So far as everything I've read, there is nothing about any of those titles that couldn't be done on 360 - their devs just decided to go with the PS3 as their platform of delivery.
Playing catch-up is a silly way to describe the situation as well, but I don't expect a much of real opinion from someone who can't seem to find the 'S' key on their keyboard when it comes to spelling Microsoft.
The fact that you're spelling a company's name with a $ in it suggests that your suppositions into their business methods probably aren't based on any sort of fact.
If you want people to take you seriously in these discussions, cast aside the idiotic rhetoric and form a real opinion.
And before that they were SNES exclusive. Whining about what they used to do in an effort to change what they are doing now is pointless, because they are obviously seeing much more success by developing games for multiple platforms.
Honestly, I don't understand why people complain about this stuff. On the one hand, they desperately want Square to develop exclusively for their console. And on the other hand, they refuse to buy the other consoles that Square develops for. You ...
I'm not a Wii owner myself, but I'm not sure I understand why there would be a problem with it coming out on Wii...? It'd be the smart choice for publishers, if all they are looking at is worldwide install base.
How can you blame Square for diversifying? It's good not to put all your eggs in one basket, and I think they are making a wise choice by making games for all platforms and not just one. They maintain fans independent of console choice that way, and I imagine, they make a great deal more money.
Hard to say, but I think I spent the most time with Deus Ex and GTA: Vice City (best game in the series, barring GTA4). I think I'd have to go with Deus Ex though, as I really like the blend of FPS and RPG elements.
Exactly - it's just a case of people looking for conflict where there is none. I hate to break it to you guys, but you can compliment the benefits of one technology without slamming another.
This isn't a debate about whether or not the PS3 is going to make a comeback this year, so stop trying to make it into one.
This is more than likely just an inside joke about past MGS games, and not a poke at the Xbox 360.
Why would Konami ridicule a system it also develops games for?
Well said, I agree. By the time Sony really hits their stride with the PS3, which they've said will have a lifespan of 10 years, Microsoft will be putting everything into a new system... Likely one that will trump the PS3 technologically, and hopefully be comparable in price to current 360's. If MS plays their cards right, they will be in a very good place for their next machine. It'll be interesting to see if they can pull it off.
Problem is, they'd currently be winning the console war, with a cheaper PS3 that would have been out a year earlier, had they not tied it down to Blue-ray.
In the end, it worked out for them - but it was always a gamble, in my opinion. They laid the entire future of the PlayStation brand down on Blue-ray, and came very close to losing it all.
Xbox 360 in trouble? How?
Wii a fad? People are still saying that?
All three platforms have a league of loyal gamers - if you don't recognize that, then you shouldn't be analyzing the industry.
And while I think all three platforms are also going to have a prosperous future, I think it's silly to pretend that gamers, developers, and publishers are going to abandon the Xbox 360, which still has the second largest install base worldwide, and which consistently...
Accidental double post - stupid site errors.
Look, I'm not making this up - the church had direct control over what was acceptable for artists to produce back during that time, and yet some of our greatest works of art have come from that time.
Arguing that art can not exist when there are rules in place is foolhardy. And like I said, independent game designers can still release / publish whatever they want, just like I can paint or draw and sell whatever I want. That's art.
I think that whether lengthy cut-scenes automatically translates to "good story" is negligible. I used to like it when I was younger, but as I've grown older and played more games, it really bugs me when I have to stop playing for a few minutes just to advance the story.
That is another thought for another thread, though.
Perhaps I should have said that reviewers who take their job seriously know better... look at movie critics, they don't do that.
Look back at the renaissance and tell me that the paintings and sculptures we still cherish from that time are not art - you'd better believe there were restrictions on art at that time (imposed by the church, in this case).
Just because the ESRB limits what can be published in some sense doesn't make games any less of an art form.
The MPAA does the same thing for movies, and you would consider those art, right?
Independents are free to make and publish ...
What does making a ton of cash have anything to do with it? That doesn't necessarily make it any less of an art form.
There are plenty of professional artists who make very good money selling drawings and paintings - and even if their income tops over a million dollars a year, that doesn't make their art any less artful.
I'm not fond of Thomas Kinkade, but even the stuff he does is art, in some sense. It doesn't matter that it's mass produced, or that it's only poi...
Comic books are made to appeal to the "mindless masses." And I would not hesitate to consider them art. The same goes for games.
How can you possibly hope to write a useful review for people if you just started playing last night?
It's like proposing to someone after dating for a week - it isn't a good idea. At all!