If you have been paying attention to my blog posts, you could probably guess that my bias in the so-called console wars is more favorable to Microsoft than Sony. There are reasons for this. Let me go back to the announcement of the PlayStation 2.
When Sony announced the PlayStation 2, I had already shown an interest in the Dreamcast. Sony showed off improved specs over the original PlayStation, but nothing else. It became clear what Sony was trying to do. With the success of the original PlayStation, Sony was trying to keep the industry where it was. They had effectively declared war on innovation. I didn’t want to reinvest in games that I had already purchased for the first PlayStation, so I found no reason to buy their new console.
Let me go even further back. The original PlayStation had some huge evolutionary leaps. This was primarily due to the polygon-based graphics and the disc-based media. This was hardly revolutionary in the sense that we had already actually seen these things in the previous generation, but it was really the first generation that these features were built into a system from the very beginning. There was a lot of novelty and new experiences, but I don’t feel that the console survived the test of time. I never have the urge to go back to my PlayStation and pop in a game like I do with other consoles.
To me, Final Fantasy 7 is a terrific example of why I started turning against Sony. After hearing Nintendo fans criticize my choice of the Genesis over the Super Nintendo, I had the opportunity to finally play the series that they were bragging about. It seemed good at first, but I was buying too much into the hype. I beat the game then tried to play through a second time. Reality sunk in when I reached the flashback sequence. I simply couldn’t handle it. I think FF7 was the first JRPG that I ever failed to beat multiple times.
One of the problems I had was with the plot. In short: it was bland. In addition to the general plot, the character development and their big plot twist were lazy. What was character development? The main character acted like the same brat that I couldn’t identify with, but his memory had been restored. The other characters told us that they had changed, which was the only indication in the entire game that they saw any character development. The plot twist wasn’t that things weren’t what they seemed. The plot twist was that what we were told happened was a lie.
Also, the general story line in no way fit the gameplay. It was a high tech world with an incredible laser. The main character was relying on a sword. It was like the people in charge of gameplay weren’t communicating with the people writing the story.
Level designs were handed to artists that made beautiful level that made you feel like you were merely pushing your character on rails. It was the most linear level design that I had ever encountered. I had never played a game that made me feel so much like I was merely watching.
While the mini-games had at least some value, they always felt out of place. The pre-rendered cut scenes were impressive at the time, but they didn’t do anything to improve the gameplay or storyline. With neither the mini-games or cinematics fitting with the core gameplay, there was this sense of exiting the game, entering the sequence, exiting the sequence, then reentering the game. It really dragged down the flow.
In summary: Final Fantasy 7 was a silent movie with a weak plot that cost me $50. It is easily the most overrated video game ever released, and completely destroyed JRPGs (developers followed Square’s lead due to the game’s success). In all fairness to Sony, Square does not represent them. However, Final Fantasy 7 seems to big a terrific fit for the approach that Sony has embraced. They promote the technical side of video games at the expense of gameplay.
Another issue I have with Sony is that they are the least trustworthy console manufacturer by a wide margin. Sometimes they will try to spin reality (.4% failure rate of the PS4). Sometimes they will tell some whoppers. I’m going to bring up some of the lies coming from Sony that come to mind. I might not always remember the details right, and I’m sure that I’m forgetting a lot.
Let’s start with the PlayStation 2. At the time, the key stat that people pointed to in regard to performance was polygons per second with effects turned on. I think Sony’s figure was 20 million. The graphics processor might have been able to handle the claim if there weren’t so many bottlenecks. While Sony kept bragging, numerous developers came forward. I don’t know if they ever found proper workarounds for the bottlenecks, but most sources outside of Sony were questioning whether or not the console could push 10 million.
The PlayStation 2 was a long time ago. Perhaps the PlayStation 3 is better for pointing out deception. If I remember right, they insisted that anyone who wanted to go online with the Xbox 360 had to buy the hard disk drive. This was flat out wrong. Same could be said for Sony’s claim that the 1080p update for the Xbox 360 only upscaled. We eventually found out that update allowed a 1080p native resolution.
Sony’s controller was another issue. They showed off their new controller, which looked like it would be uncomfortable to hold (although I can’t confirm that since I never held it). Around the same time, Nintendo showed off their controller, the Wii remote, that contained motion sensing features. The next time we saw Sony’s controller, it looked just like the Dual Shock (controller Sony developed during the original PlayStation’s life cycle). They also showed off new motion sensing features and renamed it the SIXAXIS. We know that the controller had been redesigned since their previous showing, and we know that development tools for the motion sensing features were developed after Nintendo showed off their controller. Sony actually thought that gamers would be stupid enough to believe them when they claimed that Nintendo had nothing to do with their decision.
Another thing we saw was the elimination of the rumble feature seen in the Dual Shock. Force feedback had been the focus of a series of lawsuits. Microsoft had already settled and was including it in their controllers. Sony was still fighting, and they decided against inclusion. Sony claimed that the decision was based on the rumbling interfering with the motion sensing. Never mind that most games weren’t going to use motion sensing, and they always could have asked developers to pick one or the other if they were truly concerned with the two features interfering with each other. When the lawsuit was finally settled, Sony quickly announced that they had miraculously found a way to get force feedback to work with a motion-sensing controller. I don’t think this sequence of events would have bothered me if Sony would have admitted what we all know, but they were clearly lying to us.
Another doozie related to their controller came from the claim that the SIXAXIS could do everything possible with Nintendo’s Wii remote without the sensor bar that Nintendo required. Before this announcement, numerous people had gotten their hands on Nintendo’s sensor bar and established its purpose. The bar features infrared LED lights that can be picked up by a camera at the end of the Wii remote. The location of the lights is then processed to determine where the remote is pointing, at what angle, and how far away it is. In other words, it’s for pointing functions that are impossible with the SIXAXIS.
Sony eventually created a one-handed controller, PlayStation Move, similar to the Wii remote. There were a few differences between the two approaches. The most noteworthy was that the camera and lights were swapped (lights on the controllers tracked by a camera on top of the TV instead of lights on top of the TV tracked by cameras in the controllers). They also made the bizarre decision to not include any kind of directional control on the main controller. I should point out a couple similarities, the shape and the addition of a navigational controller. The Wii remote was clearly an inspiration. Once again, Sony acted as though Nintendo had nothing to do with their decision.
Sony hasn’t been as bad for this new generation, but I’m still finding a few issues. When Microsoft announced a digital scheme that included DRM and 24-hour check-ins, they received a lot of criticism. The policies were reversed. Sony pounced on Microsoft by saying that Sony’s decision to use the same approach as last generation was because they listened to the consumer from the beginning. For now, I’m going to overlook Sony’s history of manipulating gamers so that instead of offering them what they want, they can convince gamers to want what they offer. There is no way to know how the consumer would respond to such a change until the concept is public, especially as digital distribution is becoming more popular. I don’t care much for Sony bragging that they listened to the consumer before the consumer spoke.
Sony also made announcements to specifically state that they were not going to require check-ins and they weren’t going to rely so much on DRM. Without the backlash against Microsoft, there would have been absolutely no reason for Sony to announce these things. It was clear that Sony was trying to capitalize on the negative press that Microsoft had been receiving. Even so, Sony insisted that the announcement of not implementing Microsoft’s policies had nothing to do with Microsoft.
Now for the numbers game. Like I said, Sony was deceptive of the capabilities of the PlayStation 2. Let’s move to the PlayStation 3. Sony was involved in the development of a new type of processor known as the cell. The cell processor was designed for a specific type of calculation. Because of this, the PlayStation 3 had one huge advantage on paper over the Xbox 360. It was also established that the Xbox 360 was significantly faster with general processing and had a more advanced GPU. I’m not saying that the Xbox 360 was more powerful, but Sony convinced people to fixate on one number. This gave a lot of people that a console was twice as powerful as a console of similar performance levels.
The numbers game is about what’s on paper. If people look at the back of a box, they might go for the product with better numbers. In reality, there are a lot of components to system performance, and not everything can be properly represented on the box. For example, Sony taking a checklist of items from Microsoft’s Kinect and putting them on the back of the box for the PlayStation Camera does not mean that the product was designed as well for facial recognition or speech recognition.
Wow. This is getting long. That doesn’t mean that I can ignore Sony’s arrogance. When Sony announced the PlayStation 2, I saw exactly what Sony was trying to do. They were pushing brand loyalty and marketing. They didn’t even try to make the PlayStation 2 a worthwhile purchase. They just felt like people would buy the product because it had the Sony name attached. When Sony’s direction became clear, I regretted buying the original PlayStation.
Sony practically told us that the Xbox was better than the PlayStation 2, but it didn’t matter. When Sony realized that people would throw money at them purely for the brand, they decided to exploit their loyal fan base to sell a new media format. Although Sony kept trying to spin things, there is no question that the decision to include Blu-Ray with the PlayStation 3 was to help out the Blu-Ray format. This was a big part of the reason that the console was so expensive at launch. It is also a big part of the reason that the more consumer-friendly HD-DVD is no longer in production. I honestly believe that if that format war would have been based on the actual merits of the formats, HD-DVD would have come out on top.
Recently, Sony stuck to their arrogance. They claimed that they “define gaming.” Maybe I should cut them some slack on this point. Ever since they got into the industry, games have been aimed at the mainstream. Instead of trying to please those who play games for entertainment, games are now being designed for marketability. This is a philosophy that Sony has clearly embraced. Modern day gaming consists primarily of cinematic pieces of garbage.
My issues with Sony reached the point that I have vowed never to buy another Sony console until they change their ways. They have to regain my trust. Personally, I feel that we deserve an apology. More importantly, they need to give me functionality that I can’t get elsewhere. They need to actually make contributions to the industry. Until then, I have no problems buying from their competition.
Previous: Xbox 1 or PlayStation 4 II
Next: Xbox 1 or PlayStation 4 III
No comments:
Post a Comment