Post by: Animeboy on December 01, 2008, 01:06:13 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_and_the_Black_Knight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_and_the_Black_Knight)
It looks promising but then again Sonic Unleashed looked promising but then all of my friends told me the game's no good.I'd play it myself but I've got no cash on me.I love Super Mario to No Extent but I also love Sonic The Hedgehog too.Sonic & Mario is what GOT me into video gaming(Yes I owned both Snes & Sega back then)It makes me happy Mario's doing good today but Sonic is not and that makes me sad.I want both of them to do marvelous here and from years on out from here.
So do you guys think Sonic should be sent over to Nintendo?
Edit:Poll added.
Post by: R.I.C.O - Teros on December 01, 2008, 01:21:04 PM
After hearing about Sonic Unleashed being horrible
Yeah, from biased reviews that doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. The fans; who actually matter by the way, think that Unleashed is an amazing game. Especially the 360/PS3 versions. I think the Wii version is pretty good, but going through story mode, there is too many Werehog portions. Once you complete the game though it isn't that bad.
I like how the reviewers/fans complain about the Werehog, yet praise the Adventure titles. I'd much rather have the Werehog than the shooting, fishing, and Amy portions from the Adventure tites (I liked hunting as Knuckles, although I'd rather he be running). Seriously, when you think about it, the Werehog on the 360/PS3 versions doesn't even take up nothing but 30% of the game. That's not much compared to the Adventure titles other characters who took up half the game. You get more Sonic in Unleashed than you did in the Adventure games.
In other words... no, I don't want Sonic to be owned by Nintendo. Honestly Nintendo can't even get their priorities straight with this Wii Music crap they're giving us. Also, they're making Zelda more casual. *Iceman ThumbsDown!*
Post by: Animeboy on December 01, 2008, 01:27:38 PM
Yeah, from biased reviews that doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. The fans; who actually matter by the way, think that Unleashed is an amazing game. Especially the 360/PS3 versions. I think the Wii version is pretty good, but going through story mode, there is too many Werehog portions. Once you complete the game though it isn't that bad.
I like how the reviewers/fans complain about the Werehog, yet praise the Adventure titles. I'd much rather have the Werehog than the shooting, fishing, and Amy portions from the Adventure tites (I liked hunting as Knuckles, although I'd rather he be running). Seriously, when you think about it, the Werehog on the 360/PS3 versions doesn't even take up nothing but 30% of the game. That's not much compared to the Adventure titles other characters who took up half the game. You get more Sonic in Unleashed than you did in the Adventure games.
In other words... no, I don't want Sonic to be owned by Nintendo. Honestly Nintendo can't even get their priorities straight with this Wii Music crap they're giving us. Also, they're making Zelda more casual. *Iceman ThumbsDown!*
True in Sonic Adventure it was a pain playing as Big to go fishing and Amy was a pain considering how slow she was.But that game totally knocked me out.I enjoyed Sonic Adventure 2 more though since it's more action.
As for Sonic Unleased If I had some cash I'd rent it for the PS2 but I've got none.My friends keeps on saying it's no good.But since it's the Wii version they only played then I can see.I myself would love to play Sonic unleashed and judge for myself.Anyway I believe in Sega.I believe Sega can get Sonic back up.However that's going to take some hard work,thinking and time.I'm sure sometime Sega will have their Blue Mascot up to glory like he did back then. :thumbsup:
Post by: R.I.C.O - Teros on December 01, 2008, 01:31:52 PM
Post by: Animeboy on December 01, 2008, 01:43:52 PM
Well like I said. The normal Sonic portions of the game are fun, it's just you play as the Werehog forever in the Wii version in story mode. Though once you beat the game, the majority of the secret missions you unlock are normal Sonic levels. Like extended levels, collect X amount of rings, etc...
That also sounds interesting of what you just told me.So Sonic Unleashed really isn't that bad.Sega coulda just done better.Am I warm?
Post by: DARKTALBAIN on December 01, 2008, 01:56:17 PM
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa64/DARKTALBAIN/MedSpawn2.gif)
Post by: SPOOKY77 on December 01, 2008, 01:59:30 PM
Post by: Animeboy on December 01, 2008, 02:11:54 PM
I don't get this . Was there actually some official talk of Nintendo buying the Sonic franchise ?
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa64/DARKTALBAIN/MedSpawn2.gif)
No.I'm just wanting ppl's opinions that's all.
Sega would never sell Sonic...it's their classic brand
I agree with you.It's just my friends and some ppl throughout the gaming and mugen community keeps on insisting that Sega should Sell the License of Sonic to Nintendo.
Post by: R.I.C.O - Teros on December 01, 2008, 02:14:16 PM
That also sounds interesting of what you just told me.So Sonic Unleashed really isn't that bad.Sega coulda just done better.Am I warm?
No, it's not bad. Of course this is comming from a die-hard Sonic fan who thinks Heroes was a good game and that 06 had potential to be better.
Just look over at GameFaqs. Everyone agrees that it's Sonic's come back and are hating on all the reviews. *lol*
Post by: PBRTODD101 on December 01, 2008, 04:02:45 PM
Post by: Animeboy on December 01, 2008, 04:24:54 PM
No, it's not bad. Of course this is comming from a die-hard Sonic fan who thinks Heroes was a good game and that 06 had potential to be better.
Just look over at GameFaqs. Everyone agrees that it's Sonic's come back and are hating on all the reviews. *lol*
I'm a Sonic Fan too.Ok I'm a Fanboy that's a big fan of anything he likes and Sonic's one of em.I'm going to be real mad if Sega sells the license of Sonic to Nintendo.
No, because its the only thing keeping SEGA alive
^^(PM)^ Exactly My point.How come everyone WANTS Sega to give Sonic to Nintendo?Sonic was with Sega since the beginning and it must stay that way.Sega doesn't need Nintendo's help to make sonic better.Sega's getting there with Sonic Unleashed.(IMO the game doesn't look so bad except the Werehog parts)
Besides what will Sega do if they gave away Sonic to Nintendo?What will Nintendo Do with Sonic if they have it?Put him in every Mario Sports game like Mario Party Mario Kart Mario Tennis etc?(It would be nice to see Sonic in each of them though)I don't find that Cool.If Sonic goes to Nintendo then I'll lose all faith in Sega.It's bad enough they went out of Business thanks to the PS2 ramming Dreamcast out the window but them giving up Sonic it's just OVERLOAD!
Post by: Cyclysm on December 01, 2008, 04:30:05 PM
Sega is still good.....
If Nintendo bought Sonic....There would only be stupid party games just like Mario IMO
Post by: Theendgamelv3 on December 01, 2008, 04:50:18 PM
Post by: Random Regular on December 01, 2008, 04:57:34 PM
If Nintendo bought Sonic....There would only be stupid party games just like Mario IMO
Its sad but true, if they sell sonic to nintendo SEGA wouldn't be SEGA anymore.
+ they only would make games for the DS and Wii and the playstation/Xbox owners couldn't buy sonic games anymore if its only "Nintendo Exclusive"
That would be less money for Nintendo, less than SEGA.
I am not a big Sonic fan anymore like some years ago but really they will fail as Vivendi did with Crash Bandicoot some years ago... *Iceman ThumbsDown!*
Post by: Kid Chyllen™♪ on December 01, 2008, 04:57:55 PM
But, I do think that Sega and Nintendo should think about merging. Nintega or Segtendo. Something like that :)
Post by: Animeboy on December 01, 2008, 07:21:48 PM
Sega shouldn't sell Sonic to Nintendo. End of Story.
But, I do think that Sega and Nintendo should think about merging. Nintega or Segtendo. Something like that :)
^^(PM)^
Hey good Idea they should Merge.Then we won't worry about Sega selling Sonic to Nintendo.I just have a bad feeling Sega may just give Sonic to Nintendo if they can't get back up with Sonic @^@
Post by: Spidercide on December 01, 2008, 11:04:48 PM
Post by: Kriven on December 02, 2008, 01:12:54 AM
Secondly, it'd be more in the interest of Sega to become a Nintendo second party. Actually that would be in the interest of both companies. Nintendo would obtain the rights to Sonic, one of videogamings greatest icons, among other properties such as KNIGHTs and Ristar. Sega, on the other hand, would recieve financal aid from Nintendo, probably enough to make games other then Sonic without worrying about bankruptcy. They'd also be pushed by Nintendo's Seal of Quality to clean all the pesky bugs out of their games before releasing them.
The way I see it, Sega should merge with a company such as Nintendo or Capcom. It'd save their asses in the long run.
Post by: R.I.C.O - Teros on December 02, 2008, 01:32:44 AM
Post by: Animeboy on December 02, 2008, 02:39:48 AM
Why are people arguing that if Sonic is sold Sega won't be the same company? It's offtopic and pointless. First of all if Sonic was sold it would be because Sega's calling it quits anyway, at which point whether they're the same kind of company or not would be irrelevent because they'd be gone.
Secondly, it'd be more in the interest of Sega to become a Nintendo second party. Actually that would be in the interest of both companies. Nintendo would obtain the rights to Sonic, one of videogamings greatest icons, among other properties such as KNIGHTs and Ristar. Sega, on the other hand, would recieve financal aid from Nintendo, probably enough to make games other then Sonic without worrying about bankruptcy. They'd also be pushed by Nintendo's Seal of Quality to clean all the pesky bugs out of their games before releasing them.
The way I see it, Sega should merge with a company such as Nintendo or Capcom. It'd save their asses in the long run.
Hey that doesn't sound like a bad idea if Sega is a 2nd party company with Nintendo.After all Nintendo lost Rare and Sega would be able to fill in that missing slot.
Sega doesn't need financal help from anyone. They're doing just fine. Hell, they're publishing The Conduit, the biggest title on the Wii in 09.
I hope your right.
Post by: Kriven on December 02, 2008, 05:07:05 PM
Post by: R.I.C.O - Teros on December 02, 2008, 06:03:28 PM
If Sega didn't need help, there'd be four consoles out now. Their games seem to get more negative reviews as time goes on, and since people are sheeps for reviewers, less games will sell. Less games sold, less finance, easy as that.
All Sonic games sell well. Condemned got excellent reviews.
And....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega#Success_again_.282006-present.29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega#Success_again_.282006-present.29)
Post by: Animeboy on December 02, 2008, 06:06:28 PM
All Sonic games sell well. Condemned got excellent reviews.
And....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega#Success_again_.282006-present.29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega#Success_again_.282006-present.29)
Who would of thought that Sega was rising back up.Anyway I hope Sega still has their strength even to this day.
Post by: Doctor Crow on December 02, 2008, 07:57:48 PM
Post by: Seiyuuki on December 02, 2008, 08:36:03 PM
Post by: Kid Chyllen™♪ on December 02, 2008, 08:48:55 PM
^^(PM)^
Hey good Idea they should Merge.Then we won't worry about Sega selling Sonic to Nintendo.I just have a bad feeling Sega may just give Sonic to Nintendo if they can't get back up with Sonic @^@
Yea, :thumbsup:
Post by: Animeboy on December 02, 2008, 11:38:44 PM
Post by: Doctor Crow on December 03, 2008, 12:25:23 AM
Actually I'm happy that Sega is with Nintendo.I think Nintendo should at least buy Sega out for them to only work for Nintendo and no other company.At least that's just me and Sonic will be safe.
I rispectfully disagree. I've never been Nintendo's biggest fan to begin with, and I feel like the "For-all-ages" aesthetic that Nintendo has built itself on, while it works for their own stuff, has rubbed off on Sonic in a very bad way. I think Sega should have gone to Sony and developed for them as a second-party. At the very least, it would have allowed Sega to preserve the aesthetics and principals that made the old Sonic games so good.
Post by: SPOOKY77 on December 03, 2008, 12:34:29 AM
Post by: Doctor Crow on December 03, 2008, 12:52:54 AM
You don't think Sonic is "For all ages" ?
Have you played the old Sonic games? Those things were hard and unforgiving. I remember being so frustrated with them. But that's just one example. Compare, for example, Sonic Adventure, to, say, Sonic Heroes. On the surface, they appear to be similar games, but by the time Heroes was released, Nintendo's influence over the series was pretty obvious.
Post by: SPOOKY77 on December 03, 2008, 02:08:31 AM
Post by: Doctor Crow on December 03, 2008, 02:31:46 AM
Post by: SPOOKY77 on December 03, 2008, 02:39:35 AM
Post by: Spidercide on December 03, 2008, 03:53:03 AM
I do not trust Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft instead of things getting better (please note according to the wiki they are already successful) I do believe they will get worse. If Nintendo gets them they will make sucky shovel-ware horse crap like they've been doing with Sonic and Mario Olympics. No thanks!
If Sony gets them then the games will be limited to PS3/PSP and alot of people (myself included) do not want or have a media need for those two PS platforms. Considering I don't have nor want either of the two I'd definitely loath the idea of Sega becoming 2nd party to Sony and their next-gen trailing behind systems. Now as far as the PS2 goes, the real games are finished. All we get now are collections, imports, and games from other platforms, and all around...flops. it's pretty much dead. I'm ready to move on anyway so I won't count that console.
Now onto Microsoft, if they'd become 2nd party to them then I'm 100 percent sure Sega would be left to rot as did Rare. When was the last time we saw Killer Instinct? Exactly. It is my speculation that MS is holding back creative genius. We are lucky to even see Banjo & Kazooie make it to XBLA. Bottom line is Sega becoming a permanent slave to their former console rivals will not benefit them. If anything it would only HURT them in the long run, especially if they're doing well right now.
Some people fear that Sega can actually make it on their own so they wish for the multi-plats to stop them before they start thinking for themselves and something positive comes of it. I say Sega grows on their own and keeps growing to become a more profitable business, ALONE.
No mergers necessary, no 2nd party baloney, Sega used to be bigger than names such as Capcom and Konami back when they were making hardware. Well I say if you want them to rise to that status again then let's not restrict them to another console maker.
I say either keep them 3rd party or otherwise do what the fans want and make Sonic 2D again (here's a hint: High-Res 2D in HD), bring out a sequel to Fighters Megamix, give us Virtua Fighter 5R, keep the Condemned games coming, finish Shenmue III, deliver us a new Daytona game, whatever it takes! Then after enough money is made, perhaps maybe, just maybe, Sega will become a respected hardware maker again.
Sega does what Nintendon't! That's decline from producing massive amounts of shovel-ware.
Post by: Dr. Fortune on December 03, 2008, 08:38:07 AM
I rispectfully disagree. I've never been Nintendo's biggest fan to begin with, and I feel like the "For-all-ages" aesthetic that Nintendo has built itself on, while it works for their own stuff, has rubbed off on Sonic in a very bad way. I think Sega should have gone to Sony and developed for them as a second-party. At the very least, it would have allowed Sega to preserve the aesthetics and principals that made the old Sonic games so good.
Yeah, no. Sega siding with purely Sony is as stupid as Sega being a second-party to anybody else. When Sega fell on hard times after the abyssal failure that was the Dreamcast, they really didn't have the luxury to play favorites. Speaking of the Dreamcast, Sony was the reason it did as poorly as it did. PS2 and all. Maybe it's just little old me, but that seems like a pretty big slap to the face to develop stuff exclusively for the people who screwed me over monetarily.
I seriously don't care if Sega sides with Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony or any other bloody company. I just want the bloody Sonic games to stop blowing so. Incredibly. Hard.
Post by: Doctor Crow on December 03, 2008, 04:28:09 PM
Yeah, no. Sega siding with purely Sony is as stupid as Sega being a second-party to anybody else. When Sega fell on hard times after the abyssal failure that was the Dreamcast, they really didn't have the luxury to play favorites. Speaking of the Dreamcast, Sony was the reason it did as poorly as it did. PS2 and all. Maybe it's just little old me, but that seems like a pretty big slap to the face to develop stuff exclusively for the people who screwed me over monetarily.
I seriously don't care if Sega sides with Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony or any other bloody company. I just want the bloody Sonic games to stop blowing so. Incredibly. Hard.
I was just giving an example. You can't deny that Nintendo's had an influence over the way the Sonic games are being handled nowadays.
Post by: Animeboy on December 03, 2008, 05:25:29 PM
Anyways I don't want Sega to sell Sonic.But Sega becoming 2nd party with Nintendo will make me happier IMO.
Now as for Sonic he doesn't seem arrogant and such.He seems friendly and yeah sonic's impatient and won't listen for a second.But I don't know maybe it's because I'm not really a hardcore gamer? :| Anyways Sonic games were hard back then heck ALL games were harder back then with 3 lives and 3 continues,passwords,starting all over again if you lose all of your continues etc.Games today no longer has that stuff.
Now as for Sega if the become 2nd party to Nintendo I'd be joyous seeing that Sega and Nintendo are two companies I always loves since I was a kid.Their the ones that got me into video gaming.I wasn't too happy with Nintendo and Sega being Rivals and I always wished they can team up because they influenced gaming.
Post by: Spidercide on December 03, 2008, 06:00:19 PM
It was alot more fun when me and my peers in middle school were saying "SONIC WOULD DESTROY MARIO!" and "NOTHING CAN STOP SUPER NINTENDO!" It was fun because I had both systems yet enjoyed them going up against eachother like this because more competition equalled more quality games on both platforms. I got the best of both worlds.
Then there were the system comparisons and all of that. They were on the same level and everytime they fight it's like a dream match come true Rock Vs. Hogan, Tyson Vs. Ali, Spider-Man Vs. Wolverine, Goku Vs. Vegeta. Kinda like that where there was a balance between the two powers.
But if Nintendo were to own Sega in second party I feel that the balance would forever break the equality between them with Nintendo having some form of owners ship towards Sega. I feel it's not nessasary and should not become a reality.
Just look at Insomniac, they make interesting games but they will never be able to put Ratchet and Clank or Resistance on any other system because Sony will not allow them to break away. This would be the case if Nintendo grabbed a hold of second party rights to Sega. They'd technically own them, they'd OWN Sonic. Even if it's not directly they would own him.
Further more I think it is unfair to only consider Nintendo based on the fact that you were a Nintendo kid like myself. I still love Nintendo but hate what they've done to the Nintendo Revolution (A.K.A. Wii). So I'm on 360 now, it would annoy me endlessly if Nintendo obtained Sega as a 2nd party and Virtua Fighter would only be on the Wii. Then I couldn't buy it for 360, same goes for Condemned and any future Sonic games.
Wouldn't you feel the same way if you saw a thread saying "Should Sega Sell The Sonic Franchise to Microsoft?" I'm sure you'd have a similar reaction. See what I mean? While it would be good for you it would not be good for many of us. I'm certain that most Sega vets would give them a negative approval rating if they let that go down.
This is why I say we leave Sega alone. Stay impartial instead of playing favorites to any 1 company. Trust me it's for the best. If Sega has to remain 3rd party then allow everyone Xbox, Playstation, and, Nintendo to play and be able to enjoy Sonic and friends.
Post by: Animeboy on December 03, 2008, 06:16:43 PM
Post by: Cyclysm on December 03, 2008, 06:19:16 PM
Then I couldn't buy it for 360, same goes for Condemned
No..... Condemned is not owned by Sega
Condemned is made by Monolith productions......Sega just publishes the game
If Sega were to be owned by Nintendo.. Monolith would just find another publisher.....probably Seirra like they did with F.E.A.R
But I totally agree with you Spidercide, Sega would suck if Nintendo,Sony,or Microsoft bought them
Post by: Doctor Crow on December 03, 2008, 07:08:34 PM
No dice it was alot more fun when they were against eachother. They were two companies I loved as well but there was a certain style, a certain flavor of gaming, that each party brought to the table. (SNES appealing 1st party and 3rd party games, Genesis Arcade games.) It's what I think made them stand out.
This is a good summary of my entire argument.
Quote from: Spidercide
This is why I say we leave Sega alone. Stay impartial instead of playing favorites to any 1 company. Trust me it's for the best. If Sega has to remain 3rd party then allow everyone Xbox, Playstation, and, Nintendo to play and be able to enjoy Sonic and friends.
Problem is, Sega isn't impartial. More and more, they're becoming Nintendo's lapdog. Look at how many games Sega has put out for the Wii recently as opposed to Xbox 360 or PS3. More importantly, look at all of the games featuring -Sonic- that this applies to, since this topic is about him. Sonic and the Secret Rings. Mario and Sonic go the Olympics. Sonic Riders: Zero Gravity. And, let's not forget the upcoming Sonic and the Black Knight. 4 exclusive Wii titles, and that's not counting Sega's other releases such as the new NiGHTS game. Now let's take a look at the cross-platform Sonic games Sega has recently put out. Sonic the Hedgehog. Sega Superstars Tennis (Which I only count here for the sake that Sonic is in the game), and Sonic Unleashed (...just...ew...). 3 titles. Now let's look at how many 360 and PS3-exclusive Sonic titles there are. Oh wait, that's right, there aren't any. :|
Post by: Animeboy on December 03, 2008, 08:01:35 PM
This is a good summary of my entire argument.
Problem is, Sega isn't impartial. More and more, they're becoming Nintendo's lapdog. Look at how many games Sega has put out for the Wii recently as opposed to Xbox 360 or PS3. More importantly, look at all of the games featuring -Sonic- that this applies to, since this topic is about him. Sonic and the Secret Rings. Mario and Sonic go the Olympics. Sonic Riders: Zero Gravity. And, let's not forget the upcoming Sonic and the Black Knight. 4 exclusive Wii titles, and that's not counting Sega's other releases such as the new NiGHTS game. Now let's take a look at the cross-platform Sonic games Sega has recently put out. Sonic the Hedgehog. Sega Superstars Tennis (Which I only count here for the sake that Sonic is in the game), and Sonic Unleashed (...just...ew...). 3 titles. Now let's look at how many 360 and PS3-exclusive Sonic titles there are. Oh wait, that's right, there aren't any. :|
I think the reason Sega is cooperating with Nintendo mostly is because how they know each other.Plus Sega is nintendo's first rival with the console wars back then.Anyway IMO sooner or later Nintendo will most likely buy out Sega.
Post by: Dr. Fortune on December 03, 2008, 08:21:12 PM
I think the reason Sega is cooperating with Nintendo mostly is because how they know each each.Plus Sega is nintendo's first rival with the console wars back then.Anyway IMO sooner or later Nintendo will most likely buy out Sega.
Personally, I'd say Sega usually goes to them first is because Nintendo is probably gonna green light whatever they bring to the table. Sonic games probably won't appeal to the Mircosoft crowd, and I don't even know what's what with Sony.
Now let's look at how many 360 and PS3-exclusive Sonic titles there are. Oh wait, that's right, there aren't any. :|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(2006_game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(2006_game))
I love proving you wrong.
Post by: Doctor Crow on December 03, 2008, 08:30:24 PM
I think the reason Sega is cooperating with Nintendo mostly is because how they know each each.
What?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(2006_game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(2006_game))
I love proving you wrong.
Great. Now kindly explain how that proves me wrong? That's not an exclusive title for either the Xbox 360 or the PS3, because it's for both systems. So now, because a Sonic game isn't for the Wii, it proves wrong what I said about there being no exclusive Sonic titles for Xbox 360 OR ("or", not "and") PS3? Besides, I recall specifically mentioning that game when I went through the list of cross-platform Sonic games.
Problem is, Sega isn't impartial. More and more, they're becoming Nintendo's lapdog. Look at how many games Sega has put out for the Wii recently as opposed to Xbox 360 or PS3. More importantly, look at all of the games featuring -Sonic- that this applies to, since this topic is about him. Sonic and the Secret Rings. Mario and Sonic go the Olympics. Sonic Riders: Zero Gravity. And, let's not forget the upcoming Sonic and the Black Knight. 4 exclusive Wii titles, and that's not counting Sega's other releases such as the new NiGHTS game.Now let's take a look at the cross-platform Sonic games Sega has recently put out. Sonic the Hedgehog. Sega Superstars Tennis (Which I only count here for the sake that Sonic is in the game), and Sonic Unleashed (...just...ew...). 3 titles. Now let's look at how many 360 and PS3-exclusive Sonic titles there are. Oh wait, that's right, there aren't any. :|
Yeah, there it is.
Post by: Dr. Fortune on December 03, 2008, 08:35:24 PM
Post by: Animeboy on December 03, 2008, 08:39:12 PM
Post by: Doctor Crow on December 03, 2008, 08:41:29 PM
Exclusive to PS3 and 360 there bucko.
That isn't what exclusive means. Exclusive means it's only for a certain system; it doesn't mean that it's NOT for a certain system. Nintendo games, for example, typically have something off in the corners of the boxes of each of there games saying "ONLY for Nintednoblahblahblah." That's what exclusive is. You can't claim that because it's NOT for Wii it's exclusive to either system. It's for BOTH systems, making it cross-platform, like I said.
Edited previous post I meant each other not each each lol.
Okay. I was like "...lolwut?"
Post by: Spidercide on December 03, 2008, 08:47:50 PM
Just because a game comes out on one platform a whole bunch of times does not mean it's getting bought. Had that been the case Sony would have bought Konami. Unless Sonic has only been being used on a Nintendo property and nothing else (like the Master Chief has been used constantly for Microsoft, they had the deep pockets to buy the Halo series) then I would think there maybe a chance. Still I do not wish it to happen.
Besides I haven't known Nintendo for doing things like that, buying other gaming companies, launching a full scale hostile take-over it's not their style. The way you say it it's almost as if you wouldn't care if this were to be forced on Sega so long as your base gets bragging rights to owning Sonic.
Also Sega is smarter than this, limiting their character to 1 platform is a bad decision especially considering the world we are living in. They need all of the money they can get and the best way to earn a profit and break even from development cost is to go multiplatform.
Which company has the most software sales this gen? 360 Sega would be a fool to miss out on a sales oppurtunity. 360 games normally sell more than Wii games because that's where the hardcore crowd is so with that I see Sonic sales figures being comparable with the Wii, same goes for PS3 there are some hardcores in Sony camp as well.
Hell the 360 version of Sonic Unleashed got better reviewers than the Wii version, most gamers are looking at that and thinking (man I gotta have that version!) So you see it is a matter of software sales and which game shows off best.
Now we know Sega has been giving Nintendo alot of support but MS and Sony aren't exactly chopped liver. After all Sega did give them the 1 exclusive Sonic The Hedgehog game from way back. I still remember the "Sonic Boom" commercial for it. Plus Sonic appeals to 360 owners he isn't so much a niche game as he is mid-tier. More than half of my friends list bought Sonic's 1 and/or 2 from off the marketplace. Also, re-release or not the 360/PS3 nations getting this game: http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/xbox360/home/954264.html (http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/xbox360/home/954264.html)
Post by: Doctor Crow on December 03, 2008, 08:56:08 PM
Now we know Sega has been giving Nintendo alot of support but MS and Sony aren't exactly chopped liver. After all Sega did give them the 1 exclusive Sonic The Hedgehog game from way back. I still remember the "Sonic Boom" commercial for it. Also, re-release or not the 360/PS3 nations getting this game: http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/xbox360/home/954264.html (http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/xbox360/home/954264.html)
What the hell. Didn't I just get done explaining why that game isn't an exclusive title? O___o
Post by: Spidercide on December 03, 2008, 08:57:58 PM
What the hell. Didn't I just get done explaining why that game isn't an exclusive title? O___o
WTH yourself. It's not wrong to consider a game like that HD console exclusive. It's not on the Wii so I don't give a damn. I call it like I see it.
Post by: Doctor Crow on December 03, 2008, 09:00:15 PM
WTH yourself. It's not wrong to consider a game like that HD console exclusive. It's not on the Wii so I don't give a damn. I call it like I see it.
There isnt such a thing as "HD console exclusive." Stop grouping Sony and Microsoft together, they aren't the same thing.
Post by: Spidercide on December 03, 2008, 09:10:17 PM
There isnt such a thing as "HD console exclusive." Stop grouping Sony and Microsoft together, they aren't the same thing.
Hey, I can do that if I want. Last I checked the word "exclusive" meant limiting by a single or individual group. Those consoles may be owned by different companies but they are in the same class when it comes to HD gaming therefore I believe they are exclusive in terms of being a group of next-gen HD gaming consoles.
Post by: Doctor Crow on December 03, 2008, 09:15:36 PM
Hey, I can do that if I want. Last I checked the word "exclusive" meant limiting by a single or individual group. Those consoles may be owned by different companies but they are in the same class when it comes to HD gaming therefore I believe they are exclusive in terms of being HD gaming platforms.
Yet they're different enough to be different consoles, which means that console-exclusive games for them would have to be limited to just one or the other. The console war isn't between Nintendo and Sonysoft/Microsony. It's between Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. Three indiviudal companies, not two. I would agree with you about the exclusivity if Sony and Microsoft had anything whatsoever to do with one another instead of being bitter enemies, but one commonality (The HD thing) an individual group does not make.
Or, y'know what, let me put it another way. Say, hypothetically, that the Wii was also an HD console. According to your "All HD consoles are the same thing" argument, there wouldn't be a difference between any of the three consoles, and therefore there would be nothing to discuss. See how silly that sounds?
Post by: Spidercide on December 03, 2008, 09:24:27 PM
Or, y'know what, let me put it another way. Say, hypothetically, that the Wii was also an HD console. According to your "All HD consoles are the same thing" argument, there wouldn't be a difference between any of the three consoles, and therefore there would be nothing to discuss. See how silly that sounds?
Yes that's exactly right...only the Wii isn't an HD console...X360 and PS3 are soooooo yeah I'd say they're HD exclusive. ;D
Post by: Doctor Crow on December 03, 2008, 09:27:48 PM
Yes that's exactly right...only the Wii isn't an HD console...X360 and PS3 are soooooo yeah I'd say they're HD exclusive. ;D
So now your entire argument resides solely on "I can say or do whatever I want regardless of what i'm saying actually means."
...I'm done here. *Iceman ThumbsDown!*
Post by: Spidercide on December 03, 2008, 09:31:40 PM
So now your entire argument resides solely on "I can say or do whatever I want regardless of what i'm saying actually means."
...I'm done here. *Iceman ThumbsDown!*
...
Whatever.
Your ignoring the fact that both machines are in the same boat when it comes to delivering the pure high-def experience. I think that warrants an "if a game is not on Wii/PS2 but instead is on 360/PS3 it's for the HD group of machines only." Brands do not matter in this case. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Also what is this thumbs down stuff this ain't Gamespot. XD
Post by: R.I.C.O - Teros on December 03, 2008, 10:26:38 PM
Post by: [Asian-Jesus] on December 03, 2008, 10:30:05 PM
lol @ this topic's current state.
THIS X100
Post by: Cyclysm on December 03, 2008, 10:35:55 PM
lol @ this topic's current state.
QFT
but just because some people dislike the current Sonic games doesn't mean Sega as a whole is doing bad
Post by: Tundra on December 04, 2008, 12:20:01 AM
Post by: R.I.C.O - Teros on December 04, 2008, 12:43:26 AM
Man Hell naw. Im sick of Mario and his damn overalls. SEGA should stay SEGA.
I agree, he should lose the overalls...
(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b359/inlineshadow/Mario_Gangster.gif)
Post by: Doctor Crow on December 04, 2008, 02:28:51 AM
Man Hell naw. Im sick of Mario and his damn overalls. SEGA should stay SEGA.
:| Seriously. I'm sick of Mario and his damn everything. I'm sick of seeing him period, it's why i'm a Sony gamer. Note that i'm also sick of seeing "z0mg MASTER CHIEF RULEZ" everywhere too. When and if Sony gets someone like that, i'll probably start to dislike them too. And no, I don't think Solid Snake counts, for whatever reason the MGS series isn't nearly as popular as Mario or Halo nowadays, it seems.
Post by: Violent Ken Masters on December 04, 2008, 07:48:13 AM
:| Seriously. I'm sick of Mario and his damn everything. I'm sick of seeing him period, it's why i'm a Sony gamer. Note that i'm also sick of seeing "z0mg MASTER CHIEF RULEZ" everywhere too. When and if Sony gets someone like that, i'll probably start to dislike them too. And no, I don't think Solid Snake counts, for whatever reason the MGS series isn't nearly as popular as Mario or Halo nowadays, it seems.I agree with you on that. Although MGS seems to get around a bit. I remember there was a skateboarding game with Solid Snake as a unlockable character, of course they also had their own skateboarding levels in MGS2 Substance.
In Little Big Planet there's Old Snake character pieces, they also have Sephiroth pieces.
Even so, I wouldn't consider Snake a mascot because MGS2 was on xbox and MGS1 was on Gamecube.
Sony has a lot of system exclusive characters that they could use as a mascot, but those characters don't even have nearly as much as fame as Mario or Master Chief.
Gears of War is also getting very famous. I remember on the last episode of Terminator Sarah Connor Chronicles John Connor threw a fit because he got pwnd in multiplayer.