is a clown" comments. Enough journalists, critics, and developers in this industry respect the man, and a few comments from a random forum-goer like yourselfare not going to change any of that. Your very statements about Itagaki and the supposed quality of his games could be applied to any respected director in the business (with perhaps the exception of Miyamoto). Whether it be David Jaffe or whomever.

Not that the general opinion of the industry should be the end all view for everyone, but it sure puts a little more mass into hisstatements and makes things a tad more interesting than two guys bickering about "I think QTEs are dumb". "Ya? Well I think QTEs are the best thing since sliced bread".

CarnageHeart

If herd mentality is what gets you through life, to each his own.

[QUOTE="Kazona"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="SemiMaster"]

The 360 is the only console with a stable game consumption rate (regardless of the stability of the system, people buy games for the 360 more than any other system).

Clearly developers around the world see this with the exception of Square for the most part.

Shame-usBlackley

Well, a lot of Square's business is in Japan, and the 360 is pretty much done there. Also, Square has to be seeing what is happening to JRPGs on the 360 and that has to give them pause. I'm not saying the Blue Dragon and Eternal Sonata are in the same league as Final Fantasy, but those games absolutely tanked on the 360.

It's not just a matter of Square being stubborn about releasing games on the 360, it's that Square may have damn good reasons not to. The base buys the hell out of most anything but JRPGs so far, and based on what I've seen, there's no way I'd be thinking about releasing a JRPG on the 360 if I was Square.

Actually, that's not true. As indicated by this article, Square Enix is already getting half of its revenues from countries outside of Japan, and they're planning on boosting that even more. So they're actually more international minded than they are Japan minded. And that... makes me wonder even more as to why the 360 isn't getting any strong support from them still.

Edit: I was pretty certain that SE was going to develop a number of games exclusively for the 360, but after search I can't find anything other than people who used to be with SE making games for the system.

Half their business from a country the size of California isn't a lot? I mean, it can be argued both ways, but the point still stands: There is no (zero) evidence that the 360 base buys JRPGs. None at all. The reasons for that can be argued forever, but the bottom line is that the JRPGs that have come to the system have sold poorly.

Would a JRPG of Blue Dragon's (6.0) quality have sold better on the PS3 in NA? I guess we really will never know. But I somehow doubt it. I don't think that there are even too many JRPGs with scores in the 8son the PS2 that have sold much better than Blue Dragon has.Without even mentioningthe difference in userbase between the PS2 and 360,

[QUOTE="AlwaysSoft"][QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

I just fail to see why people are claiming X PS2 game should have been on the PS3. I guess if one looks at things from a marketing perspective, such a claim makes sense, but from the point of view of a gamer, it doesn't. Going the Nintendo route and killing games for the PS2 and making them pop up on its successor strikes me as an ugly, cynical move which sets a low bar for one's console (who can blame third parties for lazylast-gen portssince they are what Nintendo chose to lead with?).

In at least two instances Sony has avoided that particular trap and the games are/will be the better for it (with both the PS2 and PS3, Sony promised slapdash ports of last gen GT games, but eventually decided to invest additional time and release true sequels). Call me an idealist, but I don't think 'Gun' should be the model of next-gen game development.

Shame-usBlackley

Also, rewind back to the beginning of the year, and many people (myself included) were not even sure GoW2 was going to come close to the original in quality, much less match it. I was actually kind of relieved to see it was going to be a PS2 title, as making it a PS3 title would've likely been a tad ambitious for a fledgling director in my eyes at the time.

GoW2 was more of a pleasant suprise, than a "should've been PS3's savior" title. I really wasn't expecting much of anything out of it.

Comparing Gun (a mediocre western game that sold just okay) to God of War II (a definite GOTY contender, despite it being on last-gen hardware) is a pretty poor analogy if you ask me, but whatever. Many games have started out on hardware from the generation prior before being moved over to next-gen hardware. It isn't like it's unheard of.

The bottom line is that God of War II was one of (if not the) best games released this year, and it would've helped the PS3 immensely to have it exclusively on the PS3 this year. The franchise is literally white-hot right now and would've helped flesh the library out quite a bit and offer acontrast to the 360's offerings (the 360 has almost NO action-adventure games).

Again, the argument can be made that they made the rightchoice by going with thePS2 due to the installed base, but the question still remains:Isn't that the case now? Isn't thatgoing to be the case for a while yet? Why even have a next generation at all if that's the case? I mean, ifeveryone wants to use base as the justification for when a game comes to a platform, then we're going to be waiting a really looooong time for games. The PS3 is Sony's star platform now, and they need to treat it that way. That's their future. The PS2 is theirpast. Putting one of their biggest names on the system they were phasing out was a poor move in my opinion, because I think Kratos is just as hot right now as Metal Gear.And it undoubtedly would've helped the system even if it was a slow burn that started out good and sold huge over time like Resistance has.

I think the success that GoW2 had on the PS2 cemented that hype will be at a high for when GoW3 is ready to be announced for the PS3. I don't think that kind of hype would've been there if GoW2 came out around PS3's launch as essentially a last gen experience with some HD. From a new director no less. How much faith would the consumer have in GoW3 and the future of big Sony exclusives like it if that were the case?

[QUOTE="ASK_Story"] Yes I did play it, but I admit that I didn't play it all the way through. But the segments I did play was more than enough to give me a taste of what the game is.

Like I mentioned before, I didn't say Heavenly Sword was a bad game, but for its budget, year delay, and ridiculous hype, it's a dissappointment.

It could've been so much more. If Ninja Theory ever makesa sequel, hope they learn from their shortcomings and pull through next time so it can really live up to the name "Goddess of War."

CarnageHeart

If you played it why did you talk about Itagaki's impressions and not your own? I don't walk out of a theater and talk about Roger Ebert's review, I talk about the movie I just saw. Anyway, such behavior is semi-normal on internet forums, so you're hardly alone.

It's the reason I don't put much weight into your "Itagaki is a clown" comments. Enough journalists, critics, and developers in this industry respect the man, and a few comments from a random forum-goer like yourselfare not going to change any of that. Your very statements about Itagaki and the supposed quality of his games could be applied to any respected director in the business (with perhaps the exception of Miyamoto). Whether it be David Jaffe or whomever.

Not that the general opinion of the industry should be the end all view for everyone, but it sure puts a little more mass into hisstatements and makes things a tad more interesting than two guys bickering about "I think QTEs are dumb". "Ya? Well I think QTEs are the best thing since sliced bread".

[QUOTE="rragnaar"][QUOTE="EvilTaru"]

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

Summed up perfectly. I couldn't agree with you more, man. God of War would've helped the PS3 immensely.CarnageHeart

What pisses me off is the fact that they finished their first GOW game ahead of the other studios and could have had a headstart on the hardware and gone into asset production way sooner than either Insomniac and Naughty Dog. Theywere riding on amillion-seller ffs.

I just fail to see why people are claiming X PS2 game should have been on the PS3. I guess if one looks at things from a marketing perspective, such a claim makes sense, but from the point of view of a gamer, it doesn't. Going the Nintendo route and killing games for the PS2 and making them pop up on its successor strikes me as an ugly, cynical move which sets a low bar for one's console (who can blame third parties for lazylast-gen portssince they are what Nintendo chose to lead with?).

In at least two instances Sony has avoided that particular trap and the games are/will be the better for it (with both the PS2 and PS3, Sony promised slapdash ports of last gen GT games, but eventually decided to invest additional time and release true sequels). Call me an idealist, but I don't think 'Gun' should be the model of next-gen game development.

Also, rewind back to the beginning of the year, and many people (myself included) were not even sure GoW2 was going to come close to the original in quality, much less match it. I was actually kind of relieved to see it was going to be a PS2 title, as making it a PS3 title would've likely been a tad ambitious for a fledgling director in my eyes at the time.

GoW2 was more of a pleasant suprise, than a "should've been PS3's savior" title. I really wasn't expecting much of anything out of it.

[QUOTE="Shmiity"]

The GC wasnt that bad.

I dotn understand the Wii either, the game line up is crap, but apparently its really fun... But inexpensive.

CarnageHeart

If you liked the GC, why don't you like the Wii? In terms of hardcore games it is better off than the GC was at this stage. Right now it has Paper Mario, Zelda and Metroid and Super Mario Galaxy and SSBM are en route.

As fanboy-ish as that may sound, I own a Wii, love Nintendo's franchises, and still can't bring myself to dust it off when I have the likes of Bioshock, Halo 3, and Mass Effect just waiting to be played.

10 years ago I used to believe that Turok 2 had the most creative and diverse arsenal. Today, I can't say much has changed. From flame throwers, to "torque bows", to bladed frisbees, to the infamous cerebral bore which is legendary even today. My personal favorite was the final weapon. A sort of nuclear device that created a bigger explosion than any gun I've ever seen in a game. caused all enemies to freeze, only to blow up in a million chunks seconds later.

Half Life 2 and Gears of War get honorable mentions though.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]it's not the system's fault the games on it are below expectations!Kazona

It is, actually. Making a console that was hard to develop for wasn't a problem for Sony with the PS2 since the PS2 never saw any real competition at any point in its lifetime. With the PS3, the situation is very different - it is the most expensive console, it's being crushed by its competition, has the smallest userbase that's not nearly as rabid as the 360's, and on top of all that, it's still the hardest to develop for. Where's the incentive for third-party developers to throw any serious support for the system? Couple that with the fact that some multiplatform developers like Pandemic are saying that there's no "mystical hidden power" within the PS3 and you've got a console with way too many problems.

So once ps3 sells more devs have no problem making games for it right? Is the price that's hurting its sales or the system being difficult for making games? And why do they say multi-plats look better? Is the company so stupid to include cell without knowing the consequences or sell untis for cheap even though it cost them more to make?

From the way I see it, the console was too expensive to begin with, so it didn't sell very well. That was the first problem because it lead to Sony having the lowest userbase on its console, and developing games for the console with the least amount of sales isn't exactly attractive to developers to begin with. The second problem is that the PS3 is more difficult to develop for than other consoles, which means more time and money has to be put into creating a games for it. Again, not an attractive outlook for developers, especially not with the costs of development already being so high as they are.

Simply put: bad PS3 sales + hardest console to develop for = unattractive for 3rd party developers.

Personally, I think both are bad, I can't remember a good movie game, they all are just crap. And movies that were based in games are all just Bad, the only movie that I like was SILENT HILL, but all the others are.......... uff no words to say. With the coming of Resident Evil 3 I just lost my hope and It give me chills when I think of that some movie company is making another Street Fighter live action movie again.
Is just me or I'm the only one who think this. Place your thoughs.
OtakuRay