Sony, Good or bad?

[Alabama-Shrimp]

Well we all know The Maligned Samurai-san Leon stance on Sony but what do you rally think?

Have they in the last 10 years or so really helped the image of games and the people that play them bringing them centre stage getting rid of the bad image changing them into a legitimate media like film or television?

OR


Have they single handedly destroyed all the was innovative and diffrent by producing consoles that are nothing but high powered underused graphics chuckers with an endless stream of unimaginative and unexciting sequels shoved at you as the next big thing?

[The Metamorphosing Leon]

Damn it phoenix look what you've done.

I thought I made my views clear awhile ago.

I'm not truly a Sony fanboy. I mean there's absolutely a zero percent chance that I will buy myself a PS3 in probably the next three years. But I just can't stand the unfounded anti-Sony mentality I see here. So I will fight the good fight for it. Sony has provided me with hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of entertainment on its systems. I'm not going to turn against them because they're the big guy and I'm not going to turn against them because they make an expensive system.

Unimaginative? Riiiiiiiight, what about Katamari? Kingdom Hearts? Guitar Hero? The list can go on for as long as you like? This is an invalid argument. M$ has a much less imaginative repertoire of games than Sony. It seems to me that Nintendo is all quirky weird, M$ is square, and Sony is somewhere in the middle.

People also complain about pretty graphics, I say hey, if they make em, use em. You can't tell me there's something wrong with eye candy. I you think there's something wrong with eye candy that's a personal preference.

Likewise in "helping the image of games" I don't know if Sony has helped or not. They've sold a hell of a lot of them though.

As for a legitimite media, I personally like this view. I would much rather be in my story than just watching a story. My games feeling cinematic doesn't bother me. Some people would rather play Tetris, others will want to play games as cinematic as MGS 3. Again it's personal preference.

Oh yeah and LONG LIVE TEH SONY EMPIRE!!!!

[img width=200 height=275]http://www.gogela.com/blog/images/2006/sony1.jpg[/img]

[Tan]

Nice rebuttal Leon 

I think there are allot more Sony fans here and everywhere than Microsoft or Nintendo ones, and not because I see sales figures or fanboy wars, but because of many of the reasons Leon gave. And like he said, Sony is very much the middle man offering a selection of innovation, hardcore and casual games that make it quite frankly an all around good system of choice for anyone.

Have they single handedly destroyed all the was innovative and diffrent by producing consoles that are nothing but high powered underused graphics chuckers with an endless stream of unimaginative and unexciting sequels shoved at you as the next big thing?

Since the question was asked I'll give my honest answer. Neither the PS1 or the PS2 are "high powered underused graphics chuckers" in fact in comparison to their rivals quite the opposite, and the PS3 hasn't proven whether it's superior to the 360 or not so who can really judge?

What game/system offers innovation like Guitar Hero does? or peripherals for games like, steering wheels, flight sticks, arcade sticks, etc etc.? I own both a PS2 and a Xbox/Xbox 360 for completely different reasons, they each give me something the other doesn't.

I don't think anyone on this board is a hardcore fanboy of anything in particular, sure we all have our preferences but we wouldn't be here on a gaming collecting board if we didn't enjoy or if we deprived ourselves of, what the other systems offered us.

Most of the "anti-Sony fanboyism" comes from longtime fans of classic Nintendo systems who feel Sony has robbed gaming of something. But they always forget that Nintendo itself was the one who unleashed the Sony beast, and they were the ones unable to counter it with a better product selling product for 10 years in a row.

Sony is arrogant, dubious hardware maker, sometimes a imitator as well, but they have introduced us to backwards compatibility, several memorable franchises in many genres, and brought gaming to a worldwide audience and mainstream media. And for that they deserve a fair chance to succeed or fail without judgement prior to release, much like what everyone has argued about the Wii and 360.

[Alabama-Shrimp]

Both excellent answers, my point was in not for nor against Sony on anything they do there a company like all others whos job it is to make money, I was trying to put both types of argument forward to see what people thought.

One thing i do feel though is that Playstations have by some always been touted as the consoles with the best games/graphics/story (delete as needed) when really it does not matter what system the game is on its gameplay that counts over everything else

[chrisbid]

sony started the game in the mid 90s with lots of new ideas that worked so well for them, that theyve refused to do anything original since then.  'stay the course' hasnt worked for republicans, and it likely wont last forever with sony

innovative games like guitar hero and katamari are third party creations, and in this day and age where third parties are squeezed more and more by sony to cover their hardware losses, third parties will have to take even fewer risks than they are now (read: not very many)

my saltiness toward sony comes mostly how they handled the PS2 launch and beat sega into the ground with hype, most of which was never delivered.  Now that sega is a bland third party that has come up with virtually nothing since the dreamcast days (the only great original sega title has been feel the magic on the DS), i am less bitter.  but from an analytical view, arrogance has toppled every leader in the breif history of this industry (atari, nintendo, sega), and there is little reason to believe that it wont happen again with sony

[Izret101]

Guitar Hero will be coming out on 360 eventually.

PS2 was not a graphics machine i comparison to Xbox and GCN.

PS2 does have the largest selection of varying games, good, bad, awesome, quirky, shitty etc etc.

Get Sony for first party games.
Get Xbox for First party and multisystem games.
Get Nintendo for first party games.

Though as already stated we have yet to see the power of the PS3 or Wii yet for those statements to nesecarilly hold true.

Oh and don't say no one here is a fanboy either.
Many of us are and don't really admit it. Be it to ourselves or others

[Alabama-Shrimp]

PS2 was not a graphics machine i comparison to Xbox and GCN.

this is one of the things i do hate though the PS2 was hyped as a great graphics before it came out and yes its definitely the weakest of that age machine (dreamcast excluded) but the same thing is happening now with the PS3 and you know far too few companies will uses all that "power"

Some 3rd party games are the true stars of a console but has been said few can afford to be made as they dont sell as well as generic "safe" games do thus this leads to stagnation of ideas.

[The Metamorphosing Leon]

Well you can't blame a company for wanting to make money over losing money. I suppose the truth is we [medieval chanting] "True Gamers"[/medieval chanting] are not the majority of all gamers. For some reason the casual gamer public would rather buy the same football game for like twenty years in a row than buy an original game where you do something dfferent, like roll up balls of crap. The companies are going to try and make money by doing what the majority doesn't mind. They aren't going to try and please a minority of us by marketing games that are less likely to succeed. (I know, Nintendo is, we'll see how it goes.

Mainly, for this Generation, I feel like PS3 will be the most advanced system. Both M$ and the Wii machine don't seem to be advancing to the next generation rather than they are expanding on the old one. PS3 is using tons of new tech, is making sure it has great graphics abilities and, as we all know, doubles as a grill

[img width=283 height=236]http://gtpod.palgn.com.au/images/ken%20grill.jpg[/img]

[phoenix1967]

I cannot speak much to the PS1 outside of the fact that Sony and Sega had enough innovative prowess to bring the gaming world to disk instead of cartridge (N64 being the last). I'm still learning about the games of that generation so that's all I have to say about them.

PS2 took Sony a step further and into its dominant role in the industry due to it's release being 1 year earlier than Xbox and GC and the fact that it could play DVDs, an industry first. This is where Sony was smart, they didn't attempt to force a proprietary hardware device on the public. Instead, they acknowledged the current standard, provided it to the people, and let them choose. And it did so at a reasonable overall price for a console.

Sony has put out a strong selection of titles on the PS2, innovative enough and include God of War, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Katamari Damacy, among others. GameCube has Metroid Prime, was the first to Resident Evil 4, and has the Mario brand name. Microsoft has KOTOR, Halo 1 and 2, Far Cry, Ninja Gaiden, and others as well as the best crossplatform versions of current gen games. To say that Sony or any company stifles innovation may be a stretch. However, in order to compete in this current gen, Sony will need to embrace it more since competition with Nintendo and Microsoft will be much more heated than ever before due to Nintendo's innovation in game controller technology and Microsoft's online marketplace & XBLArcade strategy.

To say that Sony has brought legitimacy to the gaming industry as an entertainment medium is an interesting take, but I would give the credit to the current gen of game consoles and companies as a whole for making this happen. When PS1, Dreamcast, and N64 were around, only Sony's company name brand was known outside of gaming. Adding Microsoft's name to the picture in the current gen with Sony imo makes the rest of the world take notice since now 2 of the largest corporations in the world are on board with gaming consoles instead of just 1. In the marketing machine of everyday life, the public is then exposed more frequently to the idea of putting their entertainment dollars into the current generation of games. And that is what has brought it to legitimacy and acceptance. 

The bad that I see Sony doing is obvious. And every gaming industry employee that I've discussed this with agrees...when Sony forces a proprietary hardware device at the consumer, the results are not good. Sony's decision to force gamers into Blu-Ray is one that has shown that since E3, Sony's arrogance is starting to get the best of them. I agree with chrisbid on this point about arrogant companies and their respective downfalls.

Sony had respected the consumer with the PS1 and PS2 by choosing to use the industry standards (DVD) to maximize the potential of their product. And it paid off. Now, they've decided it was time to force another proprietary hardware device at the public with the Blu-Ray player in the PS3...and I hope it backfires in their faces. Does that make me a Sony hater? No. It would piss me off no matter what the company is. Because it takes the decision out of the hands of the consumer and into the corporation's control. Sony: "We are Sony...you will buy a PS3 with a Blu-Ray player because we say so." Consumer: "Oh. Ok. I guess I will buy a PS3 with a Blu-Ray player for $600 even though I don't have a HD television and do have a DVD player with a whole collection of standard DVDs".

Betamax. UMD. Now Blu-Ray. Sony's mocking the consumer. And that's what pisses me off more than anything.

[Sauza12]

I have mixed feeling about Sony in general.  Out of all of the last generation machines, I like the PS2 more than the XBox or Gamecube, but Sony has the most obvious money hungry corporate philosophy out of all three.

Let me expand a bit here.  The sheer number of excellent games on the PS2 is overwhelming.  Even the bad games have some measure of respectibility on them.  Case in point is Project EDEN.  It's an overall bland and repetitive game, but I still can't call it horrible.  Granted I haven't played half of my PS2 collection, but I have never run into a game that was just completely unplayable.

As for Sony's corporate philosophy, they make no qualms that they are just trying to make money and don't try to hide it.  I know that Microsoft and Nintendo are both in it to make money as well, but they don't come right out and tell it to the world.  I like to be lied to every once in a while and believe that the game manufacturers are in buisness strictly for their love of the product.  Is there anything inherently wrong with trying to make as much money as possible?  No.  That's what communism is for.  Go America.  But it's still nice to at least have the option to look at things with rose colored glasses.

I also believe that if it weren't for Sony, games would still be a niche form of entertainment.  The one thing about Sony is their marketing department is used to appealing to the general pubic, where as Microsoft and Nintendo both go after a smaller demographic.  I know what your thinking "but Microsoft sells computers and other stuff like that".  While it's true they do, they are also pretty much the only game in town for operating systems for the regular folks.  They don't really have to advertise and they would still pull in 1 billion plus a year.  Sony was the only company that had the ability to truly make video games "sort of cool".  Whether that's a good thing or not is up for discussion.

I don't think Sony is very innovative (that's all Nintendo.  Donkey Konga for the win!!!), but they do the status quo, VERY well.  I'm could explain myself further here, but I'm done typing.

[James]

and, as we all know, doubles as a grill

[img width=283 height=236]http://gtpod.palgn.com.au/images/ken%20grill.jpg[/img]

So does the Xbox 360!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oLabckoPC0g

[The Metamorphosing Leon]

Yeah, but only because it sucks.

[phoenix1967]

Yeah, but only because it sucks.

*yawn*...what's that? Oh, just Leon making a Sony Fanboy sandwich...again. *yawn*

[Fuyukaze]

I think of sony as being one of the more key factors in what's bad in gaming these days, but that's not because I think they are the most evil thing to happen to gaming.  The biggest problems I've had with them is their lack of inovation, their lack of originality, and their continual lie machine add campaigns.  I do have a problem with a good number of their fans, but I cant hold them responsible for the saying and actions of a number of misguided cult followers.  Yes, I said cult.  Some Sony fanboys treat it like it's the second coming of Jesus, the birth of a new Budda, or a visit from the gods on planet x25y8.

They lack inovation.  Inovation changes how people percieve gaming, inovation changes how it's played, inovation changes how people go about playing other people, and sometimes even what's being played in the first place.  So far Sony has done little to change any of that.  They have followed the beaten path and done little beyond that.  Their third party games on the other hand have often been quite a different story.  What with games from Namco like Katamari, games from Konami like Lifeline, capcom and Okami, we have seen how original the third party companies can and will be.  From Sony we see games like Ico, God of War, and Shadow of the Closus.  Great games, but so few and far between.

It makes me laugh when people claim how Sony brought about backwards compatability first with the PS1/PS2.  It realy does show you how young the current gaming generation is.  I mean, no one ever heard of the master system converter which oddly enough allowed you to play master system games on a genesis.  Also, one for the gamegear as well!  Funny, but that wasnt a first either as I remember.  Something about 2600, 5200, and some other Atari system being played all together.  I forget, maybe someone can remind me.

You can call me a fanboy, but I'd realy like to know what of.  As far as systems, I perfered the x-box for it's hardware.  The ability to rip my CD collection to it's hard drive was something I realy enjoyed.  I also loved how I didnt need more and more memory cards.  There just wasnt enough third party support for it.  I also enjoyed the Dreamcast as it had a great number of inovative ideas for a system.  Built in modemn, memory cards with an actual screen (something the ps1 had as well yet sony decided to not release outside of japan for various reasons).  I enjoyed the SNES because its graphics were nice, same for the nes.  Loved the 2600 because at the time it was basicly the only game in town aside from the arcades which were gobling quarters by the handfull.  Looking back, how the hell did any of us afford to visit arcades?  We must have been more well off then we are now.

[chrisbid]

Something about 2600, 5200, and some other Atari system being played all together. 

the 7800 was backwards compatible with the 2600, but the 7800 was released after the NES had hit the market... too little too late for atari, though some of the later 2600 titles were really impressive

Looking back, how the hell did any of us afford to visit arcades?  We must have been more well off then we are now.

there was a day and age, when virtually all games were just a quarter to play.  machines that charged 50 cents were few and far between.  I think the first 50 cent game i played was Dragons Lair, then you had the custom sega cabs like Hang On and and Outrun, but as the arcades died, the prices went up to recoup the costs quicker, and it continued to spiral out of control.  the arcades did make a bit of a comeback with Street Fighter II and other fighters.