21 titles will be ready for the PS3 launch on Nov 17th

I hear what Blue is saying. I like seeing all consoles get a fair share of great games. It is also nice to see a game that is excluse to a system. reason being is when a game is made for only one console, the developers tend to go all out and see what the hardware can really do.

GAMEFAN
 
system itself actually costs money then I can't help but laugh. ...To imply that games are somehow not AAA titles because they appear on other systems is also humorous.... And I don't really think that you can honestly say that Sony's lineup does not provide a wide assortment of gameplay.

It's not that the multiconsole games won't be AAA. Call of Duty 3 and FEAR and Elder Scrolls IV, for example, are worthy. But as someone who can easily get them on the 360, what reason do I have to buy a PS3 if not for PS3 exclusives? You may laugh at my objection to the cost, but it is a factor. By my way of looking at it, the cost of the PS3 is not worth it because the really awesome third party games I can get on the 360 I already own, and the PS3 exclusives are not to my taste at this point in time.

As for the last part, I don't believe that I ever said that. The PS3 launch covers a wide variety of genres. There's something for everyone.
 
you know what is funny... you both are right.

they are just opinions... I see what both sides are saying here.. and it's 2 different ways of thinking and neither are necessarily wrong.

BV :hat
 
BV, I'm still confused. :lol

First you say:

I DO WANT EXCLUSIVES FOR SYSTEMS.

and then you say:

What I don't like... Systems are left out.

Isn't the point of making an exclusive game the fact that other systems are left out? It sounds to me like you're literally trying to have your cake and eat it too.

But as someone who can easily get them on the 360, what reason do I have to buy a PS3 if not for PS3 exclusives?

I think I see what you're saying now. I forgot you already owned a 360, and I was speaking as someone who was hypothetically system-less and looking at the various game lineups of the Wii, PS3, and 360, comparing and contrasting what they had to offer. Assuming this scenario I could not figure out why you would simply overlook games that were on the PS3 simply because they were also on the 360.

Given your situation as it is (and not how I previously imagined it to be) I would still input that a lot of the multiplatform games either appear on the 360 and/or PC as well, in which case the benefits of the PS3 versions would be the ability to have 8 players in the same room as yourself (especially useful for sports games), and also the fact that online would be free. Also, one would stand to reason that the graphics would be better, at least in some cases. So I still think that multiplatform games would be incentives to buy the PS3 instead of other consoles. Features such as those would be reasons to buy a PS3 in addition to exclusive games.

As for the last part, I don't believe that I ever said that.

No, you didn't. But you did imply that a system's laungh lineup strength was in it's exclusive titles, and I propositioned that it's strength was in it's variety of gameplay, regardless of exclusivity. So I was more or less disagreeing with the criteria you chose to judge the PS3 launch lineup on.

IF every system had the same game... What's the point of many different consoles?

Ya, how horrible it would be if we only had to buy one console to play all the games we loved. ::) :lol
 
Stealth.

ok...  I don't know how to explain this any better. :lol Basically... yes I want both of what you said.

What I meant was I want exclusives BUT for companies to give good games to each system... NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME GOOD GAME.

†B†V† :hat
 
Resistance doesn't look all that good. The plot is a twist on Quake 4, which is a twist on some ancient sci-fi cliche I'm sure.

Basically, you play the guy who should have been "transformed" into an alien, but didn't go all the way. Now you can understand them, and use that knowledge to stop them.
 
Resistance doesn't look all that good. The plot is a twist on Quake 4, which is a twist on some ancient sci-fi cliche I'm sure

I can only name a handful of games that actually have original plots, and many cliches could still be found in them. To fault a videogame because it's plot is somewhat lacking is like complaining about a golfer because he uses clubs. If what you do in the game is fun do you really need anything more than a cliched backdrop for motivation to do it?
 
A video game with a great plot is much better than a game with a crappy dime-a-dozen plot. I'll explain why in a later post got things to do.
 
Well you got to have a game with a good balnce of plot and gameplay and nowadyas the plots are all getting cliche because its all been done before. So less plot means more gameplay is needed to keep the consumer satisfied
 
Auron234 said:
Well you got to have a game with a good balnce of plot and gameplay and nowadyas the plots are all getting cliche because its all been done before. So less plot means more gameplay is needed to keep the consumer satisfied

That's how it's always been. Bad plots do not necessarily translate to a bad game. It should be all about the gameplay in the first place anyways. Unless you're playing an RPG, the story shouldn't really matter too much.

Sure Resistance might not be considered a classic in the near or far future, but from what I heard from a friend who actually tested the game, it is fun. And personally that's all that matters.
 
SpartanEvolved said:
A video game with a great plot is much better than a game with a crappy dime-a-dozen plot. I'll explain why in a later post got things to do.

I love great plots too, but they are incredibly rare to be found in videogames. I think there is great potential for story-telling in videogames, but no one seems to be capitalising on it. So to fault Resistance for doing something that 99% of all games do seems nitpicky to me.
 
Back
Top