Splinter Cell: Conviction.
The lip syncing was bad though.
I think one of the things I’ve never liked about the Playstations, besides the horrible controller ergonomics, is that they really don’t have a huge flagship title to call their own. When you see Mario, you INSTANTLY think Nintendo. Hell, your PARENTS can instantly associate the two. The moment anybody hears “Xbox”, they probably can associate the Halo series. When I hear “Playstation”, I just suddenly think of the controller and how uncomfortable it was to hold. There’s no lasting big-name exclusive franchise that pops into my mind.
Also, the original Descent had color limitations as was typical for DOS games, but it had a funny way of accidentally making some textures look shiny like marble, or polished granite, where most was shiny but little bits were still rough. It was just the color depth and lighting playing off each other, but the effect was still there (unintentionally). So bad, it looked good.
Gran Turismo? =\
And Final Fantasy was a PS exclusive for about 7-8 years and helped it to dominate the N64.
I find the controller alot easier to hold. Not to mention the fact that having a flagship title has no real purpose. The Playstation has Sackboy of Littlebigplanet as a mascot. Not to mention Uncharted 2. The PC doesn’t have an immediate association, but it is probably the best gaming format.
Sony’s flagship franchise is God of War. They make it inhouse, just like Nintendo makes Mario, and Microsoft owns Bungie.
It’s-a me! The God-ah of War!
Isn’t Sonys flagship franchise Uncharted? =)
Unfortunately i imagine the immediate association with the PC is World of Warcraft.
It should be Valve though
No, considering it’s a series that’s been on only one console, has 2 games, is fairly new, and isn’t developed in house.
well that WAS Nintendo to begin with, and from the looks of it, 13 will be the only #'d console one to not stick with exclusivity.
~But…
Crash 1-3
Spyro 1-3
Ratchet and Clank
Jak
Drake from Uncharted
Kratos from GOW
Resistance Series
Sackboy from LBP
Snake from Metal Gear (yeah i know that was Nintendo to start with as well)
The Wipeout Series
Sly Cooper
~Sony doesn’t need ONE exclusive flagship title, when it easily has a history of these strong games
Actually, if I am correct, Metal Gear was first released on the MSX computer in Japan. Sony I believe was the developer of the MSX. Then a butchered port was released for the NES.
True story, I had forgotten that
I don’t like the idea of a flagship character. There’s no reason other than as a marketing tool. They simplify the idea of games on the console and, to some point, quash originality via limited marketing.
You say that as if marketing isn’t crucial.
Well, marketing is of course important, but from the player’s point of view, it can be detrimental to originality on a system. For example, Mario being nintendo’s flagship character gives the Wii an image of cartoonish innocence, which means more people that want to play a game like that will get a Wii. So it makes it a less marketable decision to release a rated m shooter for the wii.
My point is that giving a console a face can limit variety and originality on a system.
^this
Sony has E-M games on that list
(or as they’ve been retconned E+10 - M)
You guys are right, Nintendo has to change their image or else they’ll never be successful. Ditch Mario’s colorful and family safe image and invest in more M rated ego shooters. That sure will give them a chance to finally reach 1st place in the sales charts.
I’m not saying Nintendo isn’t successful, I’m saying that the Wii isn’t a very well rounded system in it’s catalog of games. Sony doesn’t have a real face, which makes it more marketable to develop a wider variety of games, from little big planet, to mgs4, to uncharted.
It sure seems more profitable to exploit your single mascot than try to spread thin with too many characters.
I’m not talking about profit. Having a flagship character definitely improves a system’s profitability, but I’m talking about the subjective quality of a system’s catalog.