Support NeoGAF

[lunchwithyuzo]

EAD1 didn't make the game completely on their own either. Which is my point. Most people who play MK don't care who makes the game as long as it looks good. Same with Mario. Otherwise NSMB would have been shunned as a spinoff game of dubious quality by a team of "interns" or whatever. Going by what core gamers on forums tend to talk about. Instead it sold far beyond what any Mario game from the main EAD team had made in years.

I didn't mean to imply EAD1 developed Mario Kart 7 on their own, sorry if that wasn't clear enough. They were the lead developer though, and Retro Studios was very much brought in in a support capacity. Somewhat like Monolithsoft with Skyward Sword.

I don't disagree with you that positioning is what matters more to the mainstream, my own point was that InsaneZero was correct in saying Mario Kart 7 was made by the "main" Mario Kart team.

 

[charlequin]

But i dont think that having many B-teams making the games (at least so far) necessarily mean that Sony doesnt take the Vita seriously (or whatever platform it might be for that matter).

Well, I mean, the difference is that (in general) part of why it doesn't matter which team works on something at Nintendo is that the end product always comes out being of comparable quality and relatively indistinguishable in terms of "values." Mario Kart 7 has just as much content, just as many features, just as good production quality, etc. as Mario Kart Wii (arguably better, in fact.)

Conversely, the God of War games for PSP might be good but they're significantly shorter and less feature-rich than the PS2 games; Uncharted Vita is less feature-rich and significantly less polished overall; GT PSP was held universally to be a disappointment compared to the console entries. IMO the choice of assigning games to "B-teams" and the lacking scope of said titles are symptoms of the same general problem: Sony just doesn't believe, on a corporate level, in throwing full-fledged effort behind portable titles the way Nintendo does, and the result is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[AceBandage]

The ultimate example for this conversation can be seen in the new Modnation Racers for the Vita.
Doesn't even have an online mode.
Just... How?
How do you not include something so simple and basic in a racing game?

 

[TheNatural]

The ultimate example for this conversation can be seen in the new Modnation Racers for the Vita.
Doesn't even have an online mode.
Just... How?
How do you not include something so simple and basic in a racing game?

Ask Scamco. They can't even include a racing game in a racing game apparently.

 

[AceBandage]

Ask Scamco. They can't even include a racing game in a racing game apparently.

Yeah, but that's a company that has shown that they, more or less, have a hatred for their fans anyway.

 

[BishopLamont]

Same reason many Wii games didn't have online.

They just don't care.

Also Retro is like a guest feature, you can't really say they developed MK7 with EAD1, that implies its more of an equal collaboration. Would you say DKC was developed with Nintendo? The same work was probably given to both project from both sides.

 

[Chris1964]

I just thought people were interested in One Piece's release. And predicting for one game just means it is easier than trying to guess for 4 or 5!

But, yes, people, please talk.

Predictions include luck but predicting only for one game that we know the initial shipment turns them to a race to find who the luckiest is.

Looking to PS2 hardware I see no apparent reason Media Create keeps rising its sales the last 2 weeks, when Famitsu does the opposite (and expected) except that M-C adjusts the numbers in order to discontinue it next year. Software share is close 1% every week and no more than 1-2 games will come out for it this year.

 

[AnimeTheme]

A price cut alongside with MHP3G (PS Vita + PSP simultaneous release, supporting Ad-hoc play across both platforms) could save PS Vita in Japan... I guess.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

A price cut alongside with MHP3G (PS Vita + PSP simultaneous release, supporting Ad-hoc play across both platforms) could save PS Vita in Japan... I guess.

What? Everyone would just play the PSP version. Putting it on both platforms is pretty much the worst idea ever.

 

[Luigiv]

What? Everyone would just play the PSP version. Putting it on both platforms is pretty much the worst idea ever.

Pretty much this. Any old Monster Hunter release just isn't magically going start driving Vita sales. The title needs to be exclusive or it'll do almost nothing for the platform.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

This is exactly the problem that exists here, though. Any team at Sony whose history stands out and whose games attract an unusual amount of positive attention will never make a Vita game.

Well, I mean, the difference is that (in general) part of why it doesn't matter which team works on something at Nintendo is that the end product always comes out being of comparable quality and relatively indistinguishable in terms of "values." Mario Kart 7 has just as much content, just as many features, just as good production quality, etc. as Mario Kart Wii (arguably better, in fact.)

This isn't entirely true. Media Molecule is confirmed to be making a Vita title for their next project, and that's a great step in the right direction because I believe Media Molecule's strengths as a studio are a better fit with the Vita platform.

The issue is that Sony traditionally doesn't have many studios that are a great fit for the handheld market. Nintendo does. Their games are more easily transferable to the pick up and play nature of handhelds. So I believe you're missing the point when you claim that the reason Sony hasn't had as much success with their handheld offerings of certain franchises is due mostly to there being concessions with B-team studios, and rather it has everything to do with the fact that these studios that make big blockbuster console titles don't translate very well to handhelds.

Even if Sony placed one of their larger studios on a Vita project, it probably wouldn't be given the same budget or resources as their console games, and so the studio would be fractured into different teams with a smaller one working on Vita development. This wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea, but if they were given a project mandate to make (say) and Uncharted title for the Vita, it would still have the same level of concessions that you speak of, because making an Uncharted 3 caliber title with all the production spectacle requires significantly more resources than Sony would be able to justify.

Which leads me to the conclusion that in order for a Naughty Dog or Santa Monica title to have a similar impact compared to their console offerings, they'd probably need to come up with a completely new IP that isn't a hugely cinematic experience that's designed to be played intensely for hours at a time on a big screen, but rather a game that has more modest production values and focused more on short gaming bursts. So then the question becomes, is Naughty Dog even the best studio to work on a project of this nature when they've never really tackled that genre (at least lately?). They're intensely focused on big-budget, hollywood styled games with large production values. To make a Vita game wouldn't necessarily play to their strengths (as arne has admitted).

In the case of Mario Kart, the handheld version doesn't offer any concessions, but the barriers of entry aren't very high either when compared to something like Uncharted 3.

Mario 3D Land is a great game, tailored more towards handheld play in how its designed, but doesn't feel quite as well produced as something like Super Mario Galaxy. This factor doesn't matter, however, because it's a different style of game even though they're similar, Mario 3D Land plays to the platform's strengths rather than attempting to be an experience like Mario Galaxy and falling short.

I would argue that the God of War / Uncharted games on Sony's handhelds are similar to Mario 3D Land in the aspect of production values and quality relative to the console offerings. Both are incredibly well made, but fall short when directly compared to the console versions, but the difference with Mario 3D Land is that it's a game that plays up the strengths of the platform and knows its limitations. God of War / Uncharted isn't much different at all from the console versions, and so the shortcomings become more apparent.

Bottom line is that Sony has some very competent handheld studios working for them, but they've been given direction to make spin-offs of established console titles that will never be able to live up to the console offerings given the nature of these titles and they aren't the best fits for the handheld platforms in general.

While I think it's important for Sony to have a showboat 'Uncharted' game for the Vita (and I've been enjoying Golden Abyss a whole lot), going forward I believe Bend Studio would be better directed to produce something of their own that plays to the strengths of the platform. Ditto for Ready at Dawn.

 

[squall23]

Ask Scamco. They can't even include a racing game in a racing game apparently.

It's funny how they pretty much disregard their console/handheld racer while throwing everything they possibly could at their arcade racer (Wangan Midnight Maximum Tune).

 

[AnimeTheme]

What? Everyone would just play the PSP version. Putting it on both platforms is pretty much the worst idea ever.

It is reasonable to predict that there won't be a PSV-exlusive MH in the near future (not within this year at least). A simultaneous release (with the PSV version being an enhanced one, pretty much like the case of Lord of Apocalypse) is more likely and practical. Even if it's just 1/5 of the PSP version sales, it's still something around 500k, which is a big platform seller.

 

[gkryhewy]

500k is a big platform seller. Poor vita.

 

[Vic]

I don't see how Sony's best development studios making Vita software would automatically translate into better sales than if it was made with a less talented devhouse.

 

[AceBandage]

I don't see how Sony's best development studios making Vita software automatically translate into better sales.

It's more about how they treat their system as a whole.
Pushing their franchises off on smaller studios that output lesser quality (note: not bad) games sends a message that they really don't care about properly supporting the Vita.
It was the same with the PSP.
They basically just put out a system and hope that third parties will support it with big titles, and that is a risky move unless you know that those titles are coming.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The other issue than just that Sony's spinoffs being made sometimes as if they're fake or filler entries is that no western third-party is going to put top tier teams that could make great games for the Vita if Sony doesn't feel confident in doing so.

 

[AntMurda]

They certainly did "make" the game along with EAD1. Their contribution and manpower is significant enough.

Well you originally said Retro Studios made Mario Kart 7. Not worked on or helped. Which was the accurate terminology. It is a sensitive nerd forum. You will be hounded by my friend.

And Retro Studios did certainly help. But help does not constitute developed. In fact, quite simply almost every Japanese game has 2-3 companies "secretly" involved in the production nowadays. Often some aspects are outsourced or post-production assistance. Especially Japanese defelopers who work hard to deliver multiple games a year.

In the west it is more about using big name engines and releasing less games but with mugh higher production efforts usually.

 

[Vic]

It's more about how they treat their system as a whole.
Pushing their franchises off on smaller studios that output lesser quality (note: not bad) games sends a message that they really don't care about properly supporting the Vita.
It was the same with the PSP.
They basically just put out a system and hope that third parties will support it with big titles, and that is a risky move unless you know that those titles are coming.

How much this matters as a marketing point, I don't know. I see two sides to the problem with Sony handheld output when compared with Nintendo:

1) It's not in them to make games that are literally suitable for handhelds. It's not their culture. I'm not excepting Sony to popout handhelds phenomenons like Pokemon or Tetris anytime soon or ever.

2) Sony makes games and franchises that puts a high emphasis into their cinematic & realistic qualities. This doesn't greatly translates into an handheld experience as we know it. The majority of Nintendo games can easily make the jump between handhands and home platforms without any great sacrifice made with the translation.


Sony has never done anything of note as an handheld dev. on the PSP saleswise and now that they have to carry a sizable about of responsibility for the Vita on their own, it's easy to see the catastrophe looming ahead

 

[trw]

HSony makes games and franchises that puts a high emphasis into their cinematic & realistic qualities. This doesn't greatly translates into an handheld experience as we know it. The majority of Nintendo games can easily make the jump between handhands and home platforms without any great sacrifice make with the translation.

A great example is Phantom Hourglass. Nintendo took Zelda and created a completely different kind of game that both fit the controls and the handheld experience. Sony in Uncharted added charcoal that you need to rub and walls that you have to swipe across...

 

[electroplankton]

It's more about how they treat their system as a whole.
Pushing their franchises off on smaller studios that output lesser quality (note: not bad) games sends a message that they really don't care about properly supporting the Vita.
It was the same with the PSP.
They basically just put out a system and hope that third parties will support it with big titles, and that is a risky move unless you know that those titles are coming.

Well, at least they made Minna no Golf 6 for the system, and not simply a portable version.

 

[test_account]

Well, I mean, the difference is that (in general) part of why it doesn't matter which team works on something at Nintendo is that the end product always comes out being of comparable quality and relatively indistinguishable in terms of "values." Mario Kart 7 has just as much content, just as many features, just as good production quality, etc. as Mario Kart Wii (arguably better, in fact.)

Conversely, the God of War games for PSP might be good but they're significantly shorter and less feature-rich than the PS2 games; Uncharted Vita is less feature-rich and significantly less polished overall; GT PSP was held universally to be a disappointment compared to the console entries. IMO the choice of assigning games to "B-teams" and the lacking scope of said titles are symptoms of the same general problem: Sony just doesn't believe, on a corporate level, in throwing full-fledged effort behind portable titles the way Nintendo does, and the result is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Regarding God of War for PSP, i would say that these games does have as much content as the console versions, at least Ghost of Sparta. I didnt time the length of the games, but it defintely didnt feel any shorter than God of War 1-3 to me, and it also have stuff like challenge arenas, just like the console versions have as well.

With Uncharted for Vita, it lacks all the multiplayer stuff, so it has less content than Uncharted 2 and 3 in that regard, that is true. But the Vita game has some extra stuff in single player, like taking pictures and also some mini puzzles. It is more than just collecting X amount of treasures like the console versions have. I havnt beaten the Vita game yet, but i've heard that its single player length is comparable to the console counterparts.

Then there are exceptions too, like GT PSP as you mention. I do think that the PSP hardware limitation also played a role to this.

But yeah, with the PSP, not many main Sony teams made games for it. And it hasnt been much different with the Vita so far. It is still early for the Vita though, so things could be different here, who knows.

Well, at least they made Minna no Golf 6 for the system, and not simply a portable version.

Good point, i completely forgot about that game. It is also developed by Clap Hanz, the same guys who made the console versions if i'm not mistaken.

EDIT: Gravity Rush/Daze as well i think. Didnt the developers behind Gravity Rush make some console games as well?

 

[grimshawish]

Just want to put out my 2 pence on the idea of a Monster Hunter rescuing the Vita.

...what world do you guys live on? I mean okay sure its better than NO Monster Hunter, but we've seen on the 3DS obvious interest in a 3D Monster Hunter. With Monster Hunter 4 coming out on the system, why on earth am I either going to buy the Vita when I already do or are planning on buying the 3DS?

Monster Hunter is a big game, people want the system that plays it. Why would I spend more to get it on another system? Some might say 'GRAPHICS' - sure but not 3D and why is Capcom going to produce the expense and time to produce a game of Vita quality? Theres no reason for it. They used the PSP because the DS couldn't handle what the series needed. Now they're using the 3DS because it can - it has built up a large and growing user base now, and MH sells well on it.

So even IF Capcom could be bothered (or Sony finances the entire thing) to produce MH on Vita, why would fans buy Vita? What other games has it got? Oh thats right it has very little, and 3DS has a number of big big franchises on it that have already been reviewed as being the best of their series (3D Land/MK/Resident Evil is getting a big player response even if reviews have been rather 'irritating')

MH will not save Vita unless its exclusive. And why would Capcom make it exclusive? Seriously, why? Because Sony gives them so much money for it? Possibly, but then Nintendo could easily out-bid them by offering the same money (or less) but with a major connection between 3DS marketing and Capcom games (something that will develop naturally anyway as atm the 3DS is a Nintendo/Capcom project, where both companies are making a good bit of cash out of one another).


I see no reason why MH would save Vita. Sure it'd give it a wee boost and as I say its better than 'no Monster Hunter'; but quite frankly even if they did get some, if its not exclusive then they're not going to get anything substantial.


Price Cut + Monster Hunter would be good for the system, but it needs a full on revival with a variety of big franchises (much like 3DS) coming to the system all at once. Basically almost a re-launch. Unfortunately Nintendo always planned a big Holiday season, but Sony expected the system to be a HIT and thus companies would develop for it themselves.

 

[Salvadora]

A hypothetical Monster Hunter would do very well on Vita but it won't save the system.

 

[grimshawish]

It's more about how they treat their system as a whole.
Pushing their franchises off on smaller studios that output lesser quality (note: not bad) games sends a message that they really don't care about properly supporting the Vita.
It was the same with the PSP.
They basically just put out a system and hope that third parties will support it with big titles, and that is a risky move unless you know that those titles are coming.

It relies on a hit from the launch. We all talk about the phone market now and how handhelds have changed - whilst its true to a degree (Nintendo have gone to focus on gaming as oppose to the smaller casual games of the past - 3DS won't match DS sales, but will likely do very very well), games do matter. Sony thought like an old dinosaur and thought people would like their hardware and imagine games on it - and then buy the thing. Unfortunately the markets not like that anymore, people need a reason to buy Vita over 3ds/phone - and the main reason is - what can I play on it/what does it do different.

Now the Vita does a lot of things the PSP couldn't do, but tbh a 'back touch screen' isn't very sexy compared to - two screens! 3D! Games! and Phones do so well because they have a large library and there arn't questions about hardware, I buy that phone for other features, oh and it plays games! I like this two - I shall buy some games on it.

Sony need to market the games you get on Vita. Look at the launch ads in the west - none of those ads show what games you can get on it! Its utterly ridiculous their strategy.

Sony just expected the hardware to be what people want and for games producers to suddenly rush to the console seeing the big sales and the demand for more games. Sony still think they are selling PS2's basically.

 

[pieatorium]

Sony need to market the games you get on Vita. Look at the launch ads in the west - none of those ads show what games you can get on it! Its utterly ridiculous their strategy.

Yeah I hate these kinds of ads, they've been doing it since PS1 though so maybe they know better but I find them annoying and pointless.

 

[frankie_baby]

A hypothetical Monster Hunter would do very well on Vita but it won't save the system.

It'd sell well to the vita userbase but wouldn't have people rushing out to buy vita when all the other monster hunter players are on 3ds

 

[frankie_baby]

Yeah I hate these kinds of ads, they've been doing it since PS1 though so maybe they know better but I find them annoying and pointless.

The ads in the uk are terrible, they don't show games or even tell me its a new system, I could easily see the masses just thinking its an ad for the psp

 

[nordique]

Well, I mean, the difference is that (in general) part of why it doesn't matter which team works on something at Nintendo is that the end product always comes out being of comparable quality and relatively indistinguishable in terms of "values." Mario Kart 7 has just as much content, just as many features, just as good production quality, etc. as Mario Kart Wii (arguably better, in fact.)

Conversely, the God of War games for PSP might be good but they're significantly shorter and less feature-rich than the PS2 games; Uncharted Vita is less feature-rich and significantly less polished overall; GT PSP was held universally to be a disappointment compared to the console entries. IMO the choice of assigning games to "B-teams" and the lacking scope of said titles are symptoms of the same general problem: Sony just doesn't believe, on a corporate level, in throwing full-fledged effort behind portable titles the way Nintendo does, and the result is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Exactly, well said

this is a stark difference between entires on the two systems; two different first party philosophies. Nintendo is able to create full, whole feeling experiences on their handhelds whereas Sony hasn't been able to do the same thing.

I always felt the DS had top tier games such as the Mario & Luigi titles, whereas on the PSP the experiences felt like expansions or spin offs (which they arguably were) and I was never as engrossed in them. Shortly after, other than God of War, my attention with those franchises veered away and as I became busier with life I found myself craving whole experiences but in a portable format. The PSP was never able to do that for me.

The 3DS so far has, and I cannot believe how top notch and quality the software will be coming out. I also own a Vita, and although it just launched, looking to the future I can only pick a handful select few titles that seem to satisfy that same desire. A majority of my friends have gone in the same direction only their gaming urges are satisfied with an iPhone or Android device.


I have no doubt that many other gamers who had more time on their hands when they were younger, only to get into the student grind and adulthood, responsibilities in tow, experience something similar. We hit a crossroad where we don't have ample time to game any more but we still want "full" experiences, not the spin off variety.

I wonder if this is something that has happened with the Japanese market in anyway?

For example, when the Wii became popular in the west, one thing I noted was how many individuals picked up a video game system for the first time ever since they owned an NES or SNES, a few it was a PlayStation during the mid-late 90's. Some of these were people who were never casual gamers, but they enjoyed finding every secret in Mario Bros 3 or beat Super Metroid several times, or couldn't tell you who their high school teachers were because they were learning more from Gran Turismo and Final Fantasy 7.

But then they get busy, you become more of a social animal, life gets ahead of you, you make relationships and have family matters, university and eventually your overall profession; the world demands more of you and you have to oblige out of responsibility because it becomes more fast paced. A good number of people who picked up Wii Fit that I know, personally around Canada, were people who couldn't tell you a thing about Zelda the Wind Waker, Gears of War or Jak & Daxter; Halo or Call of Duty. But they could tell you who the final boss was in Final Fantasy 7. Former gamers who were never quite committed enough to play games continually but not the typical casual gamer either.

My ultimate point is these guys ended up getting caught up with life; I can only imagine that a fast paced society like Japan has moved in the same direction with the general gamer.

I think this plays a large role as to why the game market moved towards portables in Japan, but I also feel that the evolution of this is a desire to have those full experiences on the go.

Again, the PSP never quite whet that appetite. But the 3DS I think does, and for me personally I feel the 3DS suits that need. Its the perfect system in that regard (or at least it seems to be heading in that direction). This is the first time Nintendo has had a portable capable of delivering console quality 3D experiences on the go, and mixed with Nintendo's ability to merge "full" experiences -- exactly as you pointed out -- this seems to be the next step in the "general gamer" taste.

That is how I feel about it; I can only suggest this because I feel I fall into that category. Perhaps a little more core as I am posting on NeoGaf which is a Video Game forum at its core, but at the same time I'm in the same place as my friends where life is too busy to sit down and go through a full fledged console experience more than several times a year.

I feel Japan is moving in that direction too, being an even more fast paced society, and as such the 3DS seems to be the definitive experience for this, for that "general" gamer. Hence, contributing to its stellar sales. The Vita may struggle with this as I don't see it getting the same "wholesome" experience; right now it seems to be an extension as a whole of Sony's PSP philosophy (hardware & software).

The 3DS as hardware seems like an extension, but as software experience goes, it feels like an evolution for me.


I think this plays a larger role that we realize. Sure there are a multitude of other factors, but this seems to be related to almost every other reason the 3DS sells to more mindsets than the Vita does (and likely will)

 

[test_account]

Sony need to market the games you get on Vita. Look at the launch ads in the west - none of those ads show what games you can get on it! Its utterly ridiculous their strategy.

I've seen a commercial on Discovery Channel for Uncharted Vita. I also saw a commercial/sponsor ad (one of those ads that lasts like 5 seconds before the commercial starts and after the commercials have ended) where they showed Wipeout 2048 and some other game as well (i think it was Little Deviants).

 

[slaughterking]

Btw. I've seen a Tekken 3D commercial yesterday night followed by a very short Snake Eater 3D spot. That was weird.

 

[grimshawish]

The ads in the uk are terrible, they don't show games or even tell me its a new system, I could easily see the masses just thinking its an ad for the psp

The problem is there quite good ads in terms of making you think. If Nintendo were a useless company giving crap out (think Apple who have a loyal following but I think are beginning to look a bit irritating to many - and a competitor could clip their wings as they did when the Mac first showed up) then they'd work, you know the idea you can do all this on a handheld is great - but tbh that was the promise with the PSP. If they'd kept the promise they might have done well, but so many failures and poor gameplay (the games were worse than console games, whilst DS created new content especially for its concept of 2 screens) meant they lost that battle and sales dried up.

But this is a brand new console, watching the ads makes you want to buy something like that, but go into a shop and see Vita, look at the games...where is my HD Medal of Honour Frontline you promised me? A better ad would have had the games characters talking directly to consumers, Nathan Drake out adventuring and doing the voice over kind of thing.

Instead it sells well as an advert, but when I go to view the Vita in the shop - its not a good looking comparison to the product. People forget in marketing a good advert isn't enough. John Lewis killed this Christmas because they had a fantastic advert, but it only got you into their shop - they then sold products to you. Vita ad gets you interested, its action packed - but the line up is far from what was shown. Which is a shame as actually losing the gimmicks in the ad you could represent the games in a similar way in the ad and then get better sales as a consequence.

If Vita had the games and was a very powerful tablet it'd do well. It has neither. Wrong ad for the wrong time.

I've seen a commercial on Discovery Channel for Uncharted Vita. I also saw a commercial/sponsor ad (one of those ads that lasts like 5 seconds before the commercial starts and after the commercials have ended) where they showed Wipeout 2048 and some other game as well (i think it was Little Deviants).

Sponsership and advertising all the games is a good move, Nintendo used to do something similar for DS I think.
But they used the main actiony ad for some big big shows - buying up slots and showing a poor ad is a bad move, Nintnedo bought Ant and Dec for the Wii, but they used them to sell what the system did, not to sell something called Vita which you as a consumer don't really know what it is. (except if you know the PSP - in which case your likely to think 'do they still sell those?')

 

[Grimmy]

Riddle me this:

SCEJ has two IPs that, on the PSP, were well-reviewed, and one of them even sold 100,000+ in Japan. Both of these IPs make perfect sense on the Vita, due to the successor console's gyro functionality and touch screen.

But neither IPs have been announced for the Vita. Worse, one of its developers has already gone on to do an RPG update for Falcom.

Which two series?

LocoRoco and Patapon.

To me, this doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[test_account]

I always felt the DS had top tier games such as the Mario & Luigi titles, whereas on the PSP the experiences felt like expansions or spin offs (which they arguably were) and I was never as engrossed in them. Shortly after, other than God of War, my attention with those franchises veered away and as I became busier with life I found myself craving whole experiences but in a portable format. The PSP was never able to do that for me.

Just curious about this, what makes Mario & Luigi titles to feel different compared to i.e Killzone Liberation? Both games takes a very different approach (from platform to RPG, and from FPS to tactical person shooter), but both games are set in the same universe (Mario and Killzone universe respectively). What makes one game feel like top tier while the other feels like spinoff? I'm not thinking about how fun the games are, but more about in an objective view.

Sponsership and advertising all the games is a good move, Nintendo used to do something similar for DS I think.
But they used the main actiony ad for some big big shows - buying up slots and showing a poor ad is a bad move, Nintnedo bought Ant and Dec for the Wii, but they used them to sell what the system did, not to sell something called Vita which you as a consumer don't really know what it is. (except if you know the PSP - in which case your likely to think 'do they still sell those?')

I understand what you mean. I dont know why they chose those "cinematic"/stylish commercials instead.

 

[electroplankton]

Riddle me this:

SCEJ has two IPs that, on the PSP, were well-reviewed, and one of them even sold 100,000+ in Japan. Both of these IPs make perfect sense on the Vita, due to the successor console's gyro functionality and touch screen.

But neither IPs have been announced for the Vita. Worse, one of its developers has already gone on to do an RPG update for Falcom.

Which two series?

LocoRoco and Patapon.

To me, this doesn't make any sense at all.

LocoRoco declined a lot from the first to the second one, and the third one was only released digitally. So I don't think it could help in any way.
Patapon, instead, grew entry after entry, but I think it has more with the activity of PSP userbase.

 

[Chris1964]

Riddle me this:

SCEJ has two IPs that, on the PSP, were well-reviewed, and one of them even sold 100,000+ in Japan. Both of these IPs make perfect sense on the Vita, due to the successor console's gyro functionality and touch screen.

But neither IPs have been announced for the Vita. Worse, one of its developers has already gone on to do an RPG update for Falcom.

Which two series?

LocoRoco and Patapon.

To me, this doesn't make any sense at all.

SCEI managed to kill Minna no Golf 6, I wouldn't hold my breath for Patapon and LocoRoco.

Better work will be done with new IPs that show system's power. Gravity Rush is a good start.

 

[nordique]

Just curious about this, what makes Mario & Luigi titles to feel different compared to i.e Killzone Liberation? Both games takes a very different approach (from platform to RPG, and from FPS to tactical person shooter), but both games are set in the same universe (Mario and Killzone universe respectively). What makes one game feel like top tier while the other feels like spinoff? I'm not thinking about how fun the games are, but more about in an objective view.

This is a really good question test_account, and its tough to explain as its more of a feeling related thing.

But I will try, from my perspective. I understand not everyone may share the same opinion which is fine.

First off, I did enjoy Liberation during the short time I owned it, but it never really held my interests. I much rather Sony published a game like Liberation rather than try to squeeze an FPS Killzone onto the PSP (even if such a hypothetical shooter was a spinoff of the first game) and have a fresh take on the franchise.

But herein lies the issue: Liberation is based in the Killzone universe, one primarily that is known for being a First Person Shooter.

While you bring up the fact that Mario & Luigi was set in the same universe and was of a different genre, it was a completely different experience with a completely different take on the franchise as a whole. I would suggest that Mario games seem to have their own "genres" and even though we see Mario pop up often, the games that are not centred on Minigames are often of top quality.

Mario & Luigi itself could be seen as a separate franchise from other Mario games the same way Kart could be seen. They are chalk full of humour, little innocuous hints and throwbacks, exploding with charm, and play completely differently from both a story stand point and an thus as and overall experience. It is almost in essence a completely different title and doesn't feel like a spinoff in any way, shape, or form.

Killzone Liberation on the other hand, feels very much so like a companion piece to the more important console brethren. When I owned a PS3, Killzone 2 was the game that interested me and I took to as the main piece. I enjoyed that game quite a bit, whereas the PSP version I picked up out of enjoyment for the franchise in general but it could never hold my attention because I wasn't as vested in the franchise and more-so it felt like the real action was meant to be on the console game.

Mario & Luigi isn't on any Nintendo home console.

To better illustrate what I'm confusingly trying to say, let me show you what I'm trying to mean:

Killzone games released for PS3 & PSP:
- Killzone 2, Killzone 3 (PS3)
- Killzone Liberation (PSP)


Ultimately, its the same franchise, same setting, same everything minus the presentation of the games (FPS vs tactical shooter) and thus the overall feeling is more like a companion piece rather than a full on engrossing adventure.

For "Mario Universe" games on the Wii & DS:
- Super Mario 64 DS (DS remake)/ Super Mario Galaxy 1&2 (Wii)
- Mario Kart DS, Mario Kart Wii
- Mario & Luigi 2, Mario & Luigi 3
- Yoshi Touch & Go*, Yoshi Island DS*, Super Princess Peach*
- New Super Mario Bros. DS, New Super Mario Bros Wii
- Mario Hoops 3v3 (DS), Mario Strikers Charged (Wii), Mario Sluggers (Wii), Mario Tennis (Wii remake), Mario Sports Mix Wii,
- Mario vs Donkey Kong (DS)*
- Super Paper Mario (Wii)
- Mario Party 8 (Wii), Mario Party DS *
- Mario & Sonic @ Olympics (all 3 of 'em; both on DS & Wii) *
- Dr Mario* (DSiWare)

This is excluding the 3DS games of course, and yes there are a lot of Mario games

But consider how I grouped the games. Sure, the *'s represent more far reaching games. But to me they also represent titles that could qualify as spin offs.

Everything else is a different franchise; Mario Kart; 2D Marios; 3D Marios, Mario RPG's might play similar to the Paper Mario series, but are entirely different in many ways; Sports games, Party games; the point is these are completely different experiences for the most part.


I hope that answers your question somewhat.

 

[frankie_baby]

Just curious about this, what makes Mario & Luigi titles to feel different compared to i.e Killzone Liberation? Both games takes a very different approach (from platform to RPG, and from FPS to tactical person shooter), but both games are set in the same universe (Mario and Killzone universe respectively). What makes one game feel like top tier while the other feels like spinoff? I'm not thinking about how fun the games are, but more about in an objective view.



I understand what you mean. I dont know why they chose those "cinematic"/stylish commercials instead.

A cinematic/stylish ad would've worked had there already been tonnes of hype and public awareness of the product unfortunately for Sony the masses don't know what a vita is and the ads don't explain at all

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

In regards to Mario spinoffs, it also helps that the character has basically been doing it from the beginning. Before the seminal Super Mario Bros., Mario had starring playable roles in various games like Donkey Kong, Mario Bros., Wrecking Crew or Pinball. And soon after SMB we had Mario starring in various other game genres on the FC/NES including racing (3D Hot Rally), sports (NES Open Tournament Golf) or puzzle (Dr. Mario).

 

[mclem]

Or...he is referring to Monster Hunter. I very much doubt this series is going to be 3DS exclusive, way too much money to be made by releasing on both systems.

More than there is to be made releasing twice as many games on one system?

 

[mclem]

The difference between the Wii and the HD Pair mattered a lot to developers, who would have had to redo a significant portion of their code and assets to port. This is why the PSP saw more Wii synergy than it did with the HD Pair, and when it got the latter, the results didn't set the market on fire (Assassin's Creed PSP, Resistance PSP, and so on).

Actually, PSP development wasn't a haven of pixel and vertex shaders either, it was its own esoteric system. I'm not convinced that it'd require more rewriting to support PSP than it would have to support Wii.

Although that said, I've just recalled - I *think* - that Wii had a different endianness to the other systems. That's not a trivial change - but it's not one that I'd imagine should be a dealbreaker either.

 

[charlequin]

Regarding God of War for PSP, i would say that these games does have as much content as the console versions, at least Ghost of Sparta.

Both of the PSP God of Wars are about half the size of the console titles, maybe a little less.

I havnt beaten the Vita game yet, but i've heard that its single player length is comparable to the console counterparts.

Right, but here we're still going from a series whose second entry was a near-unanimous GOTY to a portable entry that's just a pretty solid game. As a title unencumbered by a pre-existing IP it'd probably be taken pretty well, but as Uncharted the gap between "what buying console Uncharted gets you" and "what buying handheld Uncharted gets you" is extremely obvious.

In general, the difference I'd aim for here is that moving a series to handheld can work well without "sacrifices" when that series:

• isn't known for graphical prowess, or its prowess is low-tech (like with sprites or vectors or something)
• is less narrative-focused and more gameplay-focused
• features relatively small and compartmentalized gameplay chunks, or can be broken down into such chunks
• isn't dependent on a lot of unique, time-consuming custom content in order to generate game length
• has "old-school" gameplay that feels appropriate to a less fancy presentation
  
  Unfortunately, Sony has several well-thought-out franchises that meet those criteria that they established on PSP to start with (Patapon, Locoroco, Echochrome) but not really any console franchises that can translate easily. (Although I think they did a pretty good job with Syphon Filter and they should've just kept that going as a Vita-exclusive franchise instead of yanking it back to PS3.)

 

[test_account]

SCEI managed to kill Minna no Golf 6, I wouldn't hold my breath for Patapon and LocoRoco.

Better work will be done with new IPs that show system's power. Gravity Rush is a good start.

How was MnG6 killed?

*text*

Objectively i still dont think that there is much difference regarding the difference approach the games took. Mario is mostly known as being platforming games, while Killzone is know for being FPS. But when it comes to the enjoyment and how the game feels, that is subjective, so i cant argue with that. But i understand what you mean, thanks for the detailed reply

I havnt played the DS games, but i did play Allstar Saga for GBA and i loved that game, more than Killzone Liberation. If the DS games are just as good as the GBA one, then i agree that these games are more enjoyable.

A cinematic/stylish ad would've worked had there already been tonnes of hype and public awareness of the product unfortunately for Sony the masses don't know what a vita is and the ads don't explain at all

That is true.

In regards to Mario spinoffs, it also helps that the character has basically been doing it from the beginning. Before the seminal Super Mario Bros., Mario had starring playable roles in various games like Donkey Kong, Mario Bros., Wrecking Crew or Pinball. And soon after SMB we had Mario starring in various other game genres on the FC/NES including racing (3D Hot Rally), sports (NES Open Tournament Golf) or puzzle (Dr. Mario).

I did a quick Google search and see that Mario has appeared in over 200 games. Damn, that is a lot! =)

Both of the PSP God of Wars are about half the size of the console titles, maybe a little less.

It isnt that long ago since i've played through Ghost of Sparta and the game definitely felt lengthy. But i never clocked them for an accurate length comparison. But i definitely felt like a full God of War game to me, not just the length, but the whole experience That is just my opinion though.

Right, but here we're still going from a series whose second entry was a near-unanimous GOTY to a portable entry that's just a pretty solid game. As a title unencumbered by a pre-existing IP it'd probably be taken pretty well, but as Uncharted the gap between "what buying console Uncharted gets you" and "what buying handheld Uncharted gets you" is extremely obvious.

In general, the difference I'd aim for here is that moving a series to handheld can work well without "sacrifices" when that series:

• isn't known for graphical prowess, or its prowess is low-tech (like with sprites or vectors or something)
• is less narrative-focused and more gameplay-focused
• features relatively small and compartmentalized gameplay chunks, or can be broken down into such chunks
• isn't dependent on a lot of unique, time-consuming custom content in order to generate game length
• has "old-school" gameplay that feels appropriate to a less fancy presentation
  
  Unfortunately, Sony has several well-thought-out franchises that meet those criteria that they established on PSP to start with (Patapon, Locoroco, Echochrome) but not really any console franchises that can translate easily. (Although I think they did a pretty good job with Syphon Filter and they should've just kept that going as a Vita-exclusive franchise instead of yanking it back to PS3.)

• 
  True, i wonder if the Vita will get a 2nd Uncharted game and how that will be. If we compare Uncharted 1 to Uncharted: Golden Abyss, the difference isnt that big in my opinion, so maybe the difference of a 2nd Uncharted game for Vita will be closer to UC2 or UC3. But yeah, right now one miss out on the multiplayer parts in the Vita game that are in UC2 and UC3 indeed.
  
  Good points regarding the list. Now Sony has pretty much every franchise on PS3 on the Vita (not all games are out yet, but they are coming, like Resistance and Killzone). I wonder what Sony will focus mostly on after this, if they do new IPs or making more games within older IP universe.

 

[bigtroyjon]

This is a lot simpler than people are making it out to be. Outside of GT in Europe, Sony doesn't have first party games that sell systems for any platform, not just portables. If Uncharted 4 was on Vita and a true successor that everyone considered to be the best in the series, it wouldn't matter in the overall picture because we are talking about a game that would only sell a million, maybe 2 million, units of hardware.

Vita's success(and later on PS4's success) will entirely depend on 3rd party software since that's what most people who buy Sony hardware are playing.

 

[Father_Brain]

This is a lot simpler than people are making it out to be. Outside of GT in Europe, Sony doesn't have first party games that sell systems for any platform, not just portables. If Uncharted 4 was on Vita and a true successor that everyone considered to be the best in the series, it wouldn't matter in the overall picture because we are talking about a game that would only sell a million, maybe 2 million, units of hardware.

Vita's success(and later on PS4's success) will entirely depend on 3rd party software since that's what most people who buy Sony hardware are playing.

True, but Sony could have tried much harder to change that; they could have shifted internal Western resources away from Vita spinoffs of only modestly popular PS3 IPs and towards new IP, and (perhaps even more importantly) they could have significantly expanded first-party Japanese development. They haven't done either, evidently.

 

[SmokedMeat]

The ultimate example for this conversation can be seen in the new Modnation Racers for the Vita.
Doesn't even have an online mode.
Just... How?
How do you not include something so simple and basic in a racing game?

No online competitive mode in Modnation Racers blows my mind.

You've got a new handheld with 3G and Wi-Fi connectivity, and you leave the biggest selling point out? Why bother?

 

[electroplankton]

No online competitive mode in Modnation Racers blows my mind.

You've got a new handheld with 3G and Wi-Fi connectivity, and you leave the biggest selling point out? Why bother?

Especially when Nintendo puts online also in Mario Tennis.

 

[Mariah Carey]

Well, I mean, the difference is that (in general) part of why it doesn't matter which team works on something at Nintendo is that the end product always comes out being of comparable quality and relatively indistinguishable in terms of "values." Mario Kart 7 has just as much content, just as many features, just as good production quality, etc. as Mario Kart Wii (arguably better, in fact.)

Conversely, the God of War games for PSP might be good but they're significantly shorter and less feature-rich than the PS2 games; Uncharted Vita is less feature-rich and significantly less polished overall; GT PSP was held universally to be a disappointment compared to the console entries. IMO the choice of assigning games to "B-teams" and the lacking scope of said titles are symptoms of the same general problem: Sony just doesn't believe, on a corporate level, in throwing full-fledged effort behind portable titles the way Nintendo does, and the result is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's almost like Sony treats portables like...

wait for it...

a gaming ghetto!

 

[AceBandage]

It's almost like Sony treats portables like...

wait for it...

a gaming ghetto!

#GameChanger

 

[muu]

Conversely, the God of War games for PSP might be good but they're significantly shorter and less feature-rich than the PS2 games; Uncharted Vita is less feature-rich and significantly less polished overall; GT PSP was held universally to be a disappointment compared to the console entries. IMO the choice of assigning games to "B-teams" and the lacking scope of said titles are symptoms of the same general problem: Sony just doesn't believe, on a corporate level, in throwing full-fledged effort behind portable titles the way Nintendo does, and the result is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Seems the idea that portable games that rival that of a full-fledged console release will cannibalize sales runs through western devs, and in this case Sony as well. The watered-down portable games seem to be a middle ground between mini games with big-name franchise titles tacked on that I've seen in App stores, games that weren't worth the 99 cents I paid for them during the discount sales. For years we've seen Nintendo do just fine putting out excellent handheld and console experiences of the same big-name franchise titles, and it boggles my mind that so many places still refuse to try and do the same. Sony's definitely trying harder than a lot of them, but it's going to take a little more effort from them to make their portable titles as relevant and a no-brainer-purchase as Nintendo's offerings.