Vita Having "Difficult Time" Attracting Third-Party Support

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I've seen the Playstation Vita in stores, with a shelf of games. It's still not properly sunk in that this is a real handheld videogames console.

I just look at it and think "Oh, another N-Gage".

As someone who bought the Vita, I absolutely love the damn thing.

I've already got my moneys worth out of it with Gravity Rush, MGS remakes, Unit 13, Ninja Gaiden, Uncharted and Dynasty Warriors, and I havent even bought resistance or other titles that I want yet.

Is the line up on the Vita poor? For me it isn't because there is games I love already out or coming out soon. Do I wish there were more developers for it? Of course, who wouldn't want more games for a console they own.

But did I ever regret buying my Vita? Absolutely not, and the main thing that drew me to the Vita was that it was new, the graphics were good, and the touchscreen controls were implemented well. What turned me off the 3DS was that I already had a DS, I don't want to have to pay money for almost the exact same console with 3D added to it, just so I could watch Mario's moustached face jump around the screen in full 3d view.

The Vita is many things:
* Expensive - undoubtedly.
* Beautiful - yes. It's great hardware, no doubt about it. Anyone who says otherwise likely hasn't used it.
* Great graphics - unchartedly. :D

It's also the perfect (aside from transfers from physical) PSP machine. PSP games are smaller, prettier (with the filtering options available), and some (MHFU!) benefit immensely from mapping the arrow buttons to the second analogue stick. I am in no way disappointed with my Vita - but most of that is because I can play Monster Hunter with full camera control and instantaneous load times.

The game that would have sold a Vita to me was Persona 4: Golden, but as far as I know that isn't getting a European release, so...I have no interest in the Vita.
As many people here have already stated- the reason the Vita isn't selling is because it has few games worth playing. It has some, yes, but not enough.

I just want to say, I love my Vita.

Also: PLEASE MAKE MOAR GAMEZ!!1!

I held back from the handheld gaming craze till the beginning of this year. Since then I have found a wealth of older games (most JRPG) that are a perfect fit for being on the go and downtime at work. The screen on the Vita is incredible. It's size and clarity have extracted compliments from my smart phone friends. You Tube is a nice addition. But they really dropped the ball with backwards compatibility with my PSN games (I had a psp first). I hope they pull their collective heads out of their asses and get more games to work for it (ie Final Fantasy 1-9).

I am looking forward to Ragnarok next. Sound Shapes and Gungnir (was first on psp a little while ago) are the two newest in my library, and they are great. I'm actually surprised more people aren't talking about Sound Shapes. Making your own music/levels is rather genius.



Also, if you haven't, check out 'Gravity Rush', 'Mutant Blobs Attack', and actually, the 'Puddle' game is kinda cool too.

worldfest:

The Wii-U will go under, and so will the Vita. Nintendo right now is primarily banking on the 3DS.

I don't have high expectations for the WiiU personally, but it's way too early to say that it will go under.

The Vita? Yeah. I'd believe that.

I sit down in front of the largest television set in the house, and much like a movie, I expect an experience. The only difference is that I'm holding a controller, but my mind is already adjusting to a cinematic atmosphere. I'm here to be amused by a something specifically made to amuse me, and I don't want to be interrupted.

A hand-held cannot give me such a visceral experience. Both the PSVita and 3DS were aimed at kids and nostalgic gamers. Not home console users with 1080p, 45 inch screens mounted to their wall, and a humble rack of 20 games with over three hundred hours of gameplay.

They're two different markets, perhaps with some overlap.
Saying that a handheld cannot provide the "visceral/cinematic" experience of a home console or PC is to miss the point of a handheld entirely.

I *know* that there are still people playing mobile games. Lots of them. Tonnes of them.
I go to a University full of people who play mobile games, and most of them are NOT just children and nostalgic gamers.

The difference is that it's primarily done on smart phones, not handheld consoles.
There is clearly a market for them, it's just that the development costs are cheaper on Android, or more certain on iFad.

J. Mazarin:
But you didn't ignore it, that's the kicker. Eh, I'd wager you just want attention. Don't worry, with that kind of attitude you'll get it pretty easily.

Is this the part where you try to pretend you're some sort of successful troll? You know, you actually have to get me angry to be successful, and really you're only making me laugh at you. XD

Go ahead, keep replying, you're only making yourself look worse by trying to turn this into a "you just want attention" debate. I would never had posted in here again if you hadn't replied, though, so really you're just doing the opposite of what you proclaimed to want to do.

worldfest:
No one who paid any attention to consoles was under the disillusioned theory that the Vita would outsell the 3DS, which is why even Sony ended up hyping their baby as a hardcore console.

No, Nintendo, like Square Enix, have little actual direction. Their new console will not take off unless the greasy mustache of a certain over exposed character comes with it right out of the box. They retread old school because that's all their Teenie and casual fans want -- something to make them nostalgic about once picking up a Mario game way back when.

I find this point of view very curious because the same argument could easily be made for any fan of any franchise ever. But for some reason people only want to apply it to Nintendo's fans....why is that, I wonder? Is there something particularly bad about Nintendo's fans that isn't the case for fans of other franchises?

What I mean, is that Nintendo no longer pushes innovation in the console or game platforms. They just revise their games like that lazy novelists we all follow and sharply criticize when they proceed in the same way, and because they once showed capacity for greater depths. But as long as he makes a living for his kids and still remains fairly active, I guess that's all that matters in the bottom line then, right?

Have you played any of those "retread" games you're talking about? I ask because I often find that the people who make those claims have never picked up a Mario or Zelda title in their life. There are significantly more differences between, say, OoT and Majora's Mask. Despite being on the same engine and console generation, most people could easily tell you the differences. Compare the last two CoD games, or the last two Maddens, etc and see if the differences are as easy for you to spot.

And even if they were as "same-y" as claimed, I do have to ask this because people seem adverse to asking themselves this question: is it truly bad if a game retreads itself? It can be bad if they're making the same game every year, fair enough, but if they're making a very similar game every couple of years, do you blame them?

1) Retreads, reboots, and sequels tend to sell infinitely better than new IPs.
2) They are easier to make than new IPs.
3) They have a devoted fan following, making them easier to advertise since most of the work is already done for them by the internet nowadays.

Why invest in new products when reselling the old one works just fine? I do actually tend to like seeing new products myself, but I can't exactly blame people for repeatedly making the same game over and over if people keep buying it.

Atmos Duality:

worldfest:

The Wii-U will go under, and so will the Vita. Nintendo right now is primarily banking on the 3DS.

I don't have high expectations for the WiiU personally, but it's way too early to say that it will go under.

The Vita? Yeah. I'd believe that.

I sit down in front of the largest television set in the house, and much like a movie, I expect an experience. The only difference is that I'm holding a controller, but my mind is already adjusting to a cinematic atmosphere. I'm here to be amused by a something specifically made to amuse me, and I don't want to be interrupted.

A hand-held cannot give me such a visceral experience. Both the PSVita and 3DS were aimed at kids and nostalgic gamers. Not home console users with 1080p, 45 inch screens mounted to their wall, and a humble rack of 20 games with over three hundred hours of gameplay.

They're two different markets, perhaps with some overlap.
Saying that a handheld cannot provide the "visceral/cinematic" experience of a home console or PC is to miss the point of a handheld entirely.

I *know* that there are still people playing mobile games. Lots of them. Tonnes of them.
I go to a University full of people who play mobile games, and most of them are NOT just children and nostalgic gamers.

The difference is that it's primarily done on smart phones, not handheld consoles.
There is clearly a market for them, it's just that the development costs are cheaper on Android, or more certain on iFad.

It's all cellphones for games, but no one will spend $20 on a cell game for say -- and if this was even possible -- something equivalent to capacity of Skyrim. We need that battery to last; this is why android phones have been downsizing, and especially since that Galaxy II. It doesn't matter how gorgeous the display is, people won't watch movies on a phone when they have a LCD with surround sound sitting in their living room. My Galaxy I came with that gorgeous $400 Million dollar (Pocahontas rip-off) Avatar movie. Guess how many times I've seen it? Zilch. None. In fact, I only got about five minutes in, when I realized I could watch it at home on a television set.

The future technically is hear with Tablets. The Nexus 7 only costs $200 and with a keyboard, you've got yourself a little laptop, ereader, front face video and all of the incentives to spend productive time on. And that's just it. People will want tech when they "feel" it makes them productive. Sony and Nintendo still don't understand our western concept, and that's because of how fast their own world goes by -- albiet, it isn't healthy, and especially for a society as a whole.
Here, our world is more utilitarian and less, well, abstract and asthetic than their culture. We love reality like they love anime, not to say that they don't appreciate the former, but let's be real, it's just different over there.

Those differences add up, like Square Enix being absolutely lost when it comes to their main franchise. They're trying to walk a thin line with JPRGs, but there is no originality there.

Ever wonder why Microsoft doesn't have a handheld? It's useless in the long run. You have to invest tech and department resources to building new software; you have to contract, or rather bully developers to making at least a few games -- it's just not worth it. Microsoft would rather compete with their windows phones and PC's, because they know that's the future. Ask Sony how their Ericson or Xperia are doing? Oh, their phones are leading in Japan of course, but aren't even competing world wide. The PSVita shows you why, as did the PS3's slow release of games.

Woops, I reposted the same post; the response I think is above.

When I read the clipped title of 'Vita Having "Difficult Time" Attracting Th' I assumed it would end with 'ives.'
Did not read article due to lack of interest in consoles in general but it could never live up to my expectations set by my imaginary title.

Daystar Clarion:
Still no Monster Hunter...

Sony! y u no want my monehs?!

Seriously, I've said it before and I'll say it, MH Vita will sell the consoles for you!

Monster Hunter is on the verge of selling me a Japanese 3DS...

image

...This is probably why the 3DS is region locked...Also the 3DS comes with a memory card. Just a little after-thought.

The best Sony Handheld titles in my opinion were the Final Fantasy ones (Crisis Core, re-done 1, re-done 2, master ed of 4, etc...gotta import Type-Zero). The vita doesn't seem to have that and if you already have 7, 8 and/or 9 on your PSP from when you downloaded them however long ago there's no rush to upgrade.

Evil Smurf:
I got a DSi, I love it and don't regret it. Can the Vita play Pokemon? NO!

Also this. Mostly this...

CriticKitten:

J. Mazarin:
But you didn't ignore it, that's the kicker. Eh, I'd wager you just want attention. Don't worry, with that kind of attitude you'll get it pretty easily.

Is this the part where you try to pretend you're some sort of successful troll? You know, you actually have to get me angry to be successful, and really you're only making me laugh at you. XD

Go ahead, keep replying, you're only making yourself look worse by trying to turn this into a "you just want attention" debate. I would never had posted in here again if you hadn't replied, though, so really you're just doing the opposite of what you proclaimed to want to do.

worldfest:
No one who paid any attention to consoles was under the disillusioned theory that the Vita would outsell the 3DS, which is why even Sony ended up hyping their baby as a hardcore console.

No, Nintendo, like Square Enix, have little actual direction. Their new console will not take off unless the greasy mustache of a certain over exposed character comes with it right out of the box. They retread old school because that's all their Teenie and casual fans want -- something to make them nostalgic about once picking up a Mario game way back when.

I find this point of view very curious because the same argument could easily be made for any fan of any franchise ever. But for some reason people only want to apply it to Nintendo's fans....why is that, I wonder? Is there something particularly bad about Nintendo's fans that isn't the case for fans of other franchises?

What I mean, is that Nintendo no longer pushes innovation in the console or game platforms. They just revise their games like that lazy novelists we all follow and sharply criticize when they proceed in the same way, and because they once showed capacity for greater depths. But as long as he makes a living for his kids and still remains fairly active, I guess that's all that matters in the bottom line then, right?

Have you played any of those "retread" games you're talking about? I ask because I often find that the people who make those claims have never picked up a Mario or Zelda title in their life. There are significantly more differences between, say, OoT and Majora's Mask. Despite being on the same engine and console generation, most people could easily tell you the differences. Compare the last two CoD games, or the last two Maddens, etc and see if the differences are as easy for you to spot.

And even if they were as "same-y" as claimed, I do have to ask this because people seem adverse to asking themselves this question: is it truly bad if a game retreads itself? It can be bad if they're making the same game every year, fair enough, but if they're making a very similar game every couple of years, do you blame them?

1) Retreads, reboots, and sequels tend to sell infinitely better than new IPs.
2) They are easier to make than new IPs.
3) They have a devoted fan following, making them easier to advertise since most of the work is already done for them by the internet nowadays.

Why invest in new products when reselling the old one works just fine? I do actually tend to like seeing new products myself, but I can't exactly blame people for repeatedly making the same game over and over if people keep buying it.

Okay,

When it comes to Nintendo, I'm not talking about technological innovation. They obviously don't care to compete with the two powerhouses, and that's fine with me. But what bothers me is that their direction isn't really the future. The Wii-U looks absolutely useless, and a cashout like the Move or Kinect -- except that it's where they're taking their ENTIRE Nintendo platform.

The FACT IS that people don't buy the Wii. They buy the Mario games that come with it; because that's all they expect. Mario, Zelda, Sonic and their friends the dancing and kiddie games. Pretty sad right?

I bought the PS3 knowing about the potential in future IP's from various developers working to create a truly visceral, and original experience. And I was right!

NaughtyDog has only had the Uncharted series for about four years, and they're already moving on to Last of Us! Not to mention the cross platforms. You won't see Dead or Alive 5 coming to the Wii, or Metal Gear Reavengance (that's the stupidest name I've ever heard). Portal?

What about the diversity in games coming out this and next year?

Watchdogs? The Last Guardian? Deadspace III? Crysis III? Assassins Creed III? Bioshock FREAKING Infinite!
Several of these series games look nothing like their former counterparts. And with the occasional revamped IP tossed in the mix -- DMC, Resident Evil 6 and Tomb Raider -- the only question I ask, is how fast I can empty my wallet!

Tons of series are drawing to a conclusion, but I'm not panicking, because I know these developers are constantly pushing themselves, constantly competing against each other.

I don't get the same feeling from Nintendo -- more like Nissan rolling out its thrilling new line of Eco friendly Leafs, or Ford just rehashing the same design over and again.

For as on par as the visuals of the Wii and Wii-U will be, who the hell will buy those consoles when Crysis III starts getting exclusive promotion? Bioshock?

And where will the people put their money?

Oh, shit, I forgot to mention. I would also get a Vita for Tales of Innocence R. But that's a Japan exclusive. Because Namco hate making money.

Captcha: want more?
Stop mocking me!

worldfest:
Okay,

When it comes to Nintendo, I'm not talking about technological innovation. They obviously don't care to compete with the two powerhouses, and that's fine with me. But what bothers me is that their direction isn't really the future. The Wii-U looks absolutely useless, and a cashout like the Move or Kinect -- except that it's where they're taking their ENTIRE Nintendo platform.

So was the Wii. Why is it a surprise that this new console might share some similar traits when they both share the "Wii" name? >_>

The FACT IS that people don't buy the Wii. They buy the Mario games that come with it; because that's all they expect. Mario, Zelda, Sonic and their friends the dancing and kiddie games. Pretty sad right?

Sonic is a SEGA property, not a Nintendo property, firstly.

Second, this forces me to ask the obvious question: why do you care? Why is it that people are so badly shaken up about what other people buy and enjoy?

I bought the PS3 knowing about the potential in future IP's from various developers working to create a truly visceral, and original experience. And I was right!

NaughtyDog has only had the Uncharted series for about four years, and they're already moving on to Last of Us! Not to mention the cross platforms. You won't see Dead or Alive 5 coming to the Wii, or Metal Gear Reavengance (that's the stupidest name I've ever heard). Portal?

What about the diversity in games coming out this and next year?

Watchdogs? The Last Guardian? Deadspace III? Crysis III? Assassins Creed III? Bioshock FREAKING Infinite!

Several of these series games look nothing like their former counterparts. And with the occasional revamped IP tossed in the mix -- DMC, Resident Evil 6 and Tomb Raider -- the only question I ask, is how fast I can empty my wallet!

....you're serious, aren't you?

You just rattled off a list of major sequels, many of which use the exact same engine as the previous title and most of the same mechanics. This is your counterargument? This is how you prove that Nintendo is the only one not innovating: by listing off a bunch of sequels that aren't innovating?

Assassin's Creed 3 and Crysis 3, two games with the phrase "sequel" actually written into their titles in the form of "3"s, are what you call "diversity" and "innovation"? Dead or Alive, the series whose primary contribution to gaming was its innovative breast jiggle physics? Dead Space 3, also known as "the franchise which is going to die if it doesn't sell 5 million copies, so we're making it have broader appeal by turning it into an FPS"? Good lord, man. It would take me ages to pick through this list and point to all of the things these games do exactly the same as their predecessors! This is your proof that Nintendo is the only company which shamelessly copies itself? You practically made my argument for me! ._.;

What's more, this has been the state of the gaming industry pretty much forever. Shameless reuse of the old engines, copy-pasted formulas....it's not new, and it's not unique to Nintendo. EVERYONE does it. The fact that you refuse to recognize it coming from anyone except Nintendo is actually sort of embarrassing.

Tons of series are drawing to a conclusion, but I'm not panicking, because I know these developers are constantly pushing themselves, constantly competing against each other.

I don't get the same feeling from Nintendo -- more like Nissan rolling out its thrilling new line of Eco friendly Leafs, or Ford just rehashing the same design over and again.

Your own list *proves* that everyone is guilty of this.

As a side note, I noticed you refused to answer my question so I'm going to assume you have never picked up a Mario or Zelda title before in your life.

For as on par as the visuals of the Wii and Wii-U will be, who the hell will buy those consoles when Crysis III starts getting exclusive promotion? Bioshock?

Well given that most of the people who want the Wii already own it....I'd say that Nintendo doesn't exactly need to be selling a lot of them any more, do they?

As for the Wii U, it's basically going to be at par with the PS3 or 360, so the graphics aren't really in question. What's going to matter is whether or not the console puts out enough of its own unique titles. That is what will make or break the Wii U.

And where will the people put their money?

Wherever they want to, of course. Why does it bother you that people choose to spend their money on Nintendo products? There's nothing wrong with that, any more so than buying exclusively Sony products or Microsoft products. It's notoriously simple minded to do so but people aren't exactly restricted from buying what they enjoy just because you don't like it.

CriticKitten:

worldfest:
Okay,

When it comes to Nintendo, I'm not talking about technological innovation. They obviously don't care to compete with the two powerhouses, and that's fine with me. But what bothers me is that their direction isn't really the future. The Wii-U looks absolutely useless, and a cashout like the Move or Kinect -- except that it's where they're taking their ENTIRE Nintendo platform.

So was the Wii. Why is it a surprise that this new console might share some similar traits when they both share the "Wii" name? >_>

The FACT IS that people don't buy the Wii. They buy the Mario games that come with it; because that's all they expect. Mario, Zelda, Sonic and their friends the dancing and kiddie games. Pretty sad right?

Sonic is a SEGA property, not a Nintendo property, firstly.

Second, this forces me to ask the obvious question: why do you care? Why is it that people are so badly shaken up about what other people buy and enjoy?

I bought the PS3 knowing about the potential in future IP's from various developers working to create a truly visceral, and original experience. And I was right!

NaughtyDog has only had the Uncharted series for about four years, and they're already moving on to Last of Us! Not to mention the cross platforms. You won't see Dead or Alive 5 coming to the Wii, or Metal Gear Reavengance (that's the stupidest name I've ever heard). Portal?

What about the diversity in games coming out this and next year?

Watchdogs? The Last Guardian? Deadspace III? Crysis III? Assassins Creed III? Bioshock FREAKING Infinite!

Several of these series games look nothing like their former counterparts. And with the occasional revamped IP tossed in the mix -- DMC, Resident Evil 6 and Tomb Raider -- the only question I ask, is how fast I can empty my wallet!

....you're serious, aren't you?

You just rattled off a list of major sequels, many of which use the exact same engine as the previous title and most of the same mechanics. This is your counterargument? This is how you prove that Nintendo is the only one not innovating: by listing off a bunch of sequels that aren't innovating?

Assassin's Creed 3 and Crysis 3, two games with the phrase "sequel" actually written into their titles in the form of "3"s, are what you call "diversity" and "innovation"? Dead or Alive, the series whose primary contribution to gaming was its innovative breast jiggle physics? Dead Space 3, also known as "the franchise which is going to die if it doesn't sell 5 million copies, so we're making it have broader appeal by turning it into an FPS"? Good lord, man. It would take me ages to pick through this list and point to all of the things these games do exactly the same as their predecessors! This is your proof that Nintendo is the only company which shamelessly copies itself? You practically made my argument for me! ._.;

What's more, this has been the state of the gaming industry pretty much forever. Shameless reuse of the old engines, copy-pasted formulas....it's not new, and it's not unique to Nintendo. EVERYONE does it. The fact that you refuse to recognize it coming from anyone except Nintendo is actually sort of embarrassing.

Tons of series are drawing to a conclusion, but I'm not panicking, because I know these developers are constantly pushing themselves, constantly competing against each other.

I don't get the same feeling from Nintendo -- more like Nissan rolling out its thrilling new line of Eco friendly Leafs, or Ford just rehashing the same design over and again.

Your own list *proves* that everyone is guilty of this.

As a side note, I noticed you refused to answer my question so I'm going to assume you have never picked up a Mario or Zelda title before in your life.

For as on par as the visuals of the Wii and Wii-U will be, who the hell will buy those consoles when Crysis III starts getting exclusive promotion? Bioshock?

Well given that most of the people who want the Wii already own it....I'd say that Nintendo doesn't exactly need to be selling a lot of them any more, do they?

As for the Wii U, it's basically going to be at par with the PS3 or 360, so the graphics aren't really in question. What's going to matter is whether or not the console puts out enough of its own unique titles. That is what will make or break the Wii U.

And where will the people put their money?

Wherever they want to, of course. Why does it bother you that people choose to spend their money on Nintendo products? There's nothing wrong with that, any more so than buying exclusively Sony products or Microsoft products. It's notoriously simple minded to do so but people aren't exactly restricted from buying what they enjoy just because you don't like it.

The Wii-U comes out later this December and we still don't have all of its tech specs. This is because they want to compete with the PS3 and Xbox360, and they want to be a console for hardcore gaming, but they know they don't have the specs to match those powerhouses, and would rather not have game sites like the Escapist start comparing them.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117991-Nintendo-Wants-Wii-U-The-Preferred-Console-for-Hardcore-Gamers

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2012/06/11/wii-u-vs-ps3-comparison-show-wii-u-is-not-a-huge-leap/

And to top it all off, 8GB of internal storage!? And the unit is going on sale for reportedly $300!

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/360543/wii-u-price-to-be-299-report/

So it won't reach a parallel with its older and more sophisticated counterparts, either in graphics or memory, but it will charge the same.

The Wii-U gamepad is a plastic Ipad with buttons -- and not to mention the 2004 tech-era stensil. It's too big to hold for a long time; it weighs over one pound; and why someone might want to look at a little screen with their 45 inch Sony mounted to the wall is a question they'll have wished they'd asked earlier on. Can't be too hopeful for the battery life either.

I played Mario Galaxy 2 at my brother in-law's, and then Sonic. I couldn't figure out what the hell to do in MG2, even after an hour of trying to sort out the controls. RE4 handled brilliantly. Sonic was alright, but fidgety.

I want fresh ideas about games! I want their Watchdogs! I want their Bioshock Infinite! Where is there Psychonauts! Shadow of the Colossus? Portal?

Just look at the abysmal line up of games for the Wii-U? Besides an inferior looking ASIII and ME III, what will attract anyone beside that New Super Mario Bros. game?

No one will buy the console for ASIII. They'll only buy it for Mario, Zelda and all of their old IP friends, who are sure to turn up later on.

My starting argument many posts ago wasn't even about the Wii U, but about how Nintendo has cornered themselves in a niche -- albeit, an exclusive one, but something that they haven't quite fulfilled in originality because of their obsession for not taking risks in ip's. Just look at the Wii's highest selling products; Six mario games in the top ten! No originality.

http://www.listal.com/list/bestselling-wii-games

I'm not going to buy the Wii-U because it's now made itself in the image of a young feeble, freshman athlete against his star high school Football & Track brothers, Playstation and Xbox, and who just got promises of college scholarships (PS4 and Xbox720).

That and the fact that a Nexus 7 tablet, which costs much less, will do more to entertain then that Gamepad.

I wonder if Sony might have done better focusing on the Playstation 3 which is pretty thin on the ground for games this year and the foreseeable future.

Games like Uncharted Golden Abyss i would buy on ps3 as a budget title. But I am NOT going to drop 250 big ones then, then fork out for a memory card, and pay maximum price (£40/$60) for each game. Hell no. I could buy every game I ever wanted on pc for that.

So the barrier to me getting this fairly good looking game is almost £300 which in greenbacks is $480.

And Sony is making such a loss on the hardware, and the cartridge for the game cutting into costs so much... if Sony had just sold these game as £20 downloadable titles to play on ps3, I think both Sony and and the customers would be better off.

The console isn't actually badly priced.

It's just that Sony are a bunch of retarded greedy dipshits who are too cool to mess with a normal fucking format like, say, SDHC cars or something.
So now you get to buy a MEMORY CARD at bloody SSD prices.

So, nobody buys the consoles due to the cost of it + the memory card, therefore nobody buys the games, therefore nobody makes the games.
Good work Sony, you just fucked yourselves over.

Drop the price of the memory cards in 1/2, give like $20 off the Vita and then offer the next 10 companies to produce a title for the Vita a big enough discount to make them actually do it.
This would sell units and make the Vita actually worthwhile.
Hell, include the 4gb memory card with the console along with a small price drop and announce the PS2 game store, with like GT4 and San Andreas and shit having quick ports over.

But i bet Sony won't do this, so instead the Vita will lose worse than the PSP did.

The problem with PSV is everything good about it is with the suffix "... for a handheld".

PSV has good graphics... for a handheld. Good controls, for a handheld. Deep games, for a handheld.

Well I don't want such compormises. Handheld gaming is so expensive yet so compromised and I don't care about the portability factor. Neither 3DS nor PSV have particularly long battery life so their portability is limited and at a cost in needing frequent charging.

This isn't PSV vs 3DS, this is PSV vs our wallets.

worldfest:
The Wii-U comes out later this December and we still don't have all of its tech specs. This is because they want to compete with the PS3 and Xbox360, and they want to be a console for hardcore gaming, but they know they don't have the specs to match those powerhouses, and would rather not have game sites like the Escapist start comparing them.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117991-Nintendo-Wants-Wii-U-The-Preferred-Console-for-Hardcore-Gamers

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2012/06/11/wii-u-vs-ps3-comparison-show-wii-u-is-not-a-huge-leap/

And to top it all off, 8GB of internal storage!? And the unit is going on sale for reportedly $300!

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/360543/wii-u-price-to-be-299-report/

So it won't reach a parallel with its older and more sophisticated counterparts, either in graphics or memory, but it will charge the same.

Other than the CPU and GPU, the specs of the Wii have been known for a little over a year now, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Furthermore, while unconfirmed, sites like the Escapist HAVE been reporting on the supposed specs of the Wii U. Developers already have a copy of this console since they're developing games on it, and rumor is that the console is twice as powerful as a 360. It's just a rumor, true, but it's no more or less valid than the links you've offered.

We won't know how powerful it is until it's out, and by then no one is actually going to care. No one actually buys their console and games based on the power (unless they're an idiot), they buy a console based on the library of games it offers. WiiU still has some work to do in that area, though, that's for sure.

As for price point, I'll believe it when I see it. I actually suspect it's going to be $250 or less. They won't be able to sell it at $300, as they (likely) learned that lesson from the 3DS.

The Wii-U gamepad is a plastic Ipad with buttons -- and not to mention the 2004 tech-era stensil. It's too big to hold for a long time; it weighs over one pound; and why someone might want to look at a little screen with their 45 inch Sony mounted to the wall is a question they'll have wished they'd asked earlier on. Can't be too hopeful for the battery life either.

The gamepad is meant to act as a secondary screen, not the primary one. It's functionally a lot like a Nintendo DS, with the main screen being your TV. That said, if you feel as though it's difficult to hold a screen that weighs only one pound, you might want to get yourself checked out by a doctor. A PS Vita is about a third of a pound in weight, and I know very few people who get fatigued from carrying that much. So it's basically like holding ~3-4 Vitas between both of your hands. That's not as much as you think it is. I do share your concerns for battery life, but it's not something unique to the Gamepad. Wireless controllers tend to have weaker battery life. I suspect they'll have a cord you can plug the controller into, since most players will want to game for long periods of time.

I played Mario Galaxy 2 at my brother in-law's, and then Sonic. I couldn't figure out what the hell to do in MG2, even after an hour of trying to sort out the controls. RE4 handled brilliantly. Sonic was alright, but fidgety.

I'll repeat since you obviously missed it the first time: Sonic is a SEGA property, not a Nintendo property. It's good to know you at least attempted to flop your way through a single Mario, though it's amazing that this game supposedly designed for children and nostalgia-ridden teens who are used to playing Mario in 2D was able to defeat you.

I want fresh ideas about games! I want their Watchdogs! I want their Bioshock Infinite! Where is there Psychonauts! Shadow of the Colossus? Portal?

Bioshock Infinite is not a "fresh idea". Neither is Shadow of the Colossus. You seem to be confused on what constitutes a "new" idea, because you have basically been saying "I want Nintendo to stop copying itself and make their games more like [insert copy-pasta game of choice]!".

Let's go ahead and play your game with other companies, shall we? Let's start with Sony.

Sony's "original" ideas from E3 include:
* All-Stars Battle Royale, a carbon copy of Nintendo's SSB Brawl so obvious that anyone who has played Brawl for more than five minutes recognized the similarities instantly.
* Beyond, a game built by the makers of Heavy Rain on the same engine and using the same design choices.
* Another Far Cry
* Another Assassin's Creed
* Another God of War
* More games for Playstation Plus, which is their version of Nintendo's Wii Shop. They're also doing this for the Vita.
* Another Black Ops exclusively for the Vita
* The Last of Us, one of the few titles that seemed impressive and unique.
* Wonderbook, one of the stupidest ideas to blight the planet since the Power Glove.

God the originality is just blowing my mind! What about Microsoft?

Microsoft's "original" ideas include:
* Another Halo
* Another Splinter Cell
* More FIFA and Madden
* A reboot/prequel of Tomb Raider
* Another Black Ops
* Another Resident Evil
* Internet Explorer and Bing search engine on their console (no I'm serious).

There's a reason no one was impressed with E3 this year: because it was a ton of sequels from everyone (Nintendo included), a lot of playing-it-safe marketing and very few new IPs. It was a shitty year for E3, and the stocks for virtually everybody dropped after their presentations at E3 for just this reason.

It's time to start being honest with yourself. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, copies and rehashes and reiterates and even steals ideas from its competitors. It's been the state of the market for years, and it's going to continue. If you want it to stop, you need to stop buying the same things over and over. If you're like me and don't really care if it's a copy-pasta or not so long as it's a good game that feels unique enough, then do as I do and stop worrying about what is and isn't original.

Just look at the abysmal line up of games for the Wii-U? Besides an inferior looking ASIII and ME III, what will attract anyone beside that New Super Mario Bros. game?

How do you know it's inferior looking? You keep harping on the specs but you admit you don't even know what the specs are or how well they hold up against consoles from this generation.

No one will buy the console for ASIII. They'll only buy it for Mario, Zelda and all of their old IP friends, who are sure to turn up later on.

This is speculation, not fact.

My starting argument many posts ago wasn't even about the Wii U, but about how Nintendo has cornered themselves in a niche -- albeit, an exclusive one, but something that they haven't quite fulfilled in originality because of their obsession for not taking risks in ip's. Just look at the Wii's highest selling products; Six mario games in the top ten! No originality.

http://www.listal.com/list/bestselling-wii-games

That list is from 2009. It actually says so right at the top. >_>

A more reliable chart from VGChartz indicates only three Mario games in the top ten. The rest are party games, which makes sense because the Wii was sold primarily as a party game console for casual audiences.

No, Brawl is not "a Mario game" just because Mario shows up in it, any more than Sony's Battle Royale on the PS3 will be a Kratos game because Kratos is in it. It's a silly fighter-based party game which capitalizes on a large number of Nintendo IPs.

I'm not going to buy the Wii-U because it's now made itself in the image of a young feeble, freshman athlete against his star high school Football & Track brothers, Playstation and Xbox, and who just got promises of college scholarships (PS4 and Xbox720).

That and the fact that a Nexus 7 tablet, which costs much less, will do more to entertain then that Gamepad.

Good for you, that's your opinion. That doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to agree with you.

CriticKitten:

Just look at the abysmal line up of games for the Wii-U? Besides an inferior looking ASIII and ME III, what will attract anyone beside that New Super Mario Bros. game?

How do you know it's inferior looking? You keep harping on the specs but you admit you don't even know what the specs are or how well they hold up against consoles from this generation.

No one will buy the console for ASIII. They'll only buy it for Mario, Zelda and all of their old IP friends, who are sure to turn up later on.

This is speculation, not fact.

she/He was probably asleep when the games ZombieU and Lego city undercover were announced. Two games i would buy the system for.

I am so getting annoyed with all these people that take every sony topic to bash nintendo.
The Wii didn't flop , the ds didn't flop , the 3ds is still on the rise. Just because some people do not like what nintendo is making doesn't mean it fails

Have a Vita. I am disappointed with a few things... One, Netflix is not supported with the 3g network, only through wifi. Meaning I have to be at home to watch netflix on the go or have another roaming hotspot. Not that this is a killer for me, I just would have liked to watched a few netflix streams while out and about without having to look for "free" wifi.
Two, PS1 support is promised with 1.8 but still hasn't been released, yet I can play by remote PS1 games that are on my PS3 already... weird.
Three, no real games that are catching my interest short of Mortal Kombat, AC3 and a few other things that aren't released yet.
Four, I would like more PSP titles released on PSN store. Namely FF7 Crisis Core.

Otherwise there are a lot of cool things about the Vita and I'd love to see dev studios take a chance on IPs specially made for it. I think it has potential to be much much better than the DS but too many game studios are scared of trying something new as are publishers.
No one makes money without risking something and a game studio could do well if they took a risk on the Vita. Just sayin...
Plus, I would love to see another Castlevania SOTN type game made for Vita. One of the reasons I first bought a DS was for Dawn of Sorrow after playing it on a friend's DS.

CriticKitten:

worldfest:

Other than the CPU and GPU, the specs of the Wii have been known for a little over a year now, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Furthermore, while unconfirmed, sites like the Escapist HAVE been reporting on the supposed specs of the Wii U. Developers already have a copy of this console since they're developing games on it, and rumor is that the console is twice as powerful as a 360. It's just a rumor, true, but it's no more or less valid than the links you've offered.

This has you bringing up the following about comment on an inferior ASIII visuals.

How do you know it's inferior looking? You keep harping on the specs but you admit you don't even know what the specs are or how well they hold up against consoles from this generation.

And here it is:
The Wii-U's "Arkham City: Armored Edition" just looks inferior to the Xbox360 and PS3. Watch the promotional videos. The lighting is too saturated because of the lack of GPU processing and the background is fogged to conceal the lack of CPU power it has from displaying the city. Even the PS3 outdoes the Xbox360 in CPU, because Microsoft focused on more GPU intensive core processors. That's why their games, though requiring multiple disks to their PS3 counterparts (and because of the lack CPU), still look gorgeous. The Xbox360 uses cores, the PS3 uses synergistic cells to handle the burden.

The gamepad is meant to act as a secondary screen, not the primary one. It's functionally a lot like a Nintendo DS, with the main screen being your TV. A PS Vita is about a third of a pound in weight, and I know very few people who get fatigued from carrying that much. So it's basically like holding ~3-4 Vitas between both of your hands.

The difference is that the PSVIta IS your attention. That's what you're handling to play, so you'll bear the weight because the game is on the controller itself. Not so the Wii-U.
I know what the purpose of the Wii-U gamepad is, but it's just a gimmick. Everyone's just going to by the alternate controller.

It's good to know you at least attempted to flop your way through a single Mario, though it's amazing that this game supposedly designed for children and nostalgia-ridden teens who are used to playing Mario in 2D was able to defeat you.

Well, let's just say I was less than inspired to play Mario Galaxy 2 after Peach gets kidnapped in the opening, again. Way to stay progressive with your main IP, Nintendo. And this is why you still don't understand what I mean by having diversity in genres, as in original stories. If you play the Wii, you won't experience experience much of that.

Bioshock Infinite is not a "fresh idea". Neither is Shadow of the Colossus.

"Bioshock: Infinite" is almost a complete a reboot of the series. It went from underwater Atlantis, to the Sky!
And if you can't understand why "Shadow of the Colossus" is brilliant, then just like my genius mind couldn't numb 60% of its itself to sleep for me to enjoy the simplicity of MG2, you weren't able to understand the asthetic refinement and game play concept that came with SOC. There's hardly a narrative, and yet its more powerful than most out there. That is called innovation.

Let's go ahead and play your game with other companies, shall we? Let's start with Sony. God the originality is just blowing my mind! What about Microsoft?

Just because a game has guns, doesn't mean you should just categorize it as a shooter. Dues Ex is a FPS, but it's not Call of Duty any more than Half-life was. You're right, there are nothing but sequals, but they're all different from their former. Tomb Raider is a complete reboot.
Assassin's Creed III explores new culture and story with practically each new game, except for II and Brotherhood. We've gone from freakin mideival times to the American Revolution! And it's on its third main character.
Sure the Battle Royal is a flat-out copy of SSB, but I also know Nintendo won't be pushing its developers for an Uncharted series, or anything as deep as Team ICO.

It's time to start being honest with yourself. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, copies and rehashes and reiterates and even steals ideas from its competitors. It's been the state of the market for years, and it's going to continue.

You know you're actually making my point. PS3 and XBOX360 developers copy and steal, but Nintendo has been for years content to coast on Mario.

There's a reason no one was impressed with E3 this year: because it was a ton of sequels from everyone (Nintendo included), a lot of playing-it-safe marketing and very few new IPs.

No one was impressed at E3 because the majority of games were shooters. I'm fine with that. The PS2 taught us that for every 20 imitation games put out, that Sony was also capable of endorsing creativity: Konami, ICO & SOC, Prince of Persia, Kingdom Hearts, Need for Speed, Grand Theft Auto, etc...
[quote] A more reliable chart from VGChartz indicates only three Mario games in the top ten. The rest are party games, which makes sense because the Wii was sold primarily as a party game console for casual audiences.

I know, it's so sad. People on the Wii were so hungry for creativity, and to be free from Mario's empire, that they actually resorted to... party games. Goes to show you how little they cared for anything else on the platform -- and soon to be explained by yours truly.

[quote]No, Brawl is not "a Mario game" just because Mario shows up in it.

But who's on the freaking cover of all of those games! As they have it in Nintendo.com, Mario is in 37 Games just on the Wii!
[link=]"http://www.nintendo.com/games/gameGuide?character=mario"[/link]
Let's explore this, here's a similar rouch sketch. What if PS3 had it's own Mario, say, Nathan Drake from the Uncharted series.

It would look like this:
Nathan Drake's Uncharted 1, 2, 3
Nathan Drake's world 1,2
Nathan Drake Galaxy 1,2
Nathan Drake Battle Royal 1,2.
Nathan Drake Tenis, and so on and on.

I don't think they would sell well, right? That's because no one's going to buy a PS3 based on Nathan Drake, or for a single game. They do it because they know how diverse the selection of games are, and how capable the PS3 is in handling other media -- something an 8gb harddrive just cannot do -- and having actual mature games. But they will buy the Wii, or Wii-U because of, let's all say it together, MARIO! Try and find something else suitable to somone over 21 in all 1735 apperant selections under the Wii: Spongebob, Sneezies, My little baby -- realize, I'm just cycling through the choices -- Ghost media; oh finally, modern warfare, and faithful RE4.

worldfest:
Try and find something else suitable to somone over 21 in all 1735 apperant selections under the Wii

If you mean Wii games that are rated 16+ (europe) :

House of the dead overkill
resident evil 4
call of duty black ops
resident evil the darkside chronicles
modern warefare 3
call of duty 5
resident evil umbrella chronicles
dead space extraction
dead rising
no more heroes 1 and 2
oneechanbara bikini squad
madworld
mortal combat armageddon

Project zero 2 (although not released in america)
The last story
Metroid : other M
Modern warefare 1
Bully
WWE 2012
red steel 1 and 2
Call of duty 3
The conduit 2
NCIS
Cabela's dangerous adventures
Far cry Vengeance
Goldeneye
Monster hunter tri
Need for speed the run
sniper elite
tomb raider underground
house of the dead 2 &3 return
Tenchu 4
Silent hill shattered memories

... and the list goes on. Your ignorance is showing.

D Moness:

worldfest:
Try and find something else suitable to somone over 21 in all 1735 apperant selections under the Wii

If you mean Wii games that are rated 16+ (europe) :

House of the dead overkill
resident evil 4
call of duty black ops
resident evil the darkside chronicles
modern warefare 3
call of duty 5
resident evil umbrella chronicles
dead space extraction
dead rising
no more heroes 1 and 2
oneechanbara bikini squad
madworld
mortal combat armageddon

Project zero 2 (although not released in america)
The last story
Metroid : other M
Modern warefare 1
Bully
WWE 2012
red steel 1 and 2
Call of duty 3
The conduit 2
NCIS
Cabela's dangerous adventures
Far cry Vengeance
Goldeneye
Monster hunter tri
Need for speed the run
sniper elite
tomb raider underground
house of the dead 2 &3 return
Tenchu 4
Silent hill shattered memories

... and the list goes on. Your ignorance is showing.

When I said over 21, it was a figurative suggestion that the Wii does not have many games that appeal to mature gamers. Blood and gore don't automatically register as a turn-on to us, in as much as depth of story and gameplay innovation. Proceeding by that standard, the only actual innovative game that you mentioned is Bully, which hails to us from that decade past. RE4 is also good as well; but the rest of these are what you call fillers. The PS2 was notorious for this, but also gave us ICO and SOC, Okami, Final Fantasy X & XII, Metal Gear Solid, etc...

Not to say that they don't cover different genres, but they aren't shattering a mold. That's perfectly fine, I guess, knowing that Nintendo likens innovation to being different without depth, and banking on their CASH COW, Mario; but wanting to be different only makes you weird, and transparent; in this case, with the obvious fact that you'll buy anything with a mustached hero pasted to the front of it. And that's called Nostalgia, which is what they really are all about.

And the interesting question that comes to mind is, what games have we seen them promote? Nostalgic IP's.

Good lord, you butchered the quotes. Don't you know how to quote properly?

worldfest:
This has you bringing up the following about comment on an inferior ASIII visuals.

And here it is:
The Wii-U's "Arkham City: Armored Edition" just looks inferior to the Xbox360 and PS3. Watch the promotional videos. The lighting is too saturated because of the lack of GPU processing and the background is fogged to conceal the lack of CPU power it has from displaying the city. Even the PS3 outdoes the Xbox360 in CPU, because Microsoft focused on more GPU intensive core processors. That's why their games, though requiring multiple disks to their PS3 counterparts (and because of the lack CPU), still look gorgeous. The Xbox360 uses cores, the PS3 uses synergistic cells to handle the burden.

So your "proof" that the specs are obviously terrible....is your own subjective opinion? Are you serious? XD

The difference is that the PSVIta IS your attention. That's what you're handling to play, so you'll bear the weight because the game is on the controller itself. Not so the Wii-U.
I know what the purpose of the Wii-U gamepad is, but it's just a gimmick. Everyone's just going to by the alternate controller.

I thought no one was going to buy the console at all? At least you're starting to admit that you're not the authority on all gaming everywhere. Or are you still going to claim that the only people who are going to buy it are ignorant parents and immature teenagers?

Well, let's just say I was less than inspired to play Mario Galaxy 2 after Peach gets kidnapped in the opening, again. Way to stay progressive with your main IP, Nintendo. And this is why you still don't understand what I mean by having diversity in genres, as in original stories. If you play the Wii, you won't experience experience much of that.

No, I understand what you're saying. I just think you're purposefully being dense because of a bias against Nintendo. Your previous posts prove this point rather clearly.

"Bioshock: Infinite" is almost a complete a reboot of the series. It went from underwater Atlantis, to the Sky!

It's not a reboot, it's an alternate universe (at least judging from what the devs have stated). And they've already said it's going to feature very similar gameplay to its predecessors. It's not the "original" title you should be pointing to.

And if you can't understand why "Shadow of the Colossus" is brilliant, then just like my genius mind couldn't numb 60% of its itself to sleep for me to enjoy the simplicity of MG2, you weren't able to understand the asthetic refinement and game play concept that came with SOC. There's hardly a narrative, and yet its more powerful than most out there. That is called innovation.

Shadow of the Colossus is not the first game of its kind, nor will it be the last. The fact that you think it's a brand new game with concepts never seen before in any other game only shows how very little you know about the history of gaming. >_>

Shadow of the Colossus is not revered for being original and brand new, it's praised because it manages to do a lot of things that older games did in a much better way than before. Sort of like how GW2 isn't really a brand new game, but it takes a lot of older concepts and does them much better.

Just because a game has guns, doesn't mean you should just categorize it as a shooter. Dues Ex is a FPS, but it's not Call of Duty any more than Half-life was. You're right, there are nothing but sequals, but they're all different from their former.

According to your own standards, no, they're not. The game play is the same, they're built on the same engine and feature a lot of the same mechanics.

Tomb Raider is a complete reboot.

A reboot of the franchise, yes. That doesn't mean it's not a Tomb Raider game. It still is, and it still proves my point: namely that everyone "copies". It's not just Nintendo. >_>

Assassin's Creed III explores new culture and story with practically each new game, except for II and Brotherhood. We've gone from freakin mideival times to the American Revolution! And it's on its third main character.

And prior to Assassin's Creed, the developers released how many games set in the same time period with the same engine and same mechanics?

Apparently you think the game is brand new if it changes setting. Okay. Then Majora's Mask is different from OoT because it takes place in a different world.

Whoops. There goes your narrative. :P

Sure the Battle Royal is a flat-out copy of SSB, but I also know Nintendo won't be pushing its developers for an Uncharted series, or anything as deep as Team ICO.

Nice try, but you can't just ignore the point. It's not the first thing Sony's copied from Nintendo, either. Not by far.

You know you're actually making my point. PS3 and XBOX360 developers copy and steal, but Nintendo has been for years content to coast on Mario.

And Microsoft has been coasting on Halo. After all, they're up to, what, their sixth game now? God, when will they start being original!?

See how stupid this sounds when you put some thought into it? It's obviously not the only game on their consoles, but your point of view seems to imply that only the top selling console games matter. My point (the more rational one) is that people will continue to buy what they like, and buying a franchise game is a safer bet than spending $60 on a new IP. This is why companies make sequels more than new IPs, and if you want the trend to change, stop buying franchise games. Otherwise, stop whining about the people who enjoy something you don't.

No one was impressed at E3 because the majority of games were shooters. I'm fine with that. The PS2 taught us that for every 20 imitation games put out, that Sony was also capable of endorsing creativity: Konami, ICO & SOC, Prince of Persia, Kingdom Hearts, Need for Speed, Grand Theft Auto, etc...

Pssssst. Most of those titles were not published by Sony. In fact, ALL of them are published by other companies.

ICO/SOC: Team Ico
Prince of Persia: Ubisoft
Kingdom Hearts: Square Enix
Need for Speed: EA
Grand Theft Auto: Rockstar Games

Nintendo's "copycat" games are all first-party games. The games you're naming are third-party games.

I know, it's so sad. People on the Wii were so hungry for creativity, and to be free from Mario's empire, that they actually resorted to... party games. Goes to show you how little they cared for anything else on the platform -- and soon to be explained by yours truly.

You spin the facts right 'round, baby, right 'round. Like a record, baby.

Now let's try a neutral approach.

The top ten games sold on the Wii were all developed directly by Nintendo, meaning Nintendo makes money on those titles directly. Let's compare to Sony, which has 2 titles that they developed in their top ten list. Microsoft has 4 such titles, 2 of which are Halo games. The rest are third-party games, which means the company pays a kickback to the original developer.

There are three Mario games on the top ten list. And since they keep selling, they keep being emphasized and advertised. It works the same way with the PS3 and 360. See if you can predict, based on E3 over the last few years, which games sell the best on them.

Did you guess "gritty FPS titles"? You're right! The PS3 has 5 FPS titles in their top ten sales. Microsoft is even worse, with 8 FPS titles in their top ten list. Worth noting that out of those....four of them are Call of Duty titles. Yep, Nintendo's clearly the only one using the popularity of their successful titles to determine what new titles to advertise. :p

But who's on the freaking cover of all of those games! As they have it in Nintendo.com, Mario is in 37 Games just on the Wii!

Let's explore this, here's a similar rouch sketch. What if PS3 had it's own Mario, say, Nathan Drake from the Uncharted series.

It would look like this:
Nathan Drake's Uncharted 1, 2, 3
Nathan Drake's world 1,2
Nathan Drake Galaxy 1,2
Nathan Drake Battle Royal 1,2.
Nathan Drake Tenis, and so on and on.

I don't think they would sell well, right? That's because no one's going to buy a PS3 based on Nathan Drake, or for a single game.

Because Nathan Drake isn't as beloved of a character, and most people would get bored of seeing his ugly mug eventually. Yeah, I said it. Gonna argue with me about it? Come at me, bro. :P

You still haven't explained why Nintendo is the only company that gets to be taken to task for constantly copying. You just keep insisting that the other companies that make sequels are much more unique (even though that's provably false).

They do it because they know how diverse the selection of games are, and how capable the PS3 is in handling other media -- something an 8gb harddrive just cannot do -- and having actual mature games. But they will buy the Wii, or Wii-U because of, let's all say it together, MARIO!

Actually I suspect most of the people buying the Wii U will buy it because of its superb backwards compatibility with the Wii in terms of both hardware and software.

Try and find something else suitable to somone over 21 in all 1735 apperant selections under the Wii: Spongebob, Sneezies, My little baby -- realize, I'm just cycling through the choices -- Ghost media; oh finally, modern warfare, and faithful RE4.

Already proven ignorant by the other poster. Thanks! If you want Nintendo to start pouring more money into mature games, you know, there's a very easy way to show your desire for more mature games....go buy them on the Wii. If they see those games sell well, they'll start trying to make sure they get more of them on their console. If you don't buy them, why the hell should they bother?

One last comment before I stop this discussion (since it's obviously going nowhere):

And the interesting question that comes to mind is, what games have we seen them promote? Nostalgic IP's.

Yeah, imagine that. It's almost like Nintendo likes money or something, so they decide to make titles with familiar characters in a familiar franchise so that they can put in the least effort for the most income.

But clearly all the other game companies don't do that. Thank goodness too! Because thanks to their push for innovation, we get to look forward to brand new and totally unique titles like Halo 4, Gears of War 3, Uncharted 3, God of War, Assassin's Creed 3, Far Cry 3....

Yeah, starting to get the point? Obviously not, which is why this conversation ends here. If you can't bring yourself to admit that every single major company in the industry does the exact same thing, then there's really no point in continuing, because you have to be weaving quite the illusory world for yourself to believe that. The reason people are so pissed at this year's E3 is not because Nintendo is the only one copying, it's because EVERYONE is copying and rehashing and rebooting. There was little to no actual originality in the entire three day affair. Personally I don't mind if a game duplicates from another good game so long as the new game is still a good game, but if it bothers you so much, then why do you keep buying everything that Sony tells you to?

Daystar Clarion:
Still no Monster Hunter...

Sony! y u no want my monehs?!

Seriously, I've said it before and I'll say it, MH Vita will sell the consoles for you!

They didn't even localize MHP3 and MHP3 HD (PS3). Even if there will be a vita title, there is no guarantee we will ever get it.

The Vitas problem is that there aren't many interesting games for it yet. That combined with the umds not being compatible with it, and transfers of them only being possible in japan (against a fee) probably scares many people away.

CriticKitten:

No one was impressed at E3 because the majority of games were shooters. I'm fine with that. The PS2 taught us that for every 20 imitation games put out, that Sony was also capable of endorsing creativity: Konami, ICO & SOC, Prince of Persia, Kingdom Hearts, Need for Speed, Grand Theft Auto, etc...

Pssssst. Most of those titles were not published by Sony. In fact, ALL of them are published by other companies.

ICO/SOC: Team Ico
Prince of Persia: Ubisoft
Kingdom Hearts: Square Enix
Need for Speed: EA
Grand Theft Auto: Rockstar Games

funny how Worldfest forgets that need for speed was released on the wii. GTA has a ds game also that kingdom hearts has several games on the ds and 1 very recent on the 3ds. Pince of persia has been released on the gamecube and the wii. There goes his/her sony endorsing

Not only does ms live of Halo with it's 6th game but sony is milking god of war with the 7th game coming 2013.

worldfest:
Blood and gore don't automatically register as a turn-on to us, in as much as depth of story and gameplay innovation. Proceeding by that standard, the only actual innovative game that you mentioned is Bully, which hails to us from that decade past. RE4 is also good as well; but the rest of these are what you call fillers. The PS2 was notorious for this, but also gave us ICO and SOC, Okami, Final Fantasy X & XII, Metal Gear Solid, etc...

I think it is funny and ignorant to call games like no more heroes 1 and 2 average score 8,0 and 8,0) , madworld (average score of 8,0) , monster hunter tri (score 8,5 average), silent hill (average 8,0) , the last story (average score of 8,0) filler.

Also silent hill shattered memories was inovative . It removed the fighting from the game making it more tense to play. The last story was petitioned by many many nintendo fans to get it released in america together with xenoblade and pandora's tower. Madworld tried to do something different visually by using mostly black/white and red for colors. No more heroes 1 and 2 made by grashopper manufactory, a studio known for it's stylized and bizar games(The company is headed by Goichi Suda, also known as Suda51, and is noted for its original and imaginative titles - ones that are also fraught with financial risk). Just because you do not like the games doesn't make them fillers.

While in another post claiming that sony is behind titles that are made be completely different devs and released on multiple systems.

and whoops double post

I would buy one but i already own an Android Device and a Iphone Ipod Touch IPad PC PS3, And the games that are on it currently are just not that attention grabber with the exception of Gravity Rush And a new Assassin's Creed game. Still don't see point in dropping 300$ on it...with tax and memory card.

CriticKitten:
Good lord, you butchered the quotes. Don't you know how to quote properly?

worldfest:
This has you bringing up the following about comment on an inferior ASIII visuals.

And here it is:
The Wii-U's "Arkham City: Armored Edition" just looks inferior to the Xbox360 and PS3. Watch the promotional videos. The lighting is too saturated because of the lack of GPU processing and the background is fogged to conceal the lack of CPU power it has from displaying the city. Even the PS3 outdoes the Xbox360 in CPU, because Microsoft focused on more GPU intensive core processors. That's why their games, though requiring multiple disks to their PS3 counterparts (and because of the lack CPU), still look gorgeous. The Xbox360 uses cores, the PS3 uses synergistic cells to handle the burden.

So your "proof" that the specs are obviously terrible....is your own subjective opinion? Are you serious? XD

The difference is that the PSVIta IS your attention. That's what you're handling to play, so you'll bear the weight because the game is on the controller itself. Not so the Wii-U.
I know what the purpose of the Wii-U gamepad is, but it's just a gimmick. Everyone's just going to by the alternate controller.

I thought no one was going to buy the console at all? At least you're starting to admit that you're not the authority on all gaming everywhere. Or are you still going to claim that the only people who are going to buy it are ignorant parents and immature teenagers?

Well, let's just say I was less than inspired to play Mario Galaxy 2 after Peach gets kidnapped in the opening, again. Way to stay progressive with your main IP, Nintendo. And this is why you still don't understand what I mean by having diversity in genres, as in original stories. If you play the Wii, you won't experience experience much of that.

No, I understand what you're saying. I just think you're purposefully being dense because of a bias against Nintendo. Your previous posts prove this point rather clearly.

"Bioshock: Infinite" is almost a complete a reboot of the series. It went from underwater Atlantis, to the Sky!

It's not a reboot, it's an alternate universe (at least judging from what the devs have stated). And they've already said it's going to feature very similar gameplay to its predecessors. It's not the "original" title you should be pointing to.

And if you can't understand why "Shadow of the Colossus" is brilliant, then just like my genius mind couldn't numb 60% of its itself to sleep for me to enjoy the simplicity of MG2, you weren't able to understand the asthetic refinement and game play concept that came with SOC. There's hardly a narrative, and yet its more powerful than most out there. That is called innovation.

Shadow of the Colossus is not the first game of its kind, nor will it be the last. The fact that you think it's a brand new game with concepts never seen before in any other game only shows how very little you know about the history of gaming. >_>

Shadow of the Colossus is not revered for being original and brand new, it's praised because it manages to do a lot of things that older games did in a much better way than before. Sort of like how GW2 isn't really a brand new game, but it takes a lot of older concepts and does them much better.

Just because a game has guns, doesn't mean you should just categorize it as a shooter. Dues Ex is a FPS, but it's not Call of Duty any more than Half-life was. You're right, there are nothing but sequals, but they're all different from their former.

According to your own standards, no, they're not. The game play is the same, they're built on the same engine and feature a lot of the same mechanics.

Tomb Raider is a complete reboot.

A reboot of the franchise, yes. That doesn't mean it's not a Tomb Raider game. It still is, and it still proves my point: namely that everyone "copies". It's not just Nintendo. >_>

Assassin's Creed III explores new culture and story with practically each new game, except for II and Brotherhood. We've gone from freakin mideival times to the American Revolution! And it's on its third main character.

And prior to Assassin's Creed, the developers released how many games set in the same time period with the same engine and same mechanics?

Apparently you think the game is brand new if it changes setting. Okay. Then Majora's Mask is different from OoT because it takes place in a different world.

Whoops. There goes your narrative. :P

Sure the Battle Royal is a flat-out copy of SSB, but I also know Nintendo won't be pushing its developers for an Uncharted series, or anything as deep as Team ICO.

Nice try, but you can't just ignore the point. It's not the first thing Sony's copied from Nintendo, either. Not by far.

You know you're actually making my point. PS3 and XBOX360 developers copy and steal, but Nintendo has been for years content to coast on Mario.

And Microsoft has been coasting on Halo. After all, they're up to, what, their sixth game now? God, when will they start being original!?

See how stupid this sounds when you put some thought into it? It's obviously not the only game on their consoles, but your point of view seems to imply that only the top selling console games matter. My point (the more rational one) is that people will continue to buy what they like, and buying a franchise game is a safer bet than spending $60 on a new IP. This is why companies make sequels more than new IPs, and if you want the trend to change, stop buying franchise games. Otherwise, stop whining about the people who enjoy something you don't.

No one was impressed at E3 because the majority of games were shooters. I'm fine with that. The PS2 taught us that for every 20 imitation games put out, that Sony was also capable of endorsing creativity: Konami, ICO & SOC, Prince of Persia, Kingdom Hearts, Need for Speed, Grand Theft Auto, etc...

Pssssst. Most of those titles were not published by Sony. In fact, ALL of them are published by other companies.

ICO/SOC: Team Ico
Prince of Persia: Ubisoft
Kingdom Hearts: Square Enix
Need for Speed: EA
Grand Theft Auto: Rockstar Games

Nintendo's "copycat" games are all first-party games. The games you're naming are third-party games.

I know, it's so sad. People on the Wii were so hungry for creativity, and to be free from Mario's empire, that they actually resorted to... party games. Goes to show you how little they cared for anything else on the platform -- and soon to be explained by yours truly.

You spin the facts right 'round, baby, right 'round. Like a record, baby.

Now let's try a neutral approach.

The top ten games sold on the Wii were all developed directly by Nintendo, meaning Nintendo makes money on those titles directly. Let's compare to Sony, which has 2 titles that they developed in their top ten list. Microsoft has 4 such titles, 2 of which are Halo games. The rest are third-party games, which means the company pays a kickback to the original developer.

There are three Mario games on the top ten list. And since they keep selling, they keep being emphasized and advertised. It works the same way with the PS3 and 360. See if you can predict, based on E3 over the last few years, which games sell the best on them.

Did you guess "gritty FPS titles"? You're right! The PS3 has 5 FPS titles in their top ten sales. Microsoft is even worse, with 8 FPS titles in their top ten list. Worth noting that out of those....four of them are Call of Duty titles. Yep, Nintendo's clearly the only one using the popularity of their successful titles to determine what new titles to advertise. :p

But who's on the freaking cover of all of those games! As they have it in Nintendo.com, Mario is in 37 Games just on the Wii!

Let's explore this, here's a similar rouch sketch. What if PS3 had it's own Mario, say, Nathan Drake from the Uncharted series.

It would look like this:
Nathan Drake's Uncharted 1, 2, 3
Nathan Drake's world 1,2
Nathan Drake Galaxy 1,2
Nathan Drake Battle Royal 1,2.
Nathan Drake Tenis, and so on and on.

I don't think they would sell well, right? That's because no one's going to buy a PS3 based on Nathan Drake, or for a single game.

Because Nathan Drake isn't as beloved of a character, and most people would get bored of seeing his ugly mug eventually. Yeah, I said it. Gonna argue with me about it? Come at me, bro. :P

You still haven't explained why Nintendo is the only company that gets to be taken to task for constantly copying. You just keep insisting that the other companies that make sequels are much more unique (even though that's provably false).

They do it because they know how diverse the selection of games are, and how capable the PS3 is in handling other media -- something an 8gb harddrive just cannot do -- and having actual mature games. But they will buy the Wii, or Wii-U because of, let's all say it together, MARIO!

Actually I suspect most of the people buying the Wii U will buy it because of its superb backwards compatibility with the Wii in terms of both hardware and software.

Try and find something else suitable to somone over 21 in all 1735 apperant selections under the Wii: Spongebob, Sneezies, My little baby -- realize, I'm just cycling through the choices -- Ghost media; oh finally, modern warfare, and faithful RE4.

Already proven ignorant by the other poster. Thanks! If you want Nintendo to start pouring more money into mature games, you know, there's a very easy way to show your desire for more mature games....go buy them on the Wii. If they see those games sell well, they'll start trying to make sure they get more of them on their console. If you don't buy them, why the hell should they bother?

One last comment before I stop this discussion (since it's obviously going nowhere):

And the interesting question that comes to mind is, what games have we seen them promote? Nostalgic IP's.

Yeah, imagine that. It's almost like Nintendo likes money or something, so they decide to make titles with familiar characters in a familiar franchise so that they can put in the least effort for the most income.

But clearly all the other game companies don't do that. Thank goodness too! Because thanks to their push for innovation, we get to look forward to brand new and totally unique titles like Halo 4, Gears of War 3, Uncharted 3, God of War, Assassin's Creed 3, Far Cry 3....

Yeah, starting to get the point? Obviously not, which is why this conversation ends here. If you can't bring yourself to admit that every single major company in the industry does the exact same thing, then there's really no point in continuing, because you have to be weaving quite the illusory world for yourself to believe that. The reason people are so pissed at this year's E3 is not because Nintendo is the only one copying, it's because EVERYONE is copying and rehashing and rebooting. There was little to no actual originality in the entire three day affair. Personally I don't mind if a game duplicates from another good game so long as the new game is still a good game, but if it bothers you so much, then why do you keep buying everything that Sony tells you to?

I layer your quotes because you don't format an argument, you just nitpick each comment with overlapping repetition -- hmm, a theme you and Mario have in common. But luckily for you, my good friend JimQuisition decided to do more than praise my biased "hatred" (as some might accuse) toward Nintendo with his secret emails, and went out of his way to put up a video this week, "Old Man Mario", about how the Mario series and Nintendo's nostalgic IP's are tired. Nintendo just doesn't have that spark, and which is what I've been SCREAMING for the last three posts to you and other poser fanboys/girls. There's no innovation.

a
[a href="{http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6147-Old-Man-Mario}"</a]

At around 3:00 are the golden words uttered.

And here's where I consider this argument officially caput.
When even professional reviewers start complaining about Nintendo's nostalgic, repetitive output then it's pretty obvious to the rest of sane humanity that Nintendo just might have a slight, minuscule, GAPING(!!!) problem.

But to some of your other points.

Are you seriously putting Microsoft's Halo, which has only had a lifespan of 8 games within the past 10 years to Mario's freaking seasonal output of constancy?

And when I say something is inferior, I'm not saying its "terrible". The graphics on the Wii-U won't be as good, the promotional videos show that. That's not subjective, it's called 20/20 vision. I just don't think it's a good idea to compete for hardcore CONSOLE gamers, when you never really intend to load your machine with parallel tech.

Therefore, with the opposing side's argument mostly snuffed out by the powers that be, what ever response you make -- and which will probably sound like yesterdays -- I'll answer with good Christian humility:

"An 8gb harddrive in 2012!!! AHAHAHAH! ROFLOLZ. Talk about anemic! Yeah, that'll show the PS3. The same curvaceous beauty who walks around with a rack the size 160GB, and the lower half, a voluptuous 250!"

On that Bombshell, I'll be saying so long.

Adios!
Hasta Luego!
Aloha!

Buy a PS3. Or go PC, anything but Nintendo -- if you're ambitious, that is.

NOTE: Okay, I have no relationship with anyone from this site, although -- and this happens plenty of times -- my opinions align with there's even the point of fatefilled timing.

D Moness:

CriticKitten:

No one was impressed at E3 because the majority of games were shooters. I'm fine with that. The PS2 taught us that for every 20 imitation games put out, that Sony was also capable of endorsing creativity: Konami, ICO & SOC, Prince of Persia, Kingdom Hearts, Need for Speed, Grand Theft Auto, etc...

Pssssst. Most of those titles were not published by Sony. In fact, ALL of them are published by other companies.

ICO/SOC: Team Ico
Prince of Persia: Ubisoft
Kingdom Hearts: Square Enix
Need for Speed: EA
Grand Theft Auto: Rockstar Games

funny how Worldfest forgets that need for speed was released on the wii. GTA has a ds game also that kingdom hearts has several games on the ds and 1 very recent on the 3ds. Pince of persia has been released on the gamecube and the wii. There goes his/her sony endorsing

Not only does ms live of Halo with it's 6th game but sony is milking god of war with the 7th game coming 2013.

8th actually in a little over ten years. But they're slackers-for real. Why take your time on a game when people just want more Masterchief. Hell, Grandpa Mario has virtually spammed one storyarc 50+ times.

They need to get on the ball!

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.