Daft Posted April 11, 2007 Posted April 11, 2007 But thats only a Core version.. Looking back at the pictures, I can't believe how good it looks. I need this game. The box says Premium on it in Japanese, so I'm a bit confused as to why the contents is a core!
Daft Posted April 12, 2007 Posted April 12, 2007 According to IGN it is a core...but the box does say premium...so I'm confused.
Mr. Bananagrabber Posted April 23, 2007 Posted April 23, 2007 Rumour: It's going to PS3 too Why is that a bad thing?
Mr. Bananagrabber Posted April 23, 2007 Posted April 23, 2007 Surely if it's a good game, the more people that play it, the better, right? If anything it will increase the chances of a sequel.
Domstercool Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 Yep it's coming to PS3 too. Wonder what sales will be like on both systems in Japan. O_o
Guest Jordan Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 Its so weird for a PS3 version to just be shown like, a month or so before release and we've heard nothing previously. Which version you thinks gunna be better guys?
Domstercool Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 Depends how it is. I wonder if they will both have dual language when coming over in English? Certainly space on a blu-ray anyway, so no excuse about space there (like the Blue Dragon Europe bollocks!!)
Hero-of-Time Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 Which version you thinks gunna be better guys? I imagine they will be nearly identical apart from the Achievements on the 360 version.
Guest Jordan Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 I imagine they will be nearly identical apart from the Achievements on the 360 version. Well, i wasn't gunna buy this game in the first place. I enjoy very very few RPG's. But i wonder if achievement points would sway Domstercool
Stocka Posted April 24, 2007 Author Posted April 24, 2007 Why is that a bad thing? Because I love exclusives, particularly on consoles I own.
|Laguna| Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 Yep it's coming to PS3 too. Wonder what sales will be like on both systems in Japan. O_o Indeed. Wasn't this touted as something akin to the next Blue Dragon for Micrsoft in Japan e.g. something that sells systems. I bet Microsoft will be irked, but exclusives are annoying ideas anyway - the less of them we have is better news for gamers, I'm glad it's gone to PS3.
Stocka Posted April 24, 2007 Author Posted April 24, 2007 Indeed. Wasn't this touted as something akin to the next Blue Dragon for Micrsoft in Japan e.g. something that sells systems. I bet Microsoft will be irked, but exclusives are annoying ideas anyway - the less of them we have is better news for gamers, I'm glad it's gone to PS3. I suppose i'm the only one who loves exclusives then. To be honest, I dislike the whole concept of multiplatform games so much that i'd prefer it if every game on each console was exclusive. *hides*
|Laguna| Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 I suppose i'm the only one who loves exclusives then. To be honest, I dislike the whole concept of multiplatform games so much that i'd prefer it if every game on each console was exclusive.*hides* Why? What difference does it make to you if the PS3 has Eternal Sonata on it? You're still going to get to play the game - and playing games is what it's all about right?
Stocka Posted April 24, 2007 Author Posted April 24, 2007 Why? What difference does it make to you if the PS3 has Eternal Sonata on it? You're still going to get to play the game - and playing games is what it's all about right? Exclusives make consoles unique, that's why I like them. You can identify a console by what games it has exclusive, which is important.
Mr. Bananagrabber Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 Exclusives make consoles unique, that's why I like them. You can identify a console by what games it has exclusive, which is important. I'm sure everyone who owns a PS3 and not a 360 disagrees. I see no problem with letting more people play great games. Personally. I can understand where you're coming from though.
|Laguna| Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 Exclusives make consoles unique, that's why I like them. You can identify a console by what games it has exclusive, which is important. Though surely you like consoles because of the games on them. Right? So surely it's better for you as the consumer to get one console and get to play the majority of games that are out on that system. Why would you want exclusives that force you to buy another console just for the sake of a couple of games that otherwise could potentially be ported over to another system? I think I'd much rather keep £425/£280 and spend that money on games that have lost their exclusivity and have come over to the system. Wouldn't you? The majority that disagree I find are the fanboys who's main weapon is the exclusive in the "na na na na, my consoles better than yours" as seen by the pathetic petition that went up regarding DMC4 exclusivity.
Stocka Posted April 24, 2007 Author Posted April 24, 2007 The thing is, i'm not going to say that you're wrong. The problem is that you're talking about the consumer, and why multiplatform games are benficial to the consumer, which is agreeable. However i'm talking about game consoles in general and what I personally like to see. The thing is, i'm not going to say that you're wrong. The problem is that you're talking about the consumer, and why multiplatform games are benficial to the consumer, which is agreeable. However i'm talking about game consoles in general and what I personally like to see.
Fierce_LiNk Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 I do see what Stocka is saying. And, I'm pretty much inclined to agree with him. If a console doesn't have it's own set of exclusives, then it loses a valuable reason to buy that specific console. Then, it would be purely on the machine itself, and with two out of the three machines being driven towards a HD, high performance and highly graphical world, surely there would be little between the systems if there were no exclusives. It is kinda special for the people who may only own one console. If you forked out to buy a PS3, only to find the one game you wanted is now going to be on another system in the future (a cheaper system), you'd probably be a little pissed off. Would Nintendo games lose their special feeling if they were on other systems? My answer: Ask Sega. But yeah, if each system should be judged on their games, which they should be, then exclusives are important.
|Laguna| Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 Then, it would be purely on the machine itself, and with two out of the three machines being driven towards a HD, high performance and highly graphical world, surely there would be little between the systems if there were no exclusives. It is kinda special for the people who may only own one console. If you forked out to buy a PS3, only to find the one game you wanted is now going to be on another system in the future (a cheaper system), you'd probably be a little pissed off. Would Nintendo games lose their special feeling if they were on other systems? My answer: Ask Sega. But yeah, if each system should be judged on their games, which they should be, then exclusives are important. But isn't that what you would want? Little difference between the PS3 and the 360? And what you say about the person wanting one console, yes I suppose exclusives are special for those with one console, but I'd bet my bottom dollar they'd swap "their" exclusives, for the exclusives available on the other console. I think, although unrealistic, the ultimate want for gamers is a behemoth of a machine that could be something like a PS360 which would incorporate Sony games, hardware reliability, blue-ray and also include Microsofts games, online service, etc What you say about Nintendo is true, which is why they were so clever in a way with the Wii because come next year, the ports will have died out and every Wii game will be an exclusive game due to the radical difference between the Wii and the competition. As we've seen the whole Wii60 thing, the Wii is the second console, and if I buy a 360, I sure as hell would like to see Final Fantasy XIII/Metal Gear Solid 4 on it as that way I wouldn't have to buy a PS3. Don't people feel the same?
That Guy Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 I'm sure everyone who owns a PS3 and not a 360 disagrees. I see no problem with letting more people play great games. Personally.I can understand where you're coming from though. I know what you're saying, but I'm kinda like Stocka, if a game is exclusive it's like a reason why your console is special. For me the reason for getting a PS2 was Ratchet and Clank, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus. Exclusive games just seem a bit more.. I dunno, it's hard to explain.
Hero-of-Time Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 I have to jump in bed with Stocka, Flinky and Guy on this one ( saucy ). I have to say I was thinking about this the other week when looking at the release list for the PS3 and the 360. Just about all the titles on these lists were multiplatform and it was kind of upsetting. I personally think that we are going to see a mass decline in exclusive titles from 3rd parties due to development costs and this in turn IMO will cause the console itself to lose its individuality.This is a main reason why I have always loved and supported Nintendo because you can only get Nintendo games on their machine which makes them unique. Looking at the PS3 in the future the console doesnt really have much to offer in terms of exclusive games which will hurt Sony. Why spend money on a more expensive games machine ( PS3 ) when you can get practically the same machine ( 360 ) with the same games? From a business stand point it doesnt make perfect sense to release a game on multiple platforms and im sure many gamers are happy with this, personally I would like consoles to keep their exclusive games which as I have said give them their own image. End not very well thought out rant.
|Laguna| Posted April 24, 2007 Posted April 24, 2007 Who gives two figs about console image? Do you really care that deeply that you would rather sacrifice such games as Final Fantasy XIII or Metal Gear coming to an 360, because of the console's image or vice versa. I really think people get too involved with this whole industry thing, developing an attachment to the company itself, and disliking other companys just because they are competitors to the company they like. This is evident through the big Sony hatred that pours out of the Internet, or the ridiculous notion that people were going to boycott Capcom because they released DMC4 on 360 - God, does that really matter that much to people? Can't they just get on and enjoy the game themselves instead of looking over their shoulder and complaining that other gamers are playing their game? Does console individuality matter though? What I'm getting at that at the end, when you put the disc and start playing the game, does it matter what system it is being played on - so what if it is or isn't a third party exlcusive. I see the angle from which it is nice to have a game for your console as it feels like your privileged and such to have that console, but when you start playing the game all that other stuff goes out the window. If I had played Wind Waker on an Xbox, sure it would have been weird buying a Zelda game in an Xbox game case, and putting it into the Xbox and such. But I'd know as soon as I would start playing the game, it would've still made me rub my belly in delight. Can people seriously argue that a game of the same quality and content on another system would cause them to have a lesser experience? I think it's just a mind set people have about exclusives, that dominates in the hype and such during the build up to the game's release. It's a way of them making themselves feel good about themselves and that console they own. I think the future of the exclusive should be the timed exclusive, a much fairer way on both the console maker, the console owners who like their exclusives, and the game developers. Don't you think?
Recommended Posts