Sony PS3

[Penfold]

Agreed. Frankly, I haven't seen Nintendo make anything that tops Sony titles for creativity/fun factor in years. Sony is the best first party developer as far as I'm concerned...

I think you may be in the minority on this one. I, for one, don't doubt the creativity of the Nintendo staff, nor their ability to make fun games. RealFolkBlues cited Pikmin, and I agree. Many of the first-party titles coming from Nintendo are looking pretty fun and rather innovative to me, such as Super Paper Mario and Mario Galaxy. Anyway, to each his own eh?

EDIT: That's interesting that Retro Studios is technically first-party for Nintendo, since I always thought they were 2nd party. You learn something new every day, I guess.

[Beatdown]

Def Jam: Icon is depressingly average, and not the brutal fun the previous games were. Where did my ridiculously painful, over the top "why is he bending that way WHAT WAS THAT SOUND?!" moves go? Why am I spending half the fight spinning my track over that guy's? Why did that helicopter just swing down and smack me? I do not understand.

[SleazyC]

I think you may be in the minority on this one. I, for one, don't doubt the creativity of the Nintendo staff, nor their ability to make fun games. RealFolkBlues cited Pikmin, and I agree. Many of the first-party titles coming from Nintendo are looking pretty fun and rather innovative to me, such as Super Paper Mario and Mario Galaxy. Anyway, to each his own eh?

Sony has the biggest conglomeration of developers both first and second party under its wings and although it usually isn't recognized for its games I would say that Sony does have the best first/second party developments houses. Nintendo has the nostalgia factor which will probably always get it more recognition but the developers that work under Sony are all very talented, moreso talented then Nintendo's in my opinion.

[G_D]

BTW, propers to G_D for admitting your mistakes with those edits.

I hate misinformation, even when it's coming from me.

[SilverStar]

Sony has the biggest conglomeration of developers both first and second party under its wings and although it usually isn't recognized for its games I would say that Sony does have the best first/second party developments houses. Nintendo has the nostalgia factor which will probably always get it more recognition but the developers that work under Sony are all very talented, moreso talented then Nintendo's in my opinion.

If Nintendo were working solely on the nostalgia factor, then they wouldn't be too likely to be the top software house. Even in October '06, before the Wii was even launched, Nintendo was #2 for publishers for the month, in the US. Second to EA.

When you consider, that's Nintnedo, with 2-3 systems that they're releasing for exclusively(Wii, DS, GBA), compared to EA which releases 2-3 games per month, across every system, that shows they're a lot more powerful than simple nostalgia.

And as for the complaint about Zelda just being Zelda with nothing new.. that's the problem with making sequels. Either they deviate far too much from the original formula and get panned as being "Not (series) Enough!", or they stay true to the formula and get ripped on for being "Too much of the same!" It's a series. Do you really want them to make as much of a wild departure as they made, by turning Dinosaur Island into a Star Fox game? Because that's the only real alternative.

The other option there, is to just keep the wildly new ideas, to their own franchises. Dinosaur Island should have been its own series, unrelated to Star Fox.

So, would you rather a sequel be a lot like the previous game, but with some evolutionary/incremental improvements, or take off in a whole new direction and be something completely unlike what you were expecting from the previous titles?

[I-n-j-i-n]

That's the thing. In terms of pure creativity and totally new brands, Sony actually has bested Nintendo in the last several game generations. It doesn't mean Nintendo is a bad company for it, but Sony was the one pumping out the new and innovative and possibly risky projects left and right and they're STILL doing that (Resistance, anyone? God of War? Shadow of the Colossus?).

Not to forget that they created or at least funded and published a lot of under appreciated gems as well.

In the end, it's usually about Sony not being respected as a game DEVELOPER it is. I love Nintendo as a historical, nostalgic and continued sequel-makers all the same, but Sony has been the new face for gaming for YEARS now. This is not even a new revelation anymore.

[Bahamut]

Nintendo has done a lot in the past decade or so as well, such as the Wario Ware series, Nintendogs, and Pikmin for some examples. I think Nintendo still holds the innovation crown simply because they can use those innovations to appeal to a vast audience, while most of Sony's own gaming innovations are focused almost exclusively to the hardcore crowd.

[I-n-j-i-n]

Nintendo has done a lot in the past decade or so as well, such as the Wario Ware series, Nintendogs, and Pikmin for some examples. I think Nintendo still holds the innovation crown simply because they can use those innovations to appeal to a vast audience, while most of Sony's own gaming innovations are focused almost exclusively to the hardcore crowd.

The thing with those examples is that they were the rarity and not the norm. With Sony, most of their titles were innovative and in sheer number of new franchises and ideas in gameplay alone, again, people tend to overlook them simply because they may not be as visible as the usual Nintendo franchise fare.

And I disagree that a lot of Sony's games necessarily fall into the hardcore crowd. A lot of games they pushed for, published for since the PSX era and has actually developed in-house were critical and popular successes.

Also, whether a game is hardcore or not is NO indication to how innovative something is. That point is absolutely moot.

Though in terms of how it may look on paper, I would have to agree that Nintendo does the better job of selling their games. But then again, that is exactly in line with my point that Sony's development efforts tends to be overlooked. There is really nothing wrong with the way Nintendo makes sequels, but in terms of unique gaming content, Sony really has them beat by a long shot. Again, that doesn't discredit Nintendo all by itself. But Sony definitely is a contender in terms of unique games.

[KakTheInfected]

How exactly was Resistance innovative? Or God of War for that matter?

They may be newer, original IPs, but I really see nothing innovative about them.

[SilverStar]

Sometimes, taking something that's been proven to work well, slapping a fresh coat of paint on it and putting it in a whole new environment is all that something needs.

At the core, most 3D platformers are just, even still, close clones of Mario64(though, most suffer from far worse camera issues).

But, I have to agree, I would love to see Nintendo come out with a few dozen new IPs, instead of just putting a new spin on classic games. Pikmin was a great example of this.. so, how about another pikmin sequel, then something similar, but completely different? The whole swarm tactic, I'm sure, could be used in a bunch of different games.

[I-n-j-i-n]

How exactly was Resistance innovative? Or God of War for that matter?

They may be newer, original IPs, but I really see nothing innovative about them.

You really have to be pretty biased to say that. The innovation in question doesn't have to be flat out apparent as they can be either. The whole usage of the dual shock for the swords, the crafty difficulty level and all can be small additions that adds up to the whole experience. Just because any other game had swords and monsters doesn't make them equivalent to God of War in terms of experience.

Also, when did I say that innovation in itself is the focal point of the whole argument for Sony's games? It's rather that they have a lot of UNIQUE games and with many other brands and identities as actual separate games from one another.

It doesn't necessarily amount to saying that each and individual Sony franchise holds as much weight as a Mario or Zelda game. That is not the point.

Sometimes, taking something that's been proven to work well, slapping a fresh coat of paint on it and putting it in a whole new environment is all that something needs.

Not really. Sony developers did a lot to add a ton of unique gameplay points. Super Mario Sunshine arguably copied some aspects of other platformers with the entire gadget mechanic as well. But nobody gave a hoot about that.

At the core, most 3D platformers are just, even still, close clones of Mario64(though, most suffer from far worse camera issues).

You're simply wrong there. You apparently have never played a Sly Cooper game or Ratchet & Clank. And those games simply DO NOT have camera issues at all.

But, I have to agree, I would love to see Nintendo come out with a few dozen new IPs, instead of just putting a new spin on classic games. Pikmin was a great example of this.. so, how about another pikmin sequel, then something similar, but completely different? The whole swarm tactic, I'm sure, could be used in a bunch of different games.

Just constant condescensions, huh? I keep getting the typical "only Nintendo makes innovative games" idea here. Also, if you're talking about Pikmin, it's almost the same overall gameplay idea of the Misadventures of Tron Bonne game. But nobody dares accuse Nintendo of copying others of course. Because they're the only ones capable of innovation? Doesn't that strike some people as awfully shallow minded, incredibly biased, and condescending of other great game developers out there who has furthered videogames as a whole even if not under some unifying corporate banner? A lot of Sony's properties seems to go that route as they simply have more numerous development teams and they're more apt to doing their own things compared to the tightly run ship of Nintendo's. I do not see why one has to see this one way or the other. The fact remains that Sony's development efforts keeps getting undue condescension. And you guys are PROVING it.

[KakTheInfected]

I really don't consider "small additions" innovative. Those games are still largely played like and reminiscent of games on the market already. Unless the gameplay is drastically different, or a whole new idea altogether, it's not innovative. God of War is good, I'd be insane to argue that, but that doesn't mean it's innovative. (Resistance is neither, dual analog FPS ftl).

And you did call those games innovative, so don't get all pissy when someone asks you why you think so.

[I-n-j-i-n]

I really don't consider "small additions" innovative. Those games are still largely played like and reminiscent of games on the market already. Unless the gameplay is drastically different, or a whole new idea altogether, it's not innovative. God of War is good, I'd be insane to argue that, but that doesn't mean it's innovative. (Resistance is neither, dual analog FPS ftl).

And you did call those games innovative, so don't get all pissy when someone asks you why you think so.

Did you not read the rest of my point? Obviously not because I was talking more in terms of their unique qualities as games and not because of some one-upping of innovation in games.

And by "innovative", it's not entirely in the realm of apparent innovation I have pointed out either. It's in the way of new experiences and unique games with their own development aesthetics just the same. Me getting pissy? But you're simply proving my point over and over again how people like you are condescending everything and anything about Sony simply because you do not like the name itself.

Also, "dual shock FTL" isn't any technical grounds for why the game is or is not innovative. Again, the entire gaming aesthetic of Naughty Dog making such a game after creating a lot of platformers is a unique twist for the development team and the game has got solid reviews all around. Again, the innovation in question is not necessarily some obvious quality like Mario 'creating' platformers, but in the figurative way of it being a unique gaming experience. You can say that Mario and Sonic are both platfomers but they both have unique qualities.

[KakTheInfected]

No, I didn't read the rest of your point. I got pretty bored after the "you don't agree with me so you're biased" part and was already a little put off by seeing someone actually call Resistance innovative.

I'm not being condescending by saying those games aren't innovative. I'm saying it because they're not. Maybe I should take a few lessons from you and go spam why everyone who doesn't think Twilight Princess is innovative is a fanboy.

[linkspast]

Who made Katamari? Id say its pretty innovative

[I-n-j-i-n]

No, I didn't read the rest of your point. I got pretty bored after the "you don't agree with me so you're biased" part and was already a little put off by seeing someone actually call Resistance innovative.

I'm not being condescending by saying those games aren't innovative. I'm saying it because they're not. Maybe I should take a few lessons from you and go spam why everyone who doesn't think Twilight Princess is innovative is a fanboy.

Okay, care to go past being offended and actually arguing logically instead of jumping to conclusions? I did just that. TWICE. Why couldn't you?

Did you not hear me say that it's a matter of me using the very word 'figurative' in the context of the whole thing? Also, why are you stuck on some semantics of a single word instead of reading what I have to say?

If you're going to troll me on a stupid technicality, then why is anything you say ever relevant about this specific discussion?

I'm only getting the vibe from you in this issue as it being a matter of being a standoff between two companies. If you are saying otherwise, why don't you make the discussion instead of going by some ridiculous "because I don't like you" route?

If you can't even elaborate, not read any of my posts, keep up the condescension, don't bother to make this into a credible discussion, WHY bother?

[KakTheInfected]

I haven't seen you elaborate. My inital question still hasn't been answered with anything except a bunch of backtracking.

I'm not offended. I just know that when someone gives a response like "lol u think differently wut a n00b" to a legitimate question that they're just going to repeat it again...like you did. So it's not worth it. Sorry if you want a discussion.

[I-n-j-i-n]

I haven't seen you elaborate. My inital question still hasn't been answered with anything except a bunch of backtracking.

I'm not offended. I just know that when someone gives a response like "lol u think differently wut a n00b" to a legitimate question that they're just going to repeat it again...like you did. So it's not worth it. Sorry if you want a discussion.

I only elaborated it roughly three times now. And you say you're not offended? But you said in the previous post that you're stuck on my wording of the whole "bias" word. Because I said "you have to be pretty biased", that doesn't imply that I'm saying you're completely and utterly biased. That was a figurative way of speech in that it sounded biased to me. Also, all I hear from you is the constant praise of anything Nintendo and condescension of anything Sony. That SOUNDS to me like it's biased. I'm not implying with absolute certainty that you are either.

And you keep on with the whole "i see no innovation whatsoever" and etc etc, and yet I'm providing a counterpoint. Then you come on at me with personal attacks.

To get back on track here, my entire point is that there simply are a lot more unique and potentially risky intellectual properties in the way of different franchises and different games with Sony and that it's being overlooked. Again, that has no relevance to the quality of other companies or Nintendo as it's been called upon by other posters countless times before. My post is about Sony and Sony's games itself. As per this thread's title and subject matter. If you're going on saying "no innovation whatsoever", I simply think it's a matter of perspective and figurative meaning of what that wording even is.

[Bahamut]

The thing with those examples is that they were the rarity and not the norm. With Sony, most of their titles were innovative and in sheer number of new franchises and ideas in gameplay alone, again, people tend to overlook them simply because they may not be as visible as the usual Nintendo franchise fare.

Sony's innovations are just as "rare", if not rarer than that. The only thing remotely as innovative is Loco Roco, but as a game they made it somewhat bland. Sony does make good games, but I wouldn't make the mistake of calling many of them innovative.

[Ero Elohim]

I would think that, just by looking at older interviews before the first God of War came out, you could deduce that the game wasn't innovative. I remember reading one such interview where David Jaffe specifically says that God of War wasn't anything new; He states that they're simply trying to combine everything great about other action games and polish the whole experience. Most reviews of the game echoed that sentiment as well. The whole "No, it's not new, but it's a damn good game." angle was repeated time and time again.

As far as Resistance goes, I haven't played it. I've seen videos and interviews with Insomniac, though, and it doesn't look like they've done anything terribly new there. A few mildly interesting weapons, nothing like the Ratchet and Clank series, and a really pretty engine are what I see in Resistance.

[G_D]

Who made Katamari? Id say its pretty innovative

Namco. They're a pretty good dev, IMO.

[I-n-j-i-n]

Sony's innovations are just as "rare", if not rarer than that. The only thing remotely as innovative is Loco Roco, but as a game they made it somewhat bland. Sony does make good games, but I wouldn't make the mistake of calling many of them innovative.

Again, a lot of the smaller elements of those games definitely are innovative. Ape Escape used the dual shock to its full effect and it was almost like a precursor to the Wiimote in how the each analog sticks worked like the extension of the character and his arm. Parappa the Rapper may have spurred on the wave of musical rhythm games and Sony continued that with a lot of games even if they weren't commercial successes such as Frequency. Ratchet & Clank pretty much took the idea of the platformer and an action shooter and went with it further than any games of its type had so far. Sly Cooper added stealth into the platforming mix where no other game really tried to combine the two. Eyetoy may not have caught fire, but it's essentially the same overall idea as the Wii's own mini-game, body-moving gameplay.

Again, by the idea of 'innovation', I don't just mean in ways that change entire genres necessarily. It's the whole aesthetic of unique games and franchises that can stand on their own and Sony simply has its lion's share of that. Sony has a lot of first party games and yet people are looking at Sony as if they have NOTHING. But that is simply and utterly not true. That's all I'm getting at.

I'm not trying to knock Nintendo down or anything, but again, I simply feel that there's a disconnect with all the harsh criticism Sony gets over others. Since people keep comparing Nintendo, Warioware was not Nintendo's original idea either. Other developers in the past have made games with the 5 second mini-game motif in the past, even if they weren't commercial successes. Mario using the jetpack in Sunshine was reminiscent of other platformers experimenting with the idea before as well. If you are the most cynical and jaded of gamer, Pikmin was a yet another console stab at an RTS/Lemmings game (but of course, I'd disagree that is the case since it has its own unique qualities to stand out). I STAND BY Nintendo for these smaller innovations just the same. The smaller improvements Nintendo makes for each of their sequels are innovations just the same in my eyes. Even if they add elements that has been done in other games and match it in there, I don't fault Nintendo for some lack of innovation for it. I am NOT in that token mindset of choosing one or the other here. And of course, people only bash Sony due to one reason or the other and I simply don't see why that has to be the case. I like both companies and though I may sound the more pompous for it, I feel I have a good understanding of the workings of both companies. Because I follow them through their games and not their marketing or sales or public persona in this whole 'console war' BS.

[PriZm]

Who gives a fuck about whether a game is innovative or not anyways ? As long as its fun to play.

[Petara]

Who gives a fuck about whether a game is innovative or not anyways ? AS LONG AS IT'S FUN TO PLAY.

QFE

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[SilverStar]

Who gives a fuck about whether a game is innovative or not anyways ? As long as its fun to play.

QFT

Take what works and just try to keep it fun. That's all that sequels are about. And I must say, in recent years games have been getting better by their sequels. Something which movies need to take a hint on.