The Playstation Thread

[Arceusgamer14]

Just how will the PS4 do on it's launch day?
Remember how the PS3's launch did and it felt like that the PS3 was doomed from the start, but later got back on it's roots and back to it's PS2's glory days?
Well I'm hoping that there will be a game that will get my attention to the PS4.

 

[Charizard Champion#06]

Something that actually changes how games are played this gen. So far it's basically been same gameplay with slightly better graphics (which I can't even tell apart from current gen).

Again, what exactly are you expecting here? Between all the waggle sticks and motion cameras and dangle-dobs introduced in this gen what else do you really want? Because I'm fine with just a controller and new brilliant ideas inside my games.

While all of that is true, it's not the point I was trying to make. Yes, 360 got more third party games than the Wii did, they did little to push their own. Microsoft doesn't tend to focus on first party exclusives the same way that Nintendo or even Sony does, they're pushing multimedia and social features like Xbox Live and Kinect and leaving third parties to push games. That's why, in a sense, they're not really competing with Nintendo and Sony, they're not interested in creating a dedicated games console as much as they are creating an entertainment center for your living room.

Yeah, I guess Microsoft just isn't trying.

Don't people always say that you can't tell anything from game trailers for new consoles, because they are never actual gameplay, in terms of graphics though. So until we see actual gameplay, from a live demo, I'm not making any judgement on the graphics being better or worse (not that it matters anymore really, since as far as graphics go I just need to be able to tell what I'm doing). I'm not counting the Capcom thing, because that did not look like gameplay, with the way everything moved, and the lack of action by what I assume to be the PC.

woot21 out dawgs

Again, they had Killzone. That was gameplay.

 

[blaze boy]

but later got back on it's roots and back to it's PS2's glory days?

What universe are you living in? Because that never happened. Yes the PS3 struggled when it was first launch due how pricey it was, removing PS2 backward compatibly, difficult to developed game on and lack of exclusive.

Once the slim was released and Sony dropped the price did the sales finally pick up but it was nowhere near the level of PS2 glory days, that was the Wii due to the fact that it sold in big number although the good games got buried in the pile of causal and shovel ware games.

 

[Crimsonlink]

What universe are you living in? Because that never happened. Yes the PS3 struggled when it was first launch due how pricey it was, removing PS2 backward compatibly, difficult to developed game on and lack of exclusive.

Once the slim was released and Sony dropped the price did the sales finally pick up but it was nowhere near the level of PS2 glory days, that was the Wii due to the fact that it sold in big number although the good games got buried in the pile of causal and shovel ware games.

Pssh nothing compares to PS2 days now that the market has changed. The Wii sold as much as it did because of casuals and low price point and a terrible economy. The Wii is basically dead now with it being lucky to reach 110 million officially in the near future.

 

[TotalPotato]

low price point

This was the clincher for me a few years ago. I loved my PS2, and I would have liked to get a PS3, but I was interested in the Wii as well. In the end, the PS3 was too expensive for me to consider it a viable option.

I don't know much about hardware, but from what little I've read about the PS4, it's going to be built comparatively cheaply with fewer bespoke elements, and since the price point was a big reason why I chose not to get the PS3, this can only be a good thing for me. Switching consoles in this upcoming generation also has advantages for me in that I can play all those PS3 games that I missed out on. I see that the cloud-based backwards compatibility is causing some consternation here, but from my point of view, it means that I can get games from the previous generation without worrying about their scarcity or ridiculous prices due to said scarcity. So I'm actually quite excited about the PS4!

 

[KrayzieBuddha]

This was the clincher for me a few years ago. I loved my PS2, and I would have liked to get a PS3, but I was interested in the Wii as well. In the end, the PS3 was too expensive for me to consider it a viable option.

I don't know much about hardware, but from what little I've read about the PS4, it's going to be built comparatively cheaply with fewer bespoke elements, and since the price point was a big reason why I chose not to get the PS3, this can only be a good thing for me. Switching consoles in this upcoming generation also has advantages for me in that I can play all those PS3 games that I missed out on. I see that the cloud-based backwards compatibility is causing some consternation here, but from my point of view, it means that I can get games from the previous generation without worrying about their scarcity or ridiculous prices due to said scarcity. So I'm actually quite excited about the PS4!

If I were you I would wait about 2-3 year cycle until Sony fix the hardware and software if they're planning to release PS4 this year. Plus during those cycle, that is where majority of the good games release.

 

[empoleon49]

What do you think we will see between now and E3? It's a vital stage for Sony as they no doubt need to get people interested in their new console. I am expecting a new Media Molecule announcement (but a 2014 release) What do you think?

 

[blaze boy]

If I were you I would wait about 2-3 year cycle until Sony fix the hardware and software if they're planning to release PS4 this year. Plus during those cycle, that is where majority of the good games release.

I actually recommend this but with Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft. Unless you have the money to buy it at launch or have at least 5 games (preferable not ports) that you want to buy for the system.

What do you think we will see between now and E3?

For Microsoft to show their hands by unveiling their console and then we won't hear from them, barring Nintendo since they have the Nintendo direct, until E3.

 

[Night_Walker]

Something that actually changes how games are played this gen. So far it's basically been same gameplay with slightly better graphics (which I can't even tell apart from current gen).

"If it ain't broke don't fix it"

While all of that is true, it's not the point I was trying to make. Yes, 360 got more third party games than the Wii did, they did little to push their own. Microsoft doesn't tend to focus on first party exclusives the same way that Nintendo or even Sony does, they're pushing multimedia and social features like Xbox Live and Kinect and leaving third parties to push games. That's why, in a sense, they're not really competing with Nintendo and Sony, they're not interested in creating a dedicated games console as much as they are creating an entertainment center for your living room.

Well based on that reasoning only Nintendo are producing a dedicated gaming console right now (360; DVD, Live and Kinect. PS3: Blu-Ray, PSN and Move. All companies promote their exclusive games, but MS and Sony don't have that many right now so yeah you don't see as much promotion for their 1st party games as you do from Nintendo.

 

[AJ]

Do you guys think that microsoft will be able to top the features expected to be present in the PS4? We are still in the dark about the next Xbox, but could it repeat what happened with the PS3 and the 360?

 

[Charizard Champion#06]

Do you guys think that microsoft will be able to top the features expected to be present in the PS4? We are still in the dark about the next Xbox, but could it repeat what happened with the PS3 and the 360?

For that I give a big fat maybe.

What do you mean by that last part? "Repeat what happened with the PS3 and the 360?"

 

[woot21]

For that I give a big fat maybe.

What do you mean by that last part? "Repeat what happened with the PS3 and the 360?"

Where the PS3 was more powerful than the 360, but cam out a year later, is the only thing I got.

woot21 out dawgs

 

[AJ]

For that I give a big fat maybe.

What do you mean by that last part? "Repeat what happened with the PS3 and the 360?"

Where the PS3 was more powerful than the 360, but cam out a year later, is the only thing I got.

woot21 out dawgs

that and the fact that the xbox interface was more user friendly (in my opinion) and had features like party chat. Also, a few people switched to the 360 after the psn went down. I have some friends that didn't trust the PS3 anymore so they went to Xbox. I was wondering if anyone else thought that same thing could happen again?

 

[Dimentio]

I don't think we can discount poor decisions from Sony, especially considering recent decisions made just over a year ago with the Vita (proprietary memory cards for the Vita, and the cloud storage for PSN comes to mind). They're on their way though, don't get me wrong.

I thought what you were referring to was actually that the PS3 and 360 libraries are almost too similar. Preferences with the company or UI would be the only reason you'd choose one overwhelmingly over the other, barring a scant few exclusives for each.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

Well based on that reasoning only Nintendo are producing a dedicated gaming console right now (360; DVD, Live and Kinect. PS3: Blu-Ray, PSN and Move. All companies promote their exclusive games, but MS and Sony don't have that many right now so yeah you don't see as much promotion for their 1st party games as you do from Nintendo.

Sony has a decent amount, actually, and they're pretty much the only one of the three that has pretty much all of their bases covered. Nintendo does okay as far as variety is concerned, but they could use a few more games. Microsoft is really the only one of the three that's severely lacking in variety, as they only really have a handful of exclusives that they actively promote (Halo, Gears of War, Fable, and Forza), aside from those you pretty much have to rely on 3rd parties if you like a certain genre. For instance, my favorite genre is platforming, but you don't really see any platforming games out of Microsoft. There's a couple of them out there, sure, but none that they actively promote. Meanwhile, I have several options for platformers from the other two, Nintendo has Mario, Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Kirby, and Sony has Little Big Planet and Sly Cooper (and probably more, but I can't really think of any others off the top of my head). Sony spends some time talking about other features for their console, sure, but so has Nintendo (especially recently, they've been pushing the Gamepad and Miiverse). The difference is that Nintendo and Sony also have plenty of exclusive 1st party titles to back up their consoles, Microsoft, not so much.

 

[Abstinence Pistols]

Sony has a decent amount, actually, and they're pretty much the only one of the three that has pretty much all of their bases covered. Nintendo does okay as far as variety is concerned, but they could use a few more games. Microsoft is really the only one of the three that's severely lacking in variety, as they only really have a handful of exclusives that they actively promote (Halo, Gears of War, Fable, and Forza), aside from those you pretty much have to rely on 3rd parties if you like a certain genre. For instance, my favorite genre is platforming, but you don't really see any platforming games out of Microsoft. There's a couple of them out there, sure, but none that they actively promote. Meanwhile, I have several options for platformers from the other two, Nintendo has Mario, Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Kirby, and Sony has Little Big Planet and Sly Cooper (and probably more, but I can't really think of any others off the top of my head). Sony spends some time talking about other features for their console, sure, but so has Nintendo (especially recently, they've been pushing the Gamepad and Miiverse). The difference is that Nintendo and Sony also have plenty of exclusive 1st party titles to back up their consoles, Microsoft, not so much.

How does Nintendo have less variety than Sony? A lot of their games have yet to be ported, but they have a lot more variety in their games than Sony does. Nintendo has some racing games, a lot of platformers, some good RPGs, a great shooter/first person adventure, a few sports games, and some others that I'm not remembering right now. Sony basically has shooters, a few platformers, and a racing series.

Don't get me wrong, they both have a fantastic lineup. But as far as actual first party titles go, I don't see how Sony has more variety than Nintendo at all.

 

[Dimentio]

Don't get me wrong, they both have a fantastic lineup. But as far as actual first party titles go, I don't see how Sony has more variety than Nintendo at all.

One might be inclined to believe Nintendo doesn't have much that appeal to current-gen gamers. Where the generations of old thrived on platformers and adventurey games, gamers nowadays flock to shooters (Of which Nintendo has only Metroid and Metroid is only single player and heavily story-driven) or actiony games (Of which Nintendo also has few of, none of which immediately spring to mind). Nintendo's always been about feeding off nostalgia as well as pushing IPs to do more than they think possible. People buying games and the industry leaders are content with pushing out a game that is safe and will sell well, even if that means they rehash and rehash.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

How does Nintendo have less variety than Sony? A lot of their games have yet to be ported, but they have a lot more variety in their games than Sony does. Nintendo has some racing games, a lot of platformers, some good RPGs, a great shooter/first person adventure, a few sports games, and some others that I'm not remembering right now. Sony basically has shooters, a few platformers, and a racing series.

Don't get me wrong, they both have a fantastic lineup. But as far as actual first party titles go, I don't see how Sony has more variety than Nintendo at all.

Hm, lemme take another look at that.

All right, so here are Nintendo's first party franchises:

Mario (platformer)
Zelda (action adventure)
Pokemon (RPG)
Metroid (adventure/shooter)
Kirby (platformer)
Donkey Kong (platformer)
Yoshi (platformer)
Starfox (rail shooter)
Wario Land (platformer)
Wario Ware (party game)
Animal Crossing (RPG)
Pikmin (RTS)
Super Smash Bros. (fighting)

Add to that some recurring spinoffs:
Mario Kart (racing)
Mario Sports (sports)
Paper Mario (RPG)
Mario & Luigi (RPG)

And here's Sony's:

Killzone (FPS)
Ratchet & Clank (platformer/TPS)
Sly Cooper (platformer)
Little Big Planet (platformer)
Mod Nation Racers (racing)
Uncharted (action adventure)
God of War (action adventure)
inFamous (action adventure)
Gran Turismo (racing)

So I guess you're right, Nintendo has better variety, but barely. They could use a few more genres, like a dedicated FPS, fighting, and racing game (Metroid, Smash Bros., and Mario Kart aren't going to cut it for those genres), but I guess it's fine as is. Sony, meanwhile, could use some better RPGs and a more dedicated fighting game (whether All Stars Battle Royale takes that role remains to be seen).

One might be inclined to believe Nintendo doesn't have much that appeal to current-gen gamers. Where the generations of old thrived on platformers and adventurey games, gamers nowadays flock to shooters (Of which Nintendo has only Metroid and Metroid is only single player and heavily story-driven) or actiony games (Of which Nintendo also has few of, none of which immediately spring to mind).

Yeah, Nintendo doesn't really have much of those two genres. Metroid is okay, but it's really only a hybrid shooter that focuses more on action/adventure and platforming than shooting mechanics. They also have Star Fox which is a rail shooter. But they don't have any shooters that are really like the ones that most gamers flock to (CoD, Halo, etc.). They have a few action/adventure titles, but nothing like say, Prototype or inFamous or something. They could use a nice sandboxy action/adventure title.

 

[Crimsonlink]

How does Nintendo have less variety than Sony? A lot of their games have yet to be ported, but they have a lot more variety in their games than Sony does. Nintendo has some racing games, a lot of platformers, some good RPGs, a great shooter/first person adventure, a few sports games, and some others that I'm not remembering right now. Sony basically has shooters, a few platformers, and a racing series.

Don't get me wrong, they both have a fantastic lineup. But as far as actual first party titles go, I don't see how Sony has more variety than Nintendo at all.

I would believe that if more than half their franchises weren't missing in the states. Where is my F-Zero/Star Fox/Earthbound/a sh*t-ton of others?

Nintendo has nothing much except platformers out on the Wii U right now 1st partywise. Their shooter is severely lacking in MP though thats not exactly a bad thing. Their racing is nonexistent unless you count Mario Kart for some reason.

IMO Nintendo's 1st party variety died off after SNES as N64 got less and the GC even less Nintendo first party games. The Wii literally only has 1 Pokemon game, 1 1/2 Zelda (TP is on GC), a couple of Mario games, Kirby, a few remakes such as Pikmin, 2 Metroid games and thats it.

That vs everything the PS brand has introduced since PS1 to now. So yeah man, Sony has been showing a lot more variety in 1st party games than Nintendo imo and it looks like data backs me up too.

You probably don't/didn't buy many Sony first party games so a lot have escaped your notice.

Sony has 2 shooters now, Killzone and Resistance. Socom died off due to bad timing thanks to the hack attack.

Platformers/Action: Uncharted, GOW, LBP, Sly Cooper, Rachet and Clank, Demon Souls, and a lot more
Racing: Gran Turismo, Drive Club, Motorstorm
Casual: Singstar, Move games
Other: PSN exclusives, Heavy Rain,
RPG: Infamous, Yakuza, and a ton of others exclusive to it.

So yeah man Sony has been bringing variety to the table although not all of them are successful they are still available for the platform.

 

[KrayzieBuddha]

I actually recommend this but with Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft. Unless you have the money to buy it at launch or have at least 5 games (preferable not ports) that you want to buy for the system.

To be honest, I don't really care if I have the money to buy a console on launch day, I can wait. Sony haven't learned there lesson from Mircosoft's mistake when they release the 360 on the same year when it was announced.