-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Which of the big three has the best first party and why?
- Thread starter Deleted member 249
- Start date
You know what's sad? Microsoft could've had a place in this conversation as little as 5 or 6 years ago. Gears was an excellent 3rd person shooter, Halo was a FPS juggernaut, Forza seemed unmatched in sim racing...
But all these franchises have fallen off a cliff on the Xbox One. Halo 5 was rough, Gears 4 was unremarkable, and even Forza is being looked at with increased scrutiny since it tries to force feed you DLC and microtransactions at every turn.
Halo, Gears, Fable, and Forza could've stayed strong franchises, but they needed to be well-cultivated. Sony and Nintendo pour tons of time, money, and effort into ensuring their first party games are the absolute best they can be. MS didn't take that same level of care. And now, where people used to look at MS's stable of franchises with respect, there's just indifference.
Imagine if Naughty Dog put out a "meh" game, or instead of Mario Odyssey we got a Mario platformer on the level of quality as Yooka Laylee. It would seriously harm the Nintendo/Sony brands as a whole. And Microsoft allowed that to happen to not just one, but arguably all of their biggest franchises.
Hell, Sony let The Last Guardian wade its way through development hell for 10 years, while MS axed Scalebound after what, two, maybe three? Granted we don't know the whole story behind Scalebound, and it's easy for me to be critical from a distance without really knowing the details, but I can't imagine Scalebound being in any worse shape than TLG.
Point being, Nintendo and Sony really try to cultivate what they do have, and are willing to risk-take on the things they don't. MS doesn't really do either.
But all these franchises have fallen off a cliff on the Xbox One. Halo 5 was rough, Gears 4 was unremarkable, and even Forza is being looked at with increased scrutiny since it tries to force feed you DLC and microtransactions at every turn.
Halo, Gears, Fable, and Forza could've stayed strong franchises, but they needed to be well-cultivated. Sony and Nintendo pour tons of time, money, and effort into ensuring their first party games are the absolute best they can be. MS didn't take that same level of care. And now, where people used to look at MS's stable of franchises with respect, there's just indifference.
Imagine if Naughty Dog put out a "meh" game, or instead of Mario Odyssey we got a Mario platformer on the level of quality as Yooka Laylee. It would seriously harm the Nintendo/Sony brands as a whole. And Microsoft allowed that to happen to not just one, but arguably all of their biggest franchises.
Hell, Sony let The Last Guardian wade its way through development hell for 10 years, while MS axed Scalebound after what, two, maybe three? Granted we don't know the whole story behind Scalebound, and it's easy for me to be critical from a distance without really knowing the details, but I can't imagine Scalebound being in any worse shape than TLG.
Point being, Nintendo and Sony really try to cultivate what they do have, and are willing to risk-take on the things they don't. MS doesn't really do either.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Dude. This is actually getting ridiculous so I'll keep it short.
a) you counted fire emblem spin offs.
b) Yes, I was referencing MK8D. No, I have no issues with you counting TLOU:R either
c) Samus Returns is not Metroid Prime- the Prime trilogy is Metroid Prime. This one I can at least excuse because it can be hard for an outsider to understand right away.
d) I didn't say no Sony franchise counts- I said the ridiculous goalpost that you have for Nintendo where a franchise needs to be 90 it above to count should also apply to Sony, in which case no Sony franchise counts.
And I'm being baity?
My point is that the fidelity and performance of Nintendo hardware, along with other things, is lagging behind other consoles.
I wasn't talking about the age of the hardware.
Why do we need daily stealth nintendo brag threads?
It's clearly Nintendo, not even a question when looking at this from a business standpoint. The value they've derived from their owned IP is immense.
It's clearly Nintendo, not even a question when looking at this from a business standpoint. The value they've derived from their owned IP is immense.
a) Fire Emblem Fates is not a spinoff
b) Fair enough
c) If your bringing games from the Wii era and practically GC then that Sony list just got 5 times bigger
d) I literally quoted what you said and proved you wrong, please read my recent post again.
I'm an outsider really??? wow
I think the future is bright under VP Spencer's leadership.
Maybe we will have a very different conversation after next E3.
It's best first party, and it's one of the same as a person's favorite.
I'd say Sony mainly because they have way more niche exclusives and I enjoy and first party exclusives that focuses on characters and story.
Im a little slow today, tell me the difference between this 2 then
Right in the moment of the generation, Nintendo has at times hit higher highs (Odyssey) but Sony is more consistent: Horizon, Ratchet and Clank, HSG, Second Son and First Light, and Until Dawn are quite the variety of first-party games that are all really really good and that I would put up against Nintendo's second-tier stuff any day (and I think that Horizon is a flat-out better game than Zelda because it uses most of its space for a reason and has really fun, varied combat, which I hold in higher regard than the stuff Zelda did well [traversal] that isn't as good as other Sony games [Second Son, which has the best traversal in a console game since the original Crackdown on 360]).
What's funny is that I would have actually gone with Microsoft in the OG Xbox/PS2/Gamecube era. It's a shame to see what they've lacked in terms of first-party games in this generation.
What's funny is that I would have actually gone with Microsoft in the OG Xbox/PS2/Gamecube era. It's a shame to see what they've lacked in terms of first-party games in this generation.
Pokemon isn't first party either. Not really sure how this is hard to understand. If it's not made by a studio that Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo own then it's not first party. The IP being owned by them doesn't make the game first party, it means they own the IP.
Putting this down to "list wars" is stupid. I prefer Microsoft's first party output, but Gears of war 1-J weren't first party. Ori isn't first party. Sunset Overdrive wasn't first party.
I won't dispute the quality of Nintendo titles, but cute and cartoony does only so much for me.
As for Microsoft, I used to be interested in Halo back in the days of Halo 3 when they were doing a lot of cool new stuff like the forge editor and whatnot. These days... less so. Last game I would've been interested in was Dead Rising 3, and that wasn't really developed first party.
Sony's had ups and down, and for that I appreciate them the most. That said, it seems like they've been on a heavy high realism stint as of late that I fear will tire me out the same way Nintendo's output does. The pretty graphics are amazing to look at, but sometimes I want to see something a little more out there art wise. LittleBigPlanet 3 is three years old now, and feels older for how similar it was to 2. Ratchet and Clank I played through for the first time a few weeks back, and that was very refreshing. Haven't tried Knack 2 yet; I didn't hate the first one, but I was hardly in love with it.
Looking ahead, there's Dreams, then the highly realistic (or at least naturalistic) God of War 4, The Last of Us 2, Days Gone, Ghost of Tsushima, Spiderman, and Detroit: Become Human. They aren't without their stylish flairs, but I can't help feeling that they all stay within a close artistic realm. I suppose it's only natural with the increased capabilities of the modern hardware, but still. There's also a bit of genre blending. The first three games I listed all seem to draw from the cinematic over the shoulder third person gameplay that Naughty Dog popularized, and only one of them is a Naughty Dog game.
Maybe it sounds like I'm making some wide generalizations here, and I'm not saying that I don't enjoy these kinds of games or that I don't think they're going to be quality, I just feel like there's a certain aspect of variety that's missing with this string of highly realistic, highly cinematic titles.
But yeah, sidetrack aside, it's still Sony for me.
As for Microsoft, I used to be interested in Halo back in the days of Halo 3 when they were doing a lot of cool new stuff like the forge editor and whatnot. These days... less so. Last game I would've been interested in was Dead Rising 3, and that wasn't really developed first party.
Sony's had ups and down, and for that I appreciate them the most. That said, it seems like they've been on a heavy high realism stint as of late that I fear will tire me out the same way Nintendo's output does. The pretty graphics are amazing to look at, but sometimes I want to see something a little more out there art wise. LittleBigPlanet 3 is three years old now, and feels older for how similar it was to 2. Ratchet and Clank I played through for the first time a few weeks back, and that was very refreshing. Haven't tried Knack 2 yet; I didn't hate the first one, but I was hardly in love with it.
Looking ahead, there's Dreams, then the highly realistic (or at least naturalistic) God of War 4, The Last of Us 2, Days Gone, Ghost of Tsushima, Spiderman, and Detroit: Become Human. They aren't without their stylish flairs, but I can't help feeling that they all stay within a close artistic realm. I suppose it's only natural with the increased capabilities of the modern hardware, but still. There's also a bit of genre blending. The first three games I listed all seem to draw from the cinematic over the shoulder third person gameplay that Naughty Dog popularized, and only one of them is a Naughty Dog game.
Maybe it sounds like I'm making some wide generalizations here, and I'm not saying that I don't enjoy these kinds of games or that I don't think they're going to be quality, I just feel like there's a certain aspect of variety that's missing with this string of highly realistic, highly cinematic titles.
But yeah, sidetrack aside, it's still Sony for me.
OP
OP
Outsider as in someone not familiar with the convoluted sub franchises Nintendo sets up, so basically not a die hard, sorry. I didn't mean it to come off the wrong way.
As for point d), these were your exact words:
'You say no Sony franchise counts is legitimate bait so I had to do the research for you. So I'm not sure who really is making the stupid argument and it's really comes across as condescending on your part...'
I didn't say no Sony franchise counts. I very specifically said none counts with respect to the whole 'needs to be 90 or above' argument. I very clearly even brought up Uncharted, along with Golden Abyss and Lost Legacy (the two Uncharted games which HAVEN'T), which should have ensured there was no confusion (which there shouldn't have been because my original post was very explicit.).
What am I missing? And I'm asking this in a non sarcastic way, because I really am not sure- what am I missing here?
I'll repeat again:
Metacritic Scores:
For PS4
Uncharted 4 is 93
Bloodborne is 92
Both games are above 90... and do count. Not sure why you're confused.
OP
OP
I never said they don't???? I said that if you're saying 'no nintendo series counts if it doesn't consistently score 90 or above' then only by that metric no Sony series counts either.
Like, I've been pretty clear about what I'm saying and very explicitly emphasized my conditional...
Somewhat off-topic, but I'm still confused at how Metroid is more relevant in terms of Nintendo IP than say the more popular Splatoon and Animal Crossing?
Back on topic, I choose not to vote since it wouldn't be fair as my last Sony system was the PSP so I missed out on the PS3 and Vita, and I don't own a PS4 yet. I can't really judge on Sony's current library, but it looks interesting--especially, Horizon Zero Dawn and The Last of Us.
But I have to be honest, I'm a die hard fan of Mario, Pokemon, and Kirby and these games are usually system sellers for me. Though I did skip out on the Wii U, I am highly tempted to buy a Switch before a PS4 after the holidays. And I have to admit, usually when I want a Sony console, it's because of the third-party output.
Back on topic, I choose not to vote since it wouldn't be fair as my last Sony system was the PSP so I missed out on the PS3 and Vita, and I don't own a PS4 yet. I can't really judge on Sony's current library, but it looks interesting--especially, Horizon Zero Dawn and The Last of Us.
But I have to be honest, I'm a die hard fan of Mario, Pokemon, and Kirby and these games are usually system sellers for me. Though I did skip out on the Wii U, I am highly tempted to buy a Switch before a PS4 after the holidays. And I have to admit, usually when I want a Sony console, it's because of the third-party output.
I'm sorry if I misconstrued your post as a list war effort, but it's hard for me to conceptualize something like Smash Bros as a third party IP.
Will Metroid Prime 4 be counted as third party if it's found to be developed by a third party studio?
Last edited:
as a whole company, Pokemon ALL is split into 3
but when it comes to Pokemon Game RPG, that one IT IS 1st party. That one doesnt move without a word from Nintendo.
Nintendo works more magic with the hardware they have than whatever other company does. Sony games looks better cause better hardware but Nintendo code monkey are better than Sony
That's debatable.
Sony studios put out games that are considered best looking, despite the availability of more powerful hardware
I never said that no Nintendo series count if it doesn't score consistently above 90. I was looking at individual games for the latest consoles and only brought up the old Zelda and Mario games to make a point. So I think you misinterpreted what I said.
Edit: I need to sleep; thanks for the discussion OP
not saying you are not entitled to your opinion, but seem like many people reason boils to
>Game looks mature enough for a mature gamer such as myself. colorful non realistic is obviously for kids
The reason I prefer Nintendo is simple: Gameplay, I love a good soundtrack, graphics helps (2 Booty), and a history that draws you in is excellent, but all that is just garnish around the main dish, gameplay and extremely well executed controls.
see Mario O, all the movements combinations, you can do and all the game uses is 4 buttons
There are 2 ways to make a game,
1) You create the World and then set the rules for the gameplay within that world
or
2) You create a gameplay mechanic and they build the world around that mechanic
Im personally more a fan of 2 so Nintendo appeals to me more on that matter
>Game looks mature enough for a mature gamer such as myself. colorful non realistic is obviously for kids
The reason I prefer Nintendo is simple: Gameplay, I love a good soundtrack, graphics helps (2 Booty), and a history that draws you in is excellent, but all that is just garnish around the main dish, gameplay and extremely well executed controls.
see Mario O, all the movements combinations, you can do and all the game uses is 4 buttons
There are 2 ways to make a game,
1) You create the World and then set the rules for the gameplay within that world
or
2) You create a gameplay mechanic and they build the world around that mechanic
Im personally more a fan of 2 so Nintendo appeals to me more on that matter
Easily Nintendo for me by a mile. I really like how creative they are when it comes to making new experience, and games that just put a smile on your face. Mario Odyssey being the latest example. The mechanics with cappy (using him as an extra platform, capturing enemies) is the best, I really love how capturing enemies allows for a wide variety of powerups in the games. Nintendo's games are really polished from a game play and technical perspective. Their games don't ship broken requiring massive day one patches. Their also pretty good about supporting games. Splatoon 1 and 2's free post game support was/is phenomenal. ARMS has been pretty decent as well. Mario Kart 8 on Wii U had an amazing season pass as far as price/content went.
I used to be a bigger fan of Sony in the past. They used to have franchises I really enjoy, stuff like Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank, Jak. They have seemingly moved on not only from these series, but from this style of game, which saddens me. I just really don't care about stuff like Uncharted, Last of Us, God of War, Infamous, etc. I can respect anyone that does and understand why they might like those games though.
Microsoft....well, their first party output is anemic at best, and generally not to my liking. That said I would love to have Rare Replay, but that and Sunset Overdrive are the only two Microsoft published games that have launched on the Xbox One that really interested me at all, with nothing on the horizon either.
I used to be a bigger fan of Sony in the past. They used to have franchises I really enjoy, stuff like Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank, Jak. They have seemingly moved on not only from these series, but from this style of game, which saddens me. I just really don't care about stuff like Uncharted, Last of Us, God of War, Infamous, etc. I can respect anyone that does and understand why they might like those games though.
Microsoft....well, their first party output is anemic at best, and generally not to my liking. That said I would love to have Rare Replay, but that and Sunset Overdrive are the only two Microsoft published games that have launched on the Xbox One that really interested me at all, with nothing on the horizon either.
I think making a game looks good is "easy" as it is mocap, polygon count and textures maps
IMO Nintendo is better cause they have a better ratio Looks vs Performance.
Nintendo had the best first party for generations, but software wise there are not many new ip's. It is always Mario,Zelda,Kirby,Metroid.
So i would say Sony for the win, they have invested so much in new ip's this and last generation and a lot of them are really good.
Microsoft does not even come close and it is a damn shame, they had the ball in the 360 era. I really hope they make a comeback they had so many opportunities for new ip's (343,Rare,Coalition,etc).
So i would say Sony for the win, they have invested so much in new ip's this and last generation and a lot of them are really good.
Microsoft does not even come close and it is a damn shame, they had the ball in the 360 era. I really hope they make a comeback they had so many opportunities for new ip's (343,Rare,Coalition,etc).
This is exactly what the fuck was said before this years E3 lmao
https://www.dualshockers.com/shuhei...ke-money-but-sony-will-always-support-talent/
Sony is the only big publisher which takes these kind of risks to sell their platform, and still continues to make and fund AAA linear single player games. I appreciate the variety of gaming experiences they offer; from Journey to The Last of Us, from Bloodborne to Bound, and from Detroit to Dreams. The artistic freedom they give to their studios, like Guerrilla, Naughty Dog, and Media Molecule, is commendable as well. They aren't afraid to try something new instead of relying on established IPs. No other publisher offers me what they do.
Since Wii U is the only Nintendo system that had to rely on their own games, I don't think it would be impossible for the others to sell 15 million units by their own offerings alone. On a side note, when the Wii U launched the early adopters couldn't know there would be so limited 3rd party support for the system, considering how it was with Gamecube and Wii.
Sony is the only big publisher which takes these kind of risks to sell their platform, and still continues to make and fund AAA linear single player games. I appreciate the variety of gaming experiences they offer; from Journey to The Last of Us, from Bloodborne to Bound, and from Detroit to Dreams. The artistic freedom they give to their studios, like Guerrilla, Naughty Dog, and Media Molecule, is commendable as well. They aren't afraid to try something new instead of relying on established IPs. No other publisher offers me what they do.
Since Wii U is the only Nintendo system that had to rely on their own games, I don't think it would be impossible for the others to sell 15 million units by their own offerings alone. On a side note, when the Wii U launched the early adopters couldn't know there would be so limited 3rd party support for the system, considering how it was with Gamecube and Wii.
1. Nintendo - they have the gameplay sorted out. They have the brand / mascots. Fighting, platforming, kart racers, i'll call Zelda an rpg, RPG's.
2. Sony - Single player narrative games. They got em'. They have a bunch of Japanese games that seem to light up the market. Played the Nier demo, it was not for me apparently.
3. Xbox - I bought Cuphead. I'm not sure if it counts though since it's only Console Exclusive. Not a lot in the pipe though. So obviously, 3rd. Which is still podium. I do hope Sea of Thieves is good.
Edit: Took out Thumper because I wasn't aware it was not console exclusive...
2. Sony - Single player narrative games. They got em'. They have a bunch of Japanese games that seem to light up the market. Played the Nier demo, it was not for me apparently.
3. Xbox - I bought Cuphead. I'm not sure if it counts though since it's only Console Exclusive. Not a lot in the pipe though. So obviously, 3rd. Which is still podium. I do hope Sea of Thieves is good.
Edit: Took out Thumper because I wasn't aware it was not console exclusive...
Last edited:
Smash Brothers IP is owned by Nintendo, but if they're outsourcing the development then those games aren't first party. Same with Metroid.
game freak make the RPGs, and Nintendo don't own them iirc so they're not first party.
Nintendo is the most consistent, but Sony has put out some stuff I really love such as the Team Ico games.
I don't really care for anything from Microsoft.
I don't really care for anything from Microsoft.
Nintendo. Zelda, Xenoblade, Metroid, Mario, Pokemon, Yoshi, Kirby, Splatoon, F-Zero, Pikmin, Smash Bros... I can just go on and on with franchises I love and can't wait for the next iteration of.
Hell, I can sit down and play hours and hours of those old Game & Watch games. They're fucking addictive.
So yeah. Nintendo.
Hell, I can sit down and play hours and hours of those old Game & Watch games. They're fucking addictive.
So yeah. Nintendo.
I guess our definitions seem to differ then. To me there's a difference between a first party game, which belongs to the platform holder, but can be developed by a third party studio, and a first party development studio.
Nintendo, easily.
I value what Sony brings to the table. Same with Microsoft during the previous two generations. Now they have some catching up to do.
But as diverse and well-made as the Sony first party games are most of the time, I generally find them lacking in the gameplay department. Shadow of the Colossus, Little Big Planet, Uncharted, etc. They are good games, maybe even great, but I don't actually enjoy playing them.
You can make the argument that Nintendo has released a GOTY competitor pretty much every year since 1986. Sure, they drop the ball once in a while, but they have the best library in gaming history and I say that as an old school Sega fanboy.
Same reason why even before her movie blew up, Wonder Woman was part of the DC Trinity even though characters like Green Lantern and the Flash sold better.
I value what Sony brings to the table. Same with Microsoft during the previous two generations. Now they have some catching up to do.
But as diverse and well-made as the Sony first party games are most of the time, I generally find them lacking in the gameplay department. Shadow of the Colossus, Little Big Planet, Uncharted, etc. They are good games, maybe even great, but I don't actually enjoy playing them.
You can make the argument that Nintendo has released a GOTY competitor pretty much every year since 1986. Sure, they drop the ball once in a while, but they have the best library in gaming history and I say that as an old school Sega fanboy.
It's been part of their identity since the early days of the NES.
Same reason why even before her movie blew up, Wonder Woman was part of the DC Trinity even though characters like Green Lantern and the Flash sold better.
Nintendo. Their games all ooze quality and very few games have left my an impression on me such as botw and Mario galaxy
True, feels like it was on PS4 for ages before though. Had to be like 6 months. Doesn't matter what console it was on. Game was great.
Nintendo & Sony ex-aequo for me in the current state but I prefer Sony IPs in spite of buying also Nintendo products....
What I find clearly desperating is that Microsoft had a wonderful first-party lineup on OG XB//X360 :
* Project Gotham
* Mechassault
* Brute Force (yes ! I loved that game !!).
* the first Crackdown
* the first two Gears of War
* Perfect Dark Zero
* Kameo
* Voodoo Vince
* Blinx
* Quantum Redshift
* ....
Now they have nothing I consider seriously important...
What I find clearly desperating is that Microsoft had a wonderful first-party lineup on OG XB//X360 :
* Project Gotham
* Mechassault
* Brute Force (yes ! I loved that game !!).
* the first Crackdown
* the first two Gears of War
* Perfect Dark Zero
* Kameo
* Voodoo Vince
* Blinx
* Quantum Redshift
* ....
Now they have nothing I consider seriously important...
It's audiovisually astonishing. Unfortunately, I suck at rhythm games. =/
No, that's not how it works. If the platform holder owns the IP, then it is a 1st party game. It can have 3rd party development, but the game itself is owned by the platform holder and is, by definition, 1st party. You own it = it's yours = 1st party.
Gears is 1st party
Bloodborne is 1st party
Smash is 1st party
Pokemon is a unique case, as Nintendo fully owns the trademark, but only 1/3rd of the IP. It is, for all intents and purposes, still 1st party though. I think Nintendo even owns a majority stake in Creatures Inc., one of the other owners of the Pokemon IP.