- Nov 9, 2017
It proves that you need to be really close minded to think that PlayStation has no classics.
This is a clown take.With the Nes Classic selling over 3.6 million units as of June 2018, and the SNES Classic reaching 5.28 million as of January 2018, it's safe to say that both of these consoles sold incredibly well and proved that the GP remembers Nintendo Classics fondly.
But, given how disastrous the sales for the Playstation Classic are, heavy discounts reaching $30 and less to try and move units, being offered for free with every purchase of a PS4, and over 1000 people choosing to get a free DS4 over it in this thread I created back in February:
What does that tell us about the Playstation brand in terms of a strong catalogue that endures generations? Did the system need more the 24 years for it to be considered classic?
I thought that reviews were the main reason of the system's demise, but a recently released title with the name of Days Gone was slammed, dragged, and panned by some critics for its unimaginative gameplay, and scored a 72 on Metacritic. Yet the game is selling incredibly well for a not so well received AAA title, and was not hindered by the reviews.
Could it be that the Crash collection was the reason? As some users claimed here that the trilogy was the only classic IP the Playstation brand has to offer.
Some of Sony's critics argue that most of Sony's titles suffer from being a relic of their time, hailed as technical marvels when released for their graphical achievements, but as their beautiy fade away, they rely on the gameplay aspect, which is not that fondly remembered, something Nintendo excels in and is the reason why titles like Super Mario 64 is considered a timeless classic.
What do you think, Era? Is the lack of classic games the reason for the downfall of the Playstation Classic, or is there another reason why the system failed?
What's worse is the fact that so many are responding in earnest. This has to be the most bait-y premise for a thread I've ever seen on here...
Probably not a popular opinion but this is a really good point.
Indeed, and watch out if you don't agree with his OP, you get a childish snarky post like this...
and when he/she was called out for it, the response ....
But who is he/she fooling, the poster got banned for, so I guess it's his/her shtick....
Why are you quoting a post I made in a different thread about a user defending Sony's decision to prevent cross play?
Both Uncharted and GOW are highly praised for their great gameplay. Especially God of War. But if you restrict it to classics they have tons with great gameplay as well. Sly, Ratchet, J&D, Twisted Metal, Ape Escape, their RPGs etc.Lets not kid ourselves, of course the PS1 has tons of classics. That is not the problem at all.
But with that said, I think the PS1 Classic proves something else. From the start Sony have sold their games and systems on the premise of being technologically advanced, and they have also cultivated an audience who cares alot about graphics, cutscenes and so on. Just look at the typical Sony firstparty-game, and you will see this is the games Sony specializes in. Awesome graphics, shallow gameplay (Uncharted, GoW, The Order and so on).
When Sony have sold their games and consoles for more then twenty years, on the premise of being high tech and advanced, its not surprising that their retro consoles dont really resonate with their audience. Nintendo on the other hand, have cultivated an audience who knows that graphics doesnt really matter, by going being from the Wii and forwards, and that their games are about gameplay and level design.
Nintendo have cultivated and sold an idea where gaming is timeless. Sony have not. This is why their machines have so different fate in the market place.