Which is a better gaming company?
Side Score: 58
Side Score: 16
Sony may have better graphics, but Nintendo has better games that are more fun to play. Nintendo has created the best games of all time: Super Mario Bros, The Legend of Zelda, Donkey Kong, to name a few.
Also if you compare only wii, and ps3 sales you can clearly see who is the winner there
Nintendo's core business is gaming.. that is what they do best. Sony on the other hand should stick to making TVs or something.
First, just because you think Zelda, Mario, and DK are the 'best games of all time' doesn't make it true. Millions consider Halo 'the best game of all time', and others might consider Grand Theft Auto 'the best game of all time. Who is right, you or them?
It is true that the games you mentioned were pioneers in the video gaming world, but they are by no means 'the best'. That's because everyone looks at other qualities like AI, story line, realism, physics, fun factor, and graphics to define the games they consider the 'best'.
In fact, if you define the best game by which games make the most at launch, then Halo 3 and the recent GTA would be considered the best. Millions of consumers lined up and pre-ordered these games because they thought they would be the 'best'.
Far more people bought these games than bought Wii fit, Smash Brothers Brawl, and other Wii games.
Second, you can't compare one generation of gaming systems and somehow come up with a solution as to who the best gaming company is.
Did you forget about the Playstation and Playstation 2? Nintendo barely survived that ten year time span.
People who play Halo and believe it to be "the best game" ever made should give their head a shake. I got bored playing Halo in about five minutes, and at the end of the day it is just another FPS . . . oh sorry, there's vehicles . . . truly amazing.
Of course we could go around in circles debating which game is the greatest of all time, it's pretty subjective and there are way too many metrics with which to try and measure it.
One thing that is hard to deny is that Nintendo has frequently set the standard for which thousands of games after it are based. Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Legend of Zelda, Super Mario 64, games like these defined, or redefined their genres. In the case of Mario 64 . . . Nintendo was redefining game play even while suffering lower sales.
Also, Nintendo has always been a very wealthy company since the 80's, they did not "barely survive" while Sony took over the industry in the mid 90's. Nintendo was still doing very well because they had the only portable system on the market. Home console and games sales were down, for sure, but the company was just fine thank you.
Actually, Pepsi Co. would probably be the equivalent of Sony as it has different branches dedicated to different things. The bottling company would be Pepsi Bottling Group.
Sony also has different branches for different things and SCEA (Sony Computer Entertainment America) happens to be the one that handles the Playstation/gaming. I guess the question could have been Nintendo vs. SCEA.
This one is easy. While Sony has made some very successful hardware since entering the industry in the mid-90's they are hardly an innovator when it comes to gaming. Nintendo has introduced countless titles that are absolutely legendary in both their gameplay and the appeal of their characters. If you're thinking that Crash Bandicoot is a great video game character check back with me in 20 years when no one remembers who he is.
I find it curious that we're comparing these two behemoths as "gaming" companies when, off the top of my head, I can't think of many titles that Sony is directly responsible for. Perhaps someone can help me out. It probably doesn't matter since any Sony list will pale in comparison to the legendary games I can list:
Super Mario Bros., Duck Hunt, Legend of Zelda, Excite Bike, Super Mario Bros. 3, Pikmin, Animal Crossing, Metroid, F-Zero, Star Fox, Pilot Wings, Super Mario 64 . . .
Do I need to go on? Alright:
Super Smash Bros., Mario Kart, Wave Race, Killer Instinct, Legend of Zelda: Ocrina of Time, Brain Age . . .
Are we getting the picture yet?
Sony isn't a game publisher. Nintendo, happens to publish games. And those games are the only real good ones on their system.
The question is who's the better gaming company, not publisher.
As far as publishing goes, Nintendo is pretty good at it. But there's very succesful game franchises out there like Halo, Gears of War (part two, coming soon!) Metal Gear Solid, Need for Speed, Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, Doom, Duke Nukem, Half-Life, Grand Turismo, etc...
Some of these games are awesome.
But if you wan't to play it the way it was meant to be played (with nice graphics and feedback) you won't go to Nintendo for it. You'll go to Sony (even Microsoft)
If we're establishing that Sony isn't a game publisher then my argument would be that Nintendo wins because they are a gaming company and Sony is not.
I donno, if Nintendo only made hardware I don't think that I would consider them much a gaming company. I don't consider AMD or Intel or Asus a gaming company, do you? Obviously Sony is a bit more involved in the game industry than just making hardware.
If it were true that the only good games on the Wii were made by Nintendo . . . well that isn't really Nintendo's fault. The fact that the PS3 has Halo on it doesn't make Sony a good gaming company.
Graphics and computing power do not make for great games- you need only look at the historially popular games to realise that good gameplay is the key. This is why Nintendo score higher- the Super Mario games,, the Zelda games, the Metroid games, the Pokemon games- they have created and maintained so many series of games that have consistently been highly rated- the Wii was innovative when it first came out and you can see how effective it was at gaining market share for Nintendo- and another measure of it's effectiveness is how Sony followed suit with a similar remote.
The DS has been a consistent performer too- I don't see how anyone can argue that.
Finally, given the serious security problems with Sony, who would you rather trust with your information?
If your product is being bought for nursery homes (the Wii), then I don't think you can consider yourself a gaming company. If you look at the gimmicks that Nintendo products are based on, they really are personal arcade terminals and nothing more. Franchises like Zelda, Mario, and Pokemon have not innovated their presentation, but have relied on models that are already at least a decade old. On the other hand, Sony has tried to produce a product that is truly next generation. While Nintendo might decide to merely convert all of its old paradigms into remote form for the Wii, Sony has had to tap not only state-of-the-art graphics but develop new styles of gameplay in order to stay viable.
Take, for instance, the PSP. Originally scoffed at, it has gained new fame as the fashionable Nintendo DS has dissolved out of the limelight. Why? because the PSP was inherently a better, more fully intuitive product while the DS was just a gameboy with a touchscreen.
The same thing is seen with the Wii. The PS3 is so obviously the more powerful gaming product, but the Wii is more shiny because it has a few gimmicks that make it more attractive to the non-gaming customers. We have, here, a piece of technology that will revolutionize the gaming industry, while on the other hand we have a gamecube with an infrared terminal.
Define what a better company means. You can argue about the artistic merit of the games or the technological achievement of both companies, but the fact remains: Sony loses money with every console sold, Nintendo earns profit with every console sold, therefore, in terms of the business of being a company, Nintendo is the better gaming company.
I'd argue that sheer technological improvement isn't the sole predictor of innovation. By changing the interface mechanism Nintendo has broadened the appeal of gaming, so much so that video game companies are realizing new markets thought to be previously unprofitable. The affect may have far reaching implications into the entire video game industry. Just because people are old - doesn't mean they're not gamers and it's backwards thinking to suppose that a gaming platform is any less so because more people enjoy it.
There needs to be an end to the elitism that the PS3 panders to. And as games and the video game culture spread throughout diverse demographics we'll see true innovation in the genre of games available and not just the next first person shooter.
This argument is ridiculous. You can say Sony has "innovated" until you're blue in the face, but you've cited no examples as to what is innovative about either the PS3 or the PSP. Not saying they that are completely devoid of innovation, but certainly not to the extent that the Wii and the DS have changed the industry.
I have to wonder, if the Wii is so gimicky, why did Sony slap a tilt sensor (an evidently useless one at that) into it's controller? Perhaps someone can correct me on this, but as I understand it that was done quite hastily before launch. We also have rumors of an Xbox controller with Wii style sensors. If it's so gimicky, why does it look to be becoming the standard?
Hardcore gamers should be embracing this technology, especially those of you who love FPS's. The Wiimote offers, through the infrared, mouse-like control over your first-person perspective.
Well, frankly, gaming companies are supposed to supply something new in terms of their games every once in a while. Nintendo has merely repackaged its various franchises with new interfaces, whereas Sony has had to actually innovate new play styles.
Yes, Nintendo might revolutionize the interface, but we are talking about the actual games that are produced for each company's platforms. So far, Nintendo has done really nothing to produce effective games that break the mold, they've only created new arcade terminals.
Yup, Nintendo really does need to learn not to rely so much on their signature franchises so much. However, it's worth noting that while Nintendo has been whoring out their popular characters they have been placing them all in some amazing games. My roommate and I had furious Mario Tennis battles, I've had large groups of friends over for full evenings of Mario Party, and of course we've spent countess hours beating the tar out of each other in Super Smash Bros.
I agree the characters are getting old but the gameplay is still second to none.
Nintards got it name for a reason. :\
Nintendo has nothing new, nothing innovative (the Wiimote has been done before, thank Pelican you idiots), and is not a current-gen system. Furthermore, Nintendo has ALWAYS been limiting the 3rd-party companies with their products' limited specs. While it actually takes some brains for 3rd-party companies to program the Sony's Playstation console system brands in their own time, they were far less limited.
I think Sony is better because they have more experience in technology and the graphics of Sony's products are better. Although I do really like Nintendo, I like games that are supposed look more real than cartoony. Sony's games look more real while Nintendo's are supposed to look cartoony. Plus, Sony's PS3 is a Blu-Ray player as well as a game system. The PS3 will also turn on your television if your television is a Sony television. PS3 also has one of my favorite games: LittleBigPlanet. I think Sony's a bit better at making games than Nintendo.
sony is eons ahead of nintendo in technology, im sorry, i cannot vote for a company that has yet to show the public a system with an hdmi output. sorry nintendo fans, but since the move came out for the ps3 sony officially dominates in all areas of the gaming field. i personally find that games on blue-ray disks are much better developed, due to the complete revocation of any limits on space. it amazes me that this debate is not slanted the other way by a margin twice what this is. agaiin, no offense nintendo gamers, youve had a great track record, but i cant argue with sony's dominance in all aspects of what i think of in gaming.