Spreading linked game titles to other systems...

[BrotherAtArms]

It may just be me, I don't know, but I just kind of wish that certain game titles should stay with certain game systems.
To my dismay, about a year ago, I hear that FFIII is being put on, not playstation like the others, but the DS...
Twin Snakes, a remake of a playstation game 'Metal Gear: Solid', was put on the game cube, not the playstation.
Final Fantasy advanced was put on game boy advanced, not the playstation like all the other playstation systems...

Basically what I'm saying is that I just wish that sequals/linked games would just remain on their original game systems that their majority was released on, unless it being that it is a further advanced game system made by the same distributor/company... is this so much to ask?

Of course, I may understand multi-million/billion dollar industries wanting more money.... maybe... not likely...

 

[ravendta]

They'll use whatever system best suits their needs. Game companies don't care how many systems you have, they only look at the number of owners of the system. Also, they want to reach people who own one system but not the other. People who have a DS but not a PlayStation can now buy a Square-Enix game and thus, Square makes more money.

Remember, the Final Fantasy series started on Nintendo systems and moved to Sony. It's all about reaching a larger audience.

 

[WhirlwindMonk]

Plus, I don't think any single system has the majority of FF games. 1-6 plus most of the other side ones, like Tactics Advanced and Crystal Chronicles, were originally on Nintendo systems. It's only since FF VII that they've been on Sony systems. It just feels like more since the PS2 is backwards compatible. Personally, I used FF III as an excuse to get myself a DS Lite. Well worth it, too, imo.

 

[Lithium Hobo]

It may just be me, I don't know, but I just kind of wish that certain game titles should stay with certain game systems.
To my dismay, about a year ago, I hear that FFIII is being put on, not playstation like the others, but the DS...
Twin Snakes, a remake of a playstation game 'Metal Gear: Solid', was put on the game cube, not the playstation.
Final Fantasy advanced was put on game boy advanced, not the playstation like all the other playstation systems...

Basically what I'm saying is that I just wish that sequals/linked games would just remain on their original game systems that their majority was released on, unless it being that it is a further advanced game system made by the same distributor/company... is this so much to ask?

Of course, I may understand multi-million/billion dollar industries wanting more money.... maybe... not likely...

Well, if you feel that way, then Final Fantasy and Metal Gear are right at home on a Nintendo system. They did start out there after all.

 

[BrotherAtArms]

yeah, but I thought the whole plan they had was to re-make all the FF games on playstation, and then they kind of went back on that and made III for the DS.

I understand they were originally on nintendo, but imo the numbered games (VII, X, XI, etc..) are the 'actual' games, and that's why I say that most of them are on ps/ps2.

 

[WhirlwindMonk]

yeah, but I thought the whole plan they had was to re-make all the FF games on playstation, and then they kind of went back on that and made III for the DS.

I understand they were originally on nintendo, but imo the numbered games (VII, X, XI, etc..) are the 'actual' games, and that's why I say that most of them are on ps/ps2.

Actually, it's split 50/50 on the numbered games, unless you count XI, and the rereleases, then PSX/PS2 wins, but most of the rereleases have also been redone on the GBA or will be done soon. I agree that it would be nice for then to stick with one system/system line, but in reality, that isn't going to happen. And personally, I'm content with how it is. Just so long as they don't start splitting the numbered ones between the PS3, 360, and Revolution, I'm fine. I'm OK with spending $100-$150 on a handheld to get a few of the games if that handheld is good (like the DS). I'm not OK spending $300-500 for that.

 

[peanutbutter12]

I'd rather see all major game companies like Square and EA make games for all 3 systems instead of specific systems.

CJ

 

[treblebass]

It may just be me, I don't know, but I just kind of wish that certain game titles should stay with certain game systems.
To my dismay, about a year ago, I hear that FFIII is being put on, not playstation like the others, but the DS...
Twin Snakes, a remake of a playstation game 'Metal Gear: Solid', was put on the game cube, not the playstation.
Final Fantasy advanced was put on game boy advanced, not the playstation like all the other playstation systems...

Basically what I'm saying is that I just wish that sequals/linked games would just remain on their original game systems that their majority was released on, unless it being that it is a further advanced game system made by the same distributor/company... is this so much to ask?

Of course, I may understand multi-million/billion dollar industries wanting more money.... maybe... not likely...

Welcome to the corporate world...it's sad. Instead of staying true to their original consoles, game studios are choosing to spread to different venues for a shot at making more cash(although in the FF franchise, history tells they'll ALWAYS be making a load of cash). It's the way of the world.

 

[Lithium Hobo]

I'm actually quite glad that the titles are spreading out to other systems. Shares the wealth. Maybe, doubtfully, in some time all titles will be available to all systems and people can finally focus on the games instead of the consoles - although, even if that did happen, they would probably still find ways to be fanboys.

 

[treblebass]

I'm actually quite glad that the titles are spreading out to other systems. Shares the wealth. Maybe, doubtfully, in some time all titles will be available to all systems and people can finally focus on the games instead of the consoles - although, even if that did happen, they would probably still find ways to be fanboys.

Okay, I'll bite. I agree: to a degree. I would like to see more capcom/sega games on all the systems...but it just wouldn't do to have Mario, Luigi, and the rest of the game on any other platform other than Nintendo...platform games need to stay platform games...

 

[BrotherAtArms]

I'd rather see all major game companies like Square and EA make games for all 3 systems instead of specific systems.

CJ

I completely agree with this. I would love it if they split the games between each system... that way, it's just left up to personal preferance of what game system the individual prefers to play on.
The only time I've ever bought a new system was to excel from PS to PS2, and for the sake of getting Final Fantasy VII: Crisis Core, I'm getting the PSP... but I'll never get an Xbox or DS or any of the others because... I just don't like the controllers or the systems...

 

[Dracil]

Great stuff since I'm not gonna buy Sony junk.

 

[WhirlwindMonk]

I'm actually quite glad that the titles are spreading out to other systems. Shares the wealth. Maybe, doubtfully, in some time all titles will be available to all systems and people can finally focus on the games instead of the consoles - although, even if that did happen, they would probably still find ways to be fanboys.

At that point, why would we bother with different consoles? Heck, at that point, why not just buy a USB controller for your computer and play all games on there? I'm not saying that would be a bad thing, but if all games are available on all consoles, there would be no need for different consoles.

 

[Dracil]

Gee, not having to buy 3 consoles or not having to worry about exclusive titles not on your 1 console is SUCH a horrible thing.

 

[Lithium Hobo]

At that point, why would we bother with different consoles? Heck, at that point, why not just buy a USB controller for your computer and play all games on there? I'm not saying that would be a bad thing, but if all games are available on all consoles, there would be no need for different consoles.

Because the competition ensures that companies strive to make the best consoles.

 

[BrotherAtArms]

Gee, not having to buy 3 consoles or not having to worry about exclusive titles not on your 1 console is SUCH a horrible thing.

To spend $300-$600 extra... I'd say so.
I just want to spend my $20-$50 per game and not have to worry about wanting to continue a collection by expanding to another console... I can put my extra money into my savings.

 

[peanutbutter12]

At that point, why would we bother with different consoles? Heck, at that point, why not just buy a USB controller for your computer and play all games on there? I'm not saying that would be a bad thing, but if all games are available on all consoles, there would be no need for different consoles.

I agree with the above. It would make console systems concentrate on doing what they should be doing: making better hardware and more interesting ways to play.

When I first saw the Wii, it was love at first sight. Even without knowing what games were coming, the fact that it presented itself with a brand new way to play games was very interesting and exciting. Console companies like Nintendo, Sony, and MS need to look at further expanding the way that we play so that we can continue to move forward with technology.

CJ

 

[Dracil]

To spend $300-$600 extra... I'd say so.
I just want to spend my $20-$50 per game and not have to worry about wanting to continue a collection by expanding to another console... I can put my extra money into my savings.

Someone missed the point of my post. See sarcasm + what I'm replying to.

 

[WhirlwindMonk]

Because the competition ensures that companies strive to make the best consoles.

But the competition would then be driven into the games. And then the pressure from the game producers would keep the consoles going strong. Honestly, I don't know which way is better, but right now, I'm OK with how things are. My game interests don't spread wide enough to require me to get all three consoles.

 

[BrotherAtArms]

Well, as I have seen, it seems more that focus is going into the game system more than the games... with better systems come better graphics, but what about better gameplay?
Or into making more money rather than pleasing the consumer... if you ask me, the happier the consumer/gamer, the greater the profit...

And I missed on what point you were being sarcastic on Dracil, but I'm not going to worry about it