loekf
Regular
Well, Sony just renewed their trademark for The Last Guardian again:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-last-guardian-s-trademark-filed-a-third-time/1100-6425980/
So there's still hope for "out of this world" games on PS4...
PS4 And Xbox One Have An 'Exclusive' Problem
- Thread starter Shortbread
- Start date
Well, Sony just renewed their trademark for The Last Guardian again:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-last-guardian-s-trademark-filed-a-third-time/1100-6425980/
So there's still hope for "out of this world" games on PS4...
Agreed, I'm not sure why sales or adoption rate has to be forced into the definition of innovative. Mirror's edge's use of first person parkour was innovative despite it not making influencing every other FPS. The mechanic doesn't fit with a typical shooter, but it fits well with Dying Light and thus the natural evolution of gaming mechanics has continued.
Hardly any games are innovative and yet the vast majority of games are built upon innovations that past games introduced.
Yes you could use the most simplistic definition of innovation when describing games but then that would cover a whole slew of titles that have had very little impact on gaming. Why should I ascribe any positive connotation to your definition of "innovation"? I could dev a game built around a bunch of new mechanics that all basically suck and make for a horrible experience. I could produce a bunch of these sh(*&y games and by your definition I could be considered an "innovator" in the game development world.
Innovation under the definition of simply offering something new is a neutral term and hardly used in this manner. Most people use innovation with a positive connotation without the need to add adjectives. Mostly because "innovation" is used to highlight a product or mechanic that offers something new and better. And usually if you are offering something new and better then often its followed by adoption by others.
Last edited:
You are right. High sales aren't necessary but tend to be a strong motivator for adoption. Sometimes a game is held back by other aspects of its design but it present a mechanic or feature that is obviously worthy of adoption. I'd bet that in the future more and more frenetic FPSes will have transversal systems a lot like Mirror's Edge and its impact on gaming will become a lot more obvious.
Last edited:
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Hardly any games are innovative NOW. In the PS1 through to early PS3 generation a metric crap tonne of games were innovative, by reason of them presenting new and interesting ideas in gameplay form. Some were adopted as standards in their respective game genres, whilst some couldn't be so because the particular innovations in question caused those games to defy genre conventions entirely and stand out as their own new thing. Innovations don't necessarily have to influence other games, by the mere fact that some innovations don't really make sense as a standard feature of all games within that genre, e.g. Mirror's Edge-like parkour - as if the main character is for example a 50yo pensioner it would break immersion to see them running and jumping around in game like an 17 year old.
Because by definition those new ideas/mechanics added to existing games that are not themselves "stale" will enhance the overall experience over the genre convention, and not depreciate it. My definition of innovation precludes the individual "innovative" additions being themselves "dry", "overused", "stale" or "crap", because in such a case I wouldn't class that product as innovative. You haven't properly understood my definition.
But this isn't what i've been arguing at all. Innovation by definition has to enhance the product. That's a given. I'm simply arguing with your clauses that the game must also be commercially successful, as well as influential in the design of subsequent games in that genre. That's far too restrictive and contrived.
We're really talking about games innovating so as to reinvigorate or reinvent genres, so that gaming on the whole (as an industry and hobby) doesn't become stale, and gamers don't get bored. Gamers themselves have diverse tastes which is reflected in their buying habits. So it is fine for a game targeting its own niche, e.g. a JRPG, to bring together new ideas in its latest installment, whilst also being widely considered innovative. By your definintion said game would be disqualified by reason of it not being of the most popular gaming genre of that era, and it targeting its own niche. I'm arguing that that is an unnecessary contrivance.
Valid points some of them. I am personally very excited for what the Xbox One has to offer, and looking forward to know what Sony and Nintendo have been cooking.This is entirely subjective and I couldn't disagree more. The reason I chose PS4 first was because Sony's first and second parties have, by a long shot, produced more 'must have' games over the past three generations than Microsoft or Nintendo and I don't expect this generation to be different - even with Insomniac splitting their time between PS4 and Xbox.
There was a technical factor but not the one you think. The reason I went for a nextgen on day one was playing games on PS3 was becoming increasingly painful. Firmware updates taking time, game updates taking time, games being constained by the hardware - I couldn't wait to see the back of that long generation. The fact that Shadow of Mordor was so compromised on PS3/360 speaks volumes, as does Dying Light being cancelled on last gen.
I follow the studios I like. If Sony shed studios like Naughty Dog, Media Molecule, Suckler Punch, Evolution and Guerilla then Sony's platform would have little to offer me over the competition.
I don't think there any single prevailing reason that PS4 is outselling One and Wii U. For some it'll be the games, for others the cost, for others because they're Sony fanboys, for others becaue of perceived technical advantages, for some because Sony supported their territory quickly and Microsoft didn't, for some just becuase they're not Microsoft. There's probably a lot of rationality to people's decisions and also a lot of irrationality as well.
None of this helps Nintendo though, but they need new games. I'm not buying Mario Kart again.
I expect a couple of megatons from Microsoft this E3.
The problem with the PS4 library as of now -save Bloodborne, which seems to be a masterpiece- is that it has a very sad lineup, exclusives wise. No console seller there --save Bloodborne.
Before Bloodborne came out, Eurogamer wrote this quite enlightening article about the best PS4 games, and if I were a PS4 owner expecting great exclusives I wouldn't be so happy.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-03-10-the-best-playstation-4-games-3691
95% of those games are playable on other platforms, and at least one of the exclusives is a remake.
Well, Xbox One has:
- Sunset Overdrive, underrated game highly acclaimed by users.
- Minecraft.
- Halo.
- Gears of War.
- Alan Wake.
- Forza Horizon 2.
- Quantum Break.
- Ryse.
- Ori and the Blind Forest.
- High Quality indies.
- Killer Instinct.
- Battletoads.
- Conker.
- Perfect Dark.
- Kinect Fruit Ninja 2
Sony have (counting games that went kind of unnoticed save the graphics, i.e. KZ: SF, or Knack):
- Gran Turismo, the one I fancy.
- The Last of Us.
- Blooborne, the best of them all.
- Driveclub, ok, but not a console seller.
- Resogun.
- The Order: 1886, fine graphics, mixed reviews.
- Street Fighter V.
- Infamous
- Knack
- KZ: SF
Nintendo do have a few exclusive games, too, and there isn't only a Mario Kart @DSoup . I am not counting my favourite, F-Zero, 'cos WiiU is dead and I expect it on the Nintendo NX:
- Mario Kart.
- Mario Party 10
- Mario vs DK.
- Mario Maker
- Fire Emblem X
- Yoshi
- Kirby
- Devil's Third
- Splatoon
- Fatal Frame
As I see it, Xbox One has the most varied and some of the bestest. Sony added Bloodborne to their library, which is a plus, and Nintendo are always working on exclusive games. Both are competitive but... Imho, the Xbox One has the edge overall.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
Hang on, you including several generations of Xbox games and only one of Playstation? Also, I think I've missed Battletoads on Xbox, when did that happen?
Not to mention several of those Xbox exclusives are out on PC or mobile. And even Playstation in one case. In fact, I'd go as far as to suggest quite a few have previously been on Nintendo machines too.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's an open secret Battletoads is coming out relatively soon and Phil Spencer has been seen wearing a Battletods t-shirt recently. So there's a great chance of it happening. Maybe Kameo will be back one day too.
It is a retro game made by Rare back in the day, and allegedly one of the best NES games. I've never played it, but it is sooo popular.
Rikimaru
Veteran
Yeah it will be back like Conker in project Spark
Also why did not you count Ratchet, Tomorrow Children, Last Guardian, Gravity Rush, MLB, Everybody's Golf, Higher Quality indies etc.
Your post is so biased
Ahh, never had a NES or any Non console until the Wii.
djskribbles
Legend
I'm sorry but that's a horrible list. Not only did you forget a bunch of PS4 games, you included some last gen games for XB, some unannounced XB games, and one isn't even exclusive. Then you even go on to make a note that some of the PS4 games went unnoticed save for graphics, but make no mention of that for Ryse.
If you want to play the list game, you forgot:
-Uncharted 4
-No Man's Sky
-Until Dawn
-Everybody's Gone to the Rapture
-The Tomorrow Children
-Tearaway Unfolded
-Ratchet & Clank Re-imagined
-Hellblade
-Rime
-Wild
-Hot Shots Golf
-MLB The Show
-The Witness
-LittleBigPlanet
-Planetside 2
-Draw to Death
-The Playroom
-Yakuza
-Persona 5
-Disgaea 5
-Deep Down
-Singstar
-Guilty Gear Xrd
-Plus a bunch of indie and smaller titles that I left out
And since you included unannounced games, God of War is definitely coming. And Guerrilla is working on a new IP.
You say MS has the edge for variety... I COMPLETELY disagree.
Last edited:
Prophecy2k
Veteran
"Do not allow yourself to be seduced by the dark side of the Force, young padowans. Else, get drawn into the List-Warz, you will become..."
- Obi-Wii-kenobi, SCEI Xbox division
- Obi-Wii-kenobi, SCEI Xbox division
Sigfried1977
Legend
It's a TMNT rip-off that's mostly popular due its appareance on just about every top-10-most-diffult-games list since the birth of the internet.
I had it on Amiga back in the days, I don't know if it was a bad port but it was a crappy game. I don't understand the point of reusing such old franchises, they're doing the same with Shadow of the Beast, and it will be a completely different game. You need to be at least over 35, and have enjoyed these games, to get any kind of nostalgia factor. So is that really a potent market versus original game material?
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
The original Shadow of the Beast wasn't a great game either although it had beautiful graphics and an awesome soundtrack/sounds but it was a thin game. Dunno about the sequels but yeah, that resurrection caught had me scratching my head. I reckon <5% of gamers will even know what the hell it is.
SotB 2 and 3 were much better, although 2 was insanely hard. Also only like 30-45 minutes long to complete. The game time only stretched into many hours learning by very painful trial-and-error. Psygnosis were pretty much pioneers of the thin-veneer game, all style and not much substance. But what style! At the time, the sheer art of their games (or cutscenes!) made them famous. Perhaps mostly the latter games. Some of their other, less famous stuff, was more game-centric.
Similar threads
- Locked
