Best First Party this Gen doesn't even seem like a close contest

16jj6ue.jpg


/thread
 
Stoney Mason said:
Neither do the sales of the various consoles.

Sick Burn!
Click to expand...
If I had to pick between the console that I could brag about having the best sales performance or the one that I could brag about having the best 1st party library (while getting the best of the 3rd party stuff if not all of it), I'd go with the latter, wouldn't you?

Those NPD charts aren't much fun to play if you ask me.
 
polyh3dron said:
If I had to pick between the console that I could brag about having the best sales performance or the on that I could brag about having the best 1st party library (while getting the best of the 3rd party stuff if not all of it), I'd go with the latter, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

Well honestly "best 1st party" is completely relative to what you actually enjoy. I barely play my Wii and play my 360 a lot more but for me Nintendo still has the best first party games. So its all relative and bragging about who has the best first party strikes me as relatively pointless outside of specific circumstances. People play what they enjoy and buy what they enjoy.
 
polyh3dron said:
If I had to pick between the console that I could brag about having the best sales performance or the one that I could brag about having the best 1st party library (while getting the best of the 3rd party stuff if not all of it), I'd go with the latter, wouldn't you?

Those NPD charts aren't much fun to play if you ask me.
Click to expand...

No, but the fallout surrounded them is always entertaining.
 
I don't know what happened to AltogetherAndrews since he returned from his vacation but I quite like him now :lol
 
um...yeah, I'm not even sure how you can compare B games to AAA games. And I understand even less how you can compare games of different genres with each other, its like saying a Honey Crisp Apple is better than a Bell Orange.
 
I agree that Sony has done a very impressive job with its studios this gen. They have financed some pretty ambitious projects. While most of the titles have failed to set the charts on fire, I think their output this gen has been way more innovative than MS or Nintendo. I feel Sony genuinely wants to push technology forward whereas MS definitely has a numbers-first culture.
 
I would say Sony has quite an impressive first/second/property ownership lineup of released or upcoming...

White Knight Chronicles
Demon's Soul
Wipeout HD
Warhawk
Ratchet and Clank TOD & QFB
Resistance I & II
Siren
Uncharted I & II
Flower
Eden
PJ Monsters
Infamous
GT5
Little Big Planet
Killzone 2
Heavenly Sword
Socom
MAG
Fat Princess
Heavy Rain
GOW III

Just a ton of titles to play there
 
RSTEIN said:
I agree that Sony has done a very impressive job with its studios this gen. They have financed some pretty ambitious projects. While most of the titles have failed to set the charts on fire, I think their output this gen has been way more innovative than MS or Nintendo. I feel Sony genuinely wants to push technology forward whereas MS definitely has a numbers-first culture.
Click to expand...
You could feel that way, but you'd be wrong.

Nintendo is much more numbers focused in software development than either Sony or MS. Their games and game releases are designed with two things in mind: 1) Profit and 2) Future Profit.

1) Profit

Nintendo are very consistent with delivering quality product, mainly because they want to maintain their brand equity. This is why they polish and refine games to the extent they do - if customers equate the Nintendo brand with quality, they will keep coming back. They will tend toward delaying games if they are not ready for market or disallowing localisations if a game is deemed to potentially damage brand equity. This holds true even if it means leaving larger than usual gaps in their release schedules.

2) Future Profit

Nintendo are all about innovation because they want to continue profiting in the future. It seems a business truism, but time and again, they try wacky new ideas in the hopes of creating a new market for their products so that when the current market dies away, Nintendo doesn't go with it.

They spend a SHITLOAD on R&D, most of which goes towards creating ideas that don't ever go anywhere. Occasionally they will strike gold and come up with something like the DS, but they also come up with ideas like GCN/GBA connectivity. Regardless of how you feel about the end product, when developing new product lines, Nintendo spares no expense - it's conceivable that they spent more time/money developing Wii Sports/Wii Fit/Wii Music (new product line) than they did on Super Mario Galaxy (extension of an existing product line), for instance.

Thing is, much to the consternation of tech fetishists, this means that they try to mitigate risks associated with new product line launches by cheaping out on the large scale manufacturing. This means that even if the product is a flop, they will either profit or only lose small amounts. Thus, Nintendo hardware is always built with "antiquated" technology (though they try to design it as efficient as possible within those bounds), its main draw coming from its software. This happened with the NES, the Gameboy, the Gamecube and the Wii.

Sony's development is about pushing tech forward, you are correct, as cultivating the customer who is willing to buy cutting edge tech for a premium has traditionally been Sony's bread and butter. Their focus on innovation is of a different kind than that of Nintendo, at least when it comes to SCE (and its various regional counterparts), as these are more about refinement and the logical progression of existing tech (from other parts of the business) than they are about coming up with new ideas.

Which isn't to say that Nintendo don't consider on tech to be important (look at the long march of the development of the Wiimote) or that Sony don't look at developing new ideas at all (look at Team Ico's games). The two companies' strategies are different.

Microsoft, on the other hand, are all about cock-blocking Sony, so the money is less important.
 
Rash said:
Variety and Quality.

Just look at the genres that their Wii games have covered:

Wii Sports - Party/Sports
Wii Fit - Lifestyle
Wii Music - Music
WarioWare - Party
Zelda: Twilight Princess - Action/Adventure
Super Mario Galaxy - 3D Platformer
Wario Land: Shake It! - 2D Platformer
Super Paper Mario - Platformer/Adventure/RPG
Metroid Prime 3 - First-Person Adventure
Super Smash Brothers Brawl - Fighter/Brawler

I'm not in this for list wars, and yeah, I am a Nintendo fan. But, it just goes to show that Nintendo is a company that knows how to cover the bases, and cover them well, which is why they should at least be considered as the best first party during this generation.
Click to expand...

This post nearly made me spit out my coffee! This list does not make pretty reading. Ignoring Galaxy and the fact that I played Twilight on my GC, you have a bunch of tired rehashes ( MP3, Brawl, Kart) and some non-games (Wii Music, Fit) some awful 30 secs of fun compilations titles (Wii Sports and Warioware).

To each is own, but as a GC owner I see the Wii first party catalogue as being pretty weak once you take Galaxy and Zelda out of the equation. I'll give you varitey, but where's the quality?
 
I Push Fat Kids said:
I'm pretty sure Sony would trade all of their first party efforts to Nintendo for a time machine and the Wii Fit idea.
Click to expand...

I doubt a Wii-Fit-esque game would've sold all that well to the audience Sony has been typically shooting for.
 
Azih said:
I mean I don't think that the Xbox or the Wii have an exclusive lineup that can rival Ratchet and Clank, Uncharted, Resistance, Killzone 2, Little Big Planet, WarHawk, Wipeout.
Click to expand...

What? Even I, a huge R&C fan, don't believe this list.

And hell upcoming games like God of War 3, and the next Gran Turismo will bring some of the most heavy hitting game franchises to the PS3. But even without those games it's just interesting to note how innovative and boundary pushing the exclusive games for the PS3 have been.
Click to expand...

This reads like PR. You're member number 11, so I guess you know the people here, but I can't believe this was actually posted.
 
viciouskillersquirrel said:
You could feel that way, but you'd be wrong.

Nintendo is much more numbers focused in software development than either Sony or MS. Their games and game releases are designed with two things in mind: 1) Profit and 2) Future Profit.

1) Profit

Nintendo are very consistent with delivering quality product, mainly because they want to maintain their brand equity. This is why they polish and refine games to the extent they do - if customers equate the Nintendo brand with quality, they will keep coming back. They will tend toward delaying games if they are not ready for market or disallowing localisations if a game is deemed to potentially damage brand equity. This holds true even if it means leaving larger than usual gaps in their release schedules.

2) Future Profit

Nintendo are all about innovation because they want to continue profiting in the future. It seems a business truism, but time and again, they try wacky new ideas in the hopes of creating a new market for their products so that when the current market dies away, Nintendo doesn't go with it.

They spend a SHITLOAD on R&D, most of which goes towards creating ideas that don't ever go anywhere. Occasionally they will strike gold and come up with something like the DS, but they also come up with ideas like GCN/GBA connectivity. Regardless of how you feel about the end product, when developing new product lines, Nintendo spares no expense - it's conceivable that they spent more time/money developing Wii Sports/Wii Fit/Wii Music (new product line) than they did on Super Mario Galaxy (extension of an existing product line), for instance.

Thing is, much to the consternation of tech fetishists, this means that they try to mitigate risks associated with new product line launches by cheaping out on the large scale manufacturing. This means that even if the product is a flop, they will either profit or only lose small amounts. Thus, Nintendo hardware is always built with "antiquated" technology (though they try to design it as efficient as possible within those bounds), its main draw coming from its software. This happened with the NES, the Gameboy, the Gamecube and the Wii.

Sony's development is about pushing tech forward, you are correct, as cultivating the customer who is willing to buy cutting edge tech for a premium has traditionally been Sony's bread and butter. Their focus on innovation is of a different kind than that of Nintendo, at least when it comes to SCE (and its various regional counterparts), as these are more about refinement and the logical progression of existing tech (from other parts of the business) than they are about coming up with new ideas.

Which isn't to say that Nintendo don't consider on tech to be important (look at the long march of the development of the Wiimote) or that Sony don't look at developing new ideas at all (look at Team Ico's games). The two companies' strategies are different.

Microsoft, on the other hand, are all about cock-blocking Sony, so the money is less important.
Click to expand...

2 questions.

Why do you care about profit? Do you work for Nintendo? I'm not saying thatyour post is wrong, but seriously, let the people who actually make money/lose money from this shit worry about making a profit, we should worry about if their game is good enough to spend $60.00 on.

Second question is why did you spoiler tag your post? I thought it was a little strange :lol :lol .
 
Azih said:
So I was just thinking over the exclusive titles for each console this generation and it just seems like an absolute runaway victory for Sony. Especially if you restrict yourselves to First Party Devs.

I mean I don't think that the Xbox or the Wii have an exclusive lineup that can rival Ratchet and Clank, Uncharted, Resistance, Killzone 2, Little Big Planet, WarHawk, Wipeout. And the really impressive thing is how many different kinds of IP there are in that list. Continuations of impressive PS2 games (R&C), crazy good PSN games (the best original online lineup with games like freaking Wipeout HD), and such a mindblowingly huge list of brand new IPs (Uncharted, Resistance). And just such an amazingly ambitious game like Little Big Planet that is just a celebration of all things video gaming.

And hell upcoming games like God of War 3, and the next Gran Turismo will bring some of the most heavy hitting game franchises to the PS3. But even without those games it's just interesting to note how innovative and boundary pushing the exclusive games for the PS3 have been.
Click to expand...

I have no immediate objections to your point, but I do wonder why you made a thread about this.

Edit : on a side note, do I see the "MS is only doing it for money" argument ? Again ? And now it goes along with "Sony is more innovative than Nintendo" ?
 
viciouskillersquirrel said:
You could feel that way, but you'd be wrong.

Nintendo is much more numbers focused in software development than either Sony or MS. Their games and game releases are designed with two things in mind: 1) Profit and 2) Future Profit.

1) Profit

Nintendo are very consistent with delivering quality product, mainly because they want to maintain their brand equity. This is why they polish and refine games to the extent they do - if customers equate the Nintendo brand with quality, they will keep coming back. They will tend toward delaying games if they are not ready for market or disallowing localisations if a game is deemed to potentially damage brand equity. This holds true even if it means leaving larger than usual gaps in their release schedules.

2) Future Profit

Nintendo are all about innovation because they want to continue profiting in the future. It seems a business truism, but time and again, they try wacky new ideas in the hopes of creating a new market for their products so that when the current market dies away, Nintendo doesn't go with it.

They spend a SHITLOAD on R&D, most of which goes towards creating ideas that don't ever go anywhere. Occasionally they will strike gold and come up with something like the DS, but they also come up with ideas like GCN/GBA connectivity. Regardless of how you feel about the end product, when developing new product lines, Nintendo spares no expense - it's conceivable that they spent more time/money developing Wii Sports/Wii Fit/Wii Music (new product line) than they did on Super Mario Galaxy (extension of an existing product line), for instance.

Thing is, much to the consternation of tech fetishists, this means that they try to mitigate risks associated with new product line launches by cheaping out on the large scale manufacturing. This means that even if the product is a flop, they will either profit or only lose small amounts. Thus, Nintendo hardware is always built with "antiquated" technology (though they try to design it as efficient as possible within those bounds), its main draw coming from its software. This happened with the NES, the Gameboy, the Gamecube and the Wii.

Sony's development is about pushing tech forward, you are correct, as cultivating the customer who is willing to buy cutting edge tech for a premium has traditionally been Sony's bread and butter. Their focus on innovation is of a different kind than that of Nintendo, at least when it comes to SCE (and its various regional counterparts), as these are more about refinement and the logical progression of existing tech (from other parts of the business) than they are about coming up with new ideas.

Which isn't to say that Nintendo don't consider on tech to be important (look at the long march of the development of the Wiimote) or that Sony don't look at developing new ideas at all (look at Team Ico's games). The two companies' strategies are different.

Microsoft, on the other hand, are all about cock-blocking Sony, so the money is less important.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're talking about here. Nintendo doesn't make games they just publish them.
 
Snipes424 said:
2 questions.

Why do you care about profit? Do you work for Nintendo? I'm not saying thatyour post is wrong, but seriously, let the people who actually make money/lose money from this shit worry about making a profit, we should worry about if their game is good enough to spend $60.00 on.

Second question is why did you spoiler tag your post? I thought it was a little strange :lol :lol .
Click to expand...


Will there be another Haze, Heavenly Sword, Too Human, or Lair? Probably not. Publishers don't profit then a sequel is not guaranteed.
 
Azih said:
So I was just thinking over the exclusive titles for each console this generation and it just seems like an absolute runaway victory for Sony. Especially if you restrict yourselves to First Party Devs.

I mean I don't think that the Xbox or the Wii have an exclusive lineup that can rival Ratchet and Clank, Uncharted, Resistance, Killzone 2, Little Big Planet, WarHawk, Wipeout. And the really impressive thing is how many different kinds of IP there are in that list. Continuations of impressive PS2 games (R&C), crazy good PSN games (the best original online lineup with games like freaking Wipeout HD), and such a mindblowingly huge list of brand new IPs (Uncharted, Resistance). And just such an amazingly ambitious game like Little Big Planet that is just a celebration of all things video gaming.

And hell upcoming games like God of War 3, and the next Gran Turismo will bring some of the most heavy hitting game franchises to the PS3. But even without those games it's just interesting to note how innovative and boundary pushing the exclusive games for the PS3 have been.
Click to expand...

14niljc.gif
 
NEOGAF IS DA WORST WEBSITE OUT DERE

da stupid modz at neogaf banned me 4 statin 2 factz datz bull**** and unfair so i made dis video to show dem my tru feelingz bout da ban dey gave me eat it neogaf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Which consoles do you think had the best first party libraries?
Opinion Platform 
42
197
consoul replied
  • Poll
So, what's the best first-party PS5 game at the moment?
Community Poll  2 3 4 5
218
2K
Fess replied
Fromsoft has the best artists in the gaming industry, and it's not even close (PICS HEAVY)
Opinion  2
94
2K
SlimySnake replied
Seems like with Japanese third party developers it’s a wrap for full console exclusives.
2
83
2K
DryvBy replied
Dragons Dogma 2 is such a disappointment. Underwhelming doesn't even describe it.
2 3
108
3K
BbMajor7th replied
Top Bottom