did anyone notice that there's a flip this generation?

Oh please. I've bought more games on the PS3 this holiday season than any other system. I got Dragon Age on it, Demons Soul's, Uncharted 2, and Batman. Batman and Dragon Age are both better versions of the 360 version. While for the Xbox I've gotten MW2, and Assassin's Creed 2, that's it, they're not even exclusives either.

The PS3 has finally started to gain ground and it's done great, it's exclusives this holiday are better than the 360's, cause really the Xbox only has one exclusive this season, which is Halo ODST and L4D2. And still, the Xbox 360 Elite is 300$ and the PS3 is 300$, along with that the PS3 is doubled as a Bluray player, it's still cheap. I can go on and on about this stupid thing, but people saying any system sucks or isn't worth it should check themselves. All systems are worth buying if you enjoy video games, being a exclusive to any company or console gets you nowhere except missing out on some good stuff.

I don't ask for a game to look amazing, a la Crysis. But I just want the game to look pleasing to the eyes. The new Mario games is nice and clean (even though it's blurry on an HDTV *cough*), and I'm sure I said that Super Metroid looked awesome before (I think you pulled that from me but whatever). Something nice, and clean without hurting the eyes is good graphics for me. I don't care if Gears Of War 2 has the 'best' graphics from a technical standpoint, I just get tired of looking at grey and brown, it makes the game feel bland. Hell, I probably consider Super Metroid as the best looking game ever. It's atmosphere and use or colors is unparalleled to me. I'll always remember the giant Ridley statue.

Heheh, there's a game called Space Giraffe, the game itself is pretty good, but the graphics make the game horrible.

And sprites are ALWAYS in style. I still like the graphics in Super Mario Bros (the first one). Sprites are timeless.

[me=Natewlie]blushes.[/me]

If you hadn't noticed Ultra has been doing the same thing in every topic he makes. Atleast he's been replying to this one. I STILL don't know why he said that hardcore gamers are retards in a previous topic. While it's not appropriate to the topic in hand, I think it had to be said, it's annoying putting up with him.

 

I had no clue you were a big fan of Super Metroid, Natewlie. I just pulled a random game from that era that looked and played very well.

I'm with you on the grays and browns; it's the biggest reason I can't get into the more realistic games out there. RE4 was an exception thanks to its great gameplay.

I didn't mean to meta-mod or anything concerning ultra. I just figured that even the annoying people might have something worthwhile to say; it's just a matter of framing it in the right words and tone.

 

Quoted for truth, but it's always been that way to a certain extent. That's always been the attraction of a new system; the games look prettier. Only hardcore gamers think "Oh the things they'll be able to do gameplay wise!" where the casuals/newbies always think "Hmmm, wow the graphics are great, maybe it'll be a good game."

That's the reason why games like Oni or Bloodrayne sold, from a gameplay standpoint they suck imo, but they were pretty for their time.

Sometimes I wonder if the Wii and it's controller scheme was a targeted assault. As hardcore gamers we know that there's more control capability with a dpad analog controller, but non-gamers look at these controllers and think "Holy hell that's a lot of buttons." but look at the Wii controller, simple, and instead of trying to use a stick, you just move the controller. It was a risk, but if it was a targeted attack, you have to admit, it was pretty sneaky sis.

 

He speaks the truth!

Problem: it needed to gain ground in the first place.
I mean, in the end there are 2 things that define a great game/console
1: gameplay / The gameplay of the games on it.
2: whether the company makes money

It's generally accepted that the PS3 has failed at the first point
And Sony hasn't exactly made a lot of money with the PS3, in fact last I heard they were still losing money on it because of poor sales.

 

here is something none have considered.

ds and psp. ds is like the wii [inferior] and psp is like the 360/ps3 [superior]. why would the psp not get more third party support while the ds gets more third party support? if everything about the ps3/360 are true, then the psp should get more attention then the ds.

the wii is inferior and had a gimmick motion controller concept. the ds had an inferior hardware and has a gimmicky touch screen. both wii and ds have a huge audience. but you see there is more support for the ds then the wii. so what gives?

the ds is cheaper to make games and the wii has the same idea. so what gives?

 

Don't give yourself so much credit.

As expected from you, this is so utterly ridiculous a claim that I'm not even going to bother addressing it.

You seem to believe that the world of business is totally cut and dry, but there's much more to profit than third party support or hardware/software quality. As you said, both Nintendo systems have a large target market, which can be attributed to the vast variety of games on these consoles in conjunction with the very shrewd marketing that Nintendo is infamous for.

PROTIP: Money makes the world go round. None of your assertions or questionings of the gaming industry have any power in the face of society's driving force.

 

Can we get over the "gimmick" mindset already? It was trendy last generation, and with the DS. The fact is that every system has one or more gimmicks -- reasons for people to buy them -- that set it apart from the rest. PS3's Home and Blu-Ray support are gimmicks. Xbox360's achievements are gimmicks. The Wiimote is a gimmick. "Gimmick" is not an intrinsically negative word. Berating one system for having a gimmick is hypocritical, because arguments that revolve around such an idea are the equivalent of saying "My gimmick is better than yours!" Sad.

Also, most businesses operate on a "good enough" basis. If they can get away with selling shit games (like many third parties are doing for the Wii), then what reason do they have to actually put forth effort, outside of gaining critical appeal? Some companies are in it only for the money. Others make games because they enjoy it, and money is a great bonus.

Something you didn't consider in your argument is the difference between the console and handheld markets. The more power you put into a battery-operated system, the shorter its battery life will be. The majority of handheld players tend to play it during long road trips or over at a friend's house, etc. During those times, they expect the system to be able to stand up to being played for a respectable amount of time. The PSP's average 6 hours compared to the DS Lite's average of 10 hours is quite a jump; enough to influence customer choice. The PSP is great in a decent amount of ways (raw power, media capability, homebrew), but it lacks in arguably the most important aspect of a handheld: battery.

That's part of why Sega's Game Gear failed: not only did it require 6 AAs over the GameBoy Brick's 4, but they didn't last as long! It was a shitty system that quickly died.

In the console market, battery life isn't an issue to worry about. Most people care more about initial cost and/or what the games look like on their screen. Some expect a huge upgrade in graphics, which has been the status quo ever since gaming has existed. Graphic improvements are going to get diminishing returns soon, as we approach the ability to closely mimic real life. After that point, consoles will have to rely on their other traits to draw consumer attention.

Image has a lot to do with it, too. Most "mature" games (which is a misnomer considering the audience that plays them) don't sell well on Nintendo systems, because most Nintendo fans prefer more light-hearted games or games with a different and interesting art style. Those types of games don't sell as well on the other two systems... so a lot of it has to do with individual console market, as well.

Current trends in gaming reflect FPS being the most popular genre, with Western RPG in close second. Many companies are blending the two together (such as Fallout 3, Borderlands, etc). People who don't like those genres generally won't buy the consoles that feature a library saturated with them (Xbox360, PS3 to a lesser extent). The same goes for the saturation of crap non-games that the Wii is plagued with too, however.

I'm starting to question the point of all this...

tl;dr version: Consoles and handhelds follow two different marketing strategies and gamers value different things in them. The current fad genre is FPS, so people go to what has more FPSes so they can follow the bandwagon and strengthen the status quo. The oversaturation of crap games on the Wii is slowly going away, and the oversaturation of FPS on the other systems will follow a similar fate as the next "cool" genre comes into the field. It's just business.

 

Re: did anyone notice that there\'s a flip this generation?

Personally I think Nintendo should have stayed portable the game cube should have been it for a console.
Post Merge: [time]1259626965[/time]
I thought the reason Nintendo was making so much success was because of the devoted fans of the early 90's with the early Gameboy Systems and the entire Pokemon franchise. I mean the only reason the DS is getting much more support and customers than the PSP is because nintendo had 15 years to gain experience and customers than the PSP their practically pros, I mean the PSP is like a new born baby in the video game industry when it first came out. It's going to take a while for it to things to catch on but the DS is till going to come out on top not because it is the better system we all know it's shit compared to the PSP but it's because of all of the early gameboy franchise players.

 

Again I reiterate that the power of the system doesn't make it; its games do.

Consider the difference in the number of unique experiences the DS brings to the table compared to the PSP. The PSP is a portable PS2, pretty much. And there's nothing wrong with that if you liked the PS2.

 

That sounds like a load of shit, you just sound like PS fanboy.

 

you're sounding a bit like him by comparing him, a ridiculous egotistic person, to a fanboy....
a fanboy can pull up better shit than this, but he's trying to act high and mighty by saying things that he can only vouch for with "i think"

 

I think we should stick to the facts instead of calling people names. Otherwise, a mod might have to get involved and end up closing the topic. Surely we can be civil.

 

Three fucking words for you, Ultra:
HASTY

GENERALIZATION

FALLACY

^ You should have learned this concept by now ever since I have slapped you in the face with that so many times during our last debate, in which you lost thanks to your 'self-pwning' done by your own statements.

"What gives?"

Perhaps that question should be followed after this one: why aren't YOU doing your research on this? What gives, Ultra?

And besides, I thought you were good at "reading between the lines". Because if you had done so, you should have arrived at at least two possibilities. That:

A.) Portable gaming is perhaps a much more hotter trend compared to console gaming on the consumer market.

OR

B.) Developing games for DS is more cost efficient to software companies than developing games for the Wii. That's assuming that the company just wants to make money fast.

 

Short answer.

It's cheaper to make games for the ds and wii, plus with the relitive boom thanks to the advertised features it makes it easy to make a quick buck, even the shovel ware is selling.



Did I read hypr's post correctly, or did I come close?



I could rant on about how it's the kids and girls in australia making it sell but that is another story.

 

a-if portable is hot then would that mean consoles are a risk. if consoles are a risk, then why spend huge development for games?

b-ds is more cost efficient then wii? they offer the same concept. both wii and ds offers an opportunity to make money fast. yet developers aren't on the wii.

 

Lrn2read. Hypr said portable is hotter.

Lrn2read, damnit. He said that developing games is more cost efficient on the DS. In other words, the ratio between how much is spent on developing the game and how much is received from selling the game is better. I have absolutely no idea how you arrived at your interpretation.

 

Honestly, a flame war over video games? Grow up.