@Dumachum @lazycomplife Sony and MS did good, consoles have advanced from plug and play to media hubs which is kind of annoying when they waste time producing stupid facebook apps etc. but when you can store music, download games, try demoes over the internet, have access to cheaper indie and arcade games, have updates and DLC etc. then I think consoles have moved toward a much better future.
They've shown us how good an online infrastructure can be for consoles too and it's pretty sleek, they even had PC's behind the curve compared to consoles when it comes to availability of demo's / trial versions of games. and short of steam having the odd demo PC's still don't have that feature much. Short of you claiming people have some sort of brand obsessions / fanboy tendencies I don't see what they did wrong. Sony and MS has moved us through the High Def era and the online infrastructures of consoles. Nintendo was behind both of them on both those regards but Nintendo is now trying there own thing with the motion controls and family friendly approach. To be honest they all have done a pretty good job as Nintendo continually innovates (or attempts to) on the hardware side while MS and Sony have on the tech side.
@MJ12-Conspiracy @Jebril Those questions would have mostly meant the death of the PS3. If they got the PS3 out even sooner it'd have cost even more or been faulty since the tech wasn't ready then so would have required tons more R&D costs to get it done quicker and produce it when HDTV's and Blu-rays would be even less ready to support the system.
If you're saying what if it came out just as powerful as it did and was out first then that's kind of silly because MS would have more than likely designed there console to be more powerful than the PS3 or have some other feature to sell it in mind as you rarely release a weaker system last with nothing to make it stand out. But even if you do factor in your talk about PSN hacks etc. it's not like MS didn't have issues of it's own Such as the RROD which surely made some people jump ship to sony and give sony a sale they may have not even got before.
PS3 isn't a failure unless we're talking about sales (hardware and software) and where it places in the console war but in the end it's pretty close regardless so it's not really a problem if it comes 3rd (just highlighting my view on that part).
@shadow580 @blackace PC gamers are a fickle bunch. Remember Gears of War? The original was pretty awesome, they even made it have better graphics, more fluid animation, 50% longer campaign and it sold like crap just because it came out later. Same with Alan Wake and Fable 3.
Release a game too late on PC and it just doesn't sell. The PC crowd are prone to any excuse to pirate or ignore games and late releases / not absolutely fabulous ports (hell I don't even know what they want if gears of wars port didn't work) is just a sign that you get a PC port out day 1 and it has to be the best port or they'll boycott it.
@whitejackel You mean you got to the beginning of the game then? I wonder why the beginning of a game would be easy. Anyway the game can be a tad easy if you're the type to farm and gear up a lot but overall the first time you enter the everfalls and some other key moments like first dragon fights should provide some challenge and with hard mode hopefully you'll get back into it.
Glad to see more dragon's dogma, got to the point of owning all the ur-dragon earned items (short of 2 of the masks as I kept getting the same mask) and got some decent armour such as the twilight set, abyssinal gear and grisly bone armour but I did stop at that point. If my character from the original can be ported over it'll convince me to farm the ever falls for longer as I was just short of level 150 if I remember.
@brynhyfryd It depends on how they implement it, league of legends for example could be played entirely with no money going in, it'd just take a while.
@moviequest14 Personally I'm just not a big fan of platformers so quite a few of the games you mentioned (jax and daxter, ratchet and clank, sly cooper, LBP, Banjo etc.) wouldn't appeal to me all that much. Yes I play shooters but I also play RTS, RPG, Action (DMC, GoW, Ninja Gaiden etc.) and fighting games so most of the core genres.
I agree family friendly doesn't mean casual and I enjoy a lot of the Nintendo games for that reason but more often than not Sony and MS don't manage to do it quite like Nintendo do and keep the adult side up with the family friendly side. I also agree on the sad state of gaming where people try and call stuff casual and hardcore (which I refrain from using and just use the term of core genre's for more standard staple genre's) but do call games like uncharted and other more basic versions of core games casual since they're aimed more at tech heads with graphics obsessions than proper gamers looking for a detailed and in-depth experience. When it comes to platformers though I just grew out of them, I view them as lighter gaming with little real progression and just a bit of puzzle solving but it's not too bad. Family friendly is just better when they aim the games at adults (like zelda and mario) and then tone down the violence and blood really. This gen has been awful for ignorant gamers who buy too many FPS (I love FPS but god damn do those COD kids need to buy good games and play less COD).
I don't mind family friendly games, that's why I'm currently enjoying Nintendo consoles and there titles (metroid, fire emblem, zelda etc.) but I hope Sony doesn't fall into the trap of family friendly = kiddy.
I like my family friendly stuff to be made for adults, like metroid and zelda but then of course to just have the blood cut out and the violence not particularly emphasised and made funnier for the kids with some whooshing and bing sounds or whatever (like the sound effects on zelda) but still contain the essence of an adult game. On the PS3 for example I want Ni No Kuni, because it looks awesome fun and it won't be violent or dark but it'll still be an RPG with monsters who I can kick the crap out of. I hope if Sony shifts there focus proper (and not just this holiday season) they go for these actual family friendly stuff and not just kid friendly with minor appeal to adults.
@xXl_z3r0_lXx You can see how that is misleading since controllers are not normally a limitation to gameplay unless they are drastically different. A 360 controller although designed to work better for FPS still has no limitation on RPG's so that statement can easily throw someone when the controllers buttons are almost identical short of triggers and a slight adjustment of the analogue placement, something tells me developers don't look at a 360 controller and question whether the console should have RPG's based on it.
I agree it was misinterpreted if you genuinely meant it that way and I am willing to apologize for that, it's my mistake so sorry. As stated though your post is easily misread as you are responding to someone speaking on exclusitivity on a console and then turning it into reply based on controllers? That would make sense if it was a keyboard and mouse but these controllers are strikingly similar and pose no real limitation or change to the developers, I don't think a JRPG maker cares if it's a trigger or a straight up button or whether the analogue stick is above or below the d-pad when the ergonomics of it still pose no issue. If this was a fighting game i'd say you had a point with 360's crappy d-pad but RPG don't need that level of precision so your controller statement was just a little out there since I don't believe the design of the controllers would effect the exclusitivity in any way under these circumstances.
Sigil-otaku's comments