I chose not to mention the companies that have little history, like Team ICO, Quantic Dream. While yes, every game these companies have made are resounding success, there just isn't enough history to come up with a proper score.
NAMCO BANDAI: D
I used to love Namco, non-stop quality... however, these days it seems that Namco is slowly working towards become more and more of a production company, and less of a development studio. Their games are dropping in quality, and each iteration of their long running series just keep getting worse and worse. T6 and SC4 may be better than their predecessors, but Namco is more than just fighting games. Sadly, it also seems like their are bringing Bandai down; sure Bandai does mostly licensed properties, but at least their games have historically gotten better after each iteration. Namco believes, why spend the money making a decent game, when putting Darth Vader and Yoda into the game will sell it even better.
VALVE: B+
Valve is a great development studio, constantly putting out grade A titles. Not to mention, they are also quick to support their modding customers, as shown with their support for Counterstrike and Portal. They get an B+, instead of an A+, because of 2 reasons: for one, they can't make anything except an FPS, and two, because of Gabe Newell's staunch hatred for the PS3. Yes, the PS3 is harder to program for... man up, get to work.
CAPCOM: A-
Listen, I don't like Street Fighter, or Versus games, they are just not my thing. But, even I can see that Capcom is doing something right. They are giving the fans EXACTLY what they want, while at the same time making decent quality games. SF4 is a work of genius, a next gen game, with last mechanics. They lose that A+ score because sometimes they overstep their bounds... *cough* Bionic Commando *cough*
INFINITY WARD: A-
I like Infinity Ward, I do not like Activision. But Infinity Ward is the developer, while Activision is the publisher. Activision smartly has given IW free reign when it comes to Modern Warfare, and for that, they score a little higher in my book. But IW knocked it out of the park with MW2. Yes, the single player story was convoluted, but it was fun. Not to mention they give online FPS that MMO feeling of constant achievement. I don't care about Dedicated Serves, as I wouldn't play on people's custom hack ridden servers anyways.
FUNCOM: B-
Okay, so I bought Age of Conan when it came out. And you know what? I liked it... for the most part. It just got stale very fast. But in the world of MMOs, when everyone tries to be the next WoW, can you really fault a developer for trying something different? Yes, it was a beta, with basic things like STR/DEX/INT/etc not working out of the box; but the game still had good questing and story as written by Ragnar Tornquist. Speaking of that, did I mention RAGNAR TORNQUIST?! You can't fault a development team behind The Longest Journey and Dreamfall.
EPIC GAMES: C
Gears of War is awesome, as long as you're not playing online. But is anyone besides me completely sick of the Unreal3 engine? Every game I see that uses it, I can tell just by looking at it, seeing that watery plastic sheen, that its using this engine... and its ugly. Unreal Tournament 3 was absolutely atrocious, it lost everything that made UT2K4 one of the greatest online shooters of all time. Though I do give them credit for FINALLY giving us a next generation Metroidvania game.
BUNGIE: D
Halo 1 was a good game. Really its a nothing spectacular shooter, but it was the first shooter to ever give proper transitions from a close quarters combat situation, directly into an open field combat situation, without ever having to change the map. However, with its sequels, they chose to instead focus on the large hit boxes, and lackluster game play instead of what made it truly unique in the FPS genre: genius level design.
Halo is the "My First FPS", or "FPS for Dummies" of the FPS genre. It has become so successful that it hinders other games, because every game needs to be like it in order to be popular. (Resistance 1 was better than R2, but R2 was way more popular because it played more like Halo) I hear that Halo ODST is a return to form, with better level design, non-regenerating health, and single wielding. Sadly Halo 2/3 burned the bridges for me, and I have no intent on ever playing another Halo game.
SEGA: F
Sega has become the king of failing to recognize quality. They failed to allow Yu Suzuki finish his epic masterpiece that was Shenmue; and now, as someone previously stated, they are sending the far superior Yakuza series out to die. Valkyria Chronicles went budget within just a few months after launching, and they decided to put its sequel on the PSP; screwing over the few people who actually played the first game.
BETHESDA: B+
Fallout and Elder Scrolls are great series (even though Bethesda didn't create the Fallout series). While yes, I will admit the new generation of their engine for Fallout 3 and Oblivion have their share of bugs and faults, the games themselves are well worth their value. Although I will be the first one to say it in this thread, but Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind is where Bethesda really showed us how good they really are.
FIRAXIS: A+
Probably the only A+ I will be giving in this thread. Firaxis was founded by Sid Meier and others after their breakup from Micropose. They don't make games often, but when they do, they are pure gold. Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri? I had a high school teacher who had to have his wife lock it, otherwise he would fall asleep at school because he stayed up all night playing it! Sid Meier's Pirates!, and Civilizations IV are the best versions in their respective series. Even CivRev was great, as a bite sized Civilizations.
BLIZZARD: B
I was reading an article on the death of Duke Nukem. It talked about the need for perfection slowed production down and eventually killed its own market. I see the same thing with Blizzard. They strive for perfection so much, that when their games do come out, they look ancient. The reason why their games run on anything, is simply because their engine and their graphics are so outdated that even a calculator can run them. Is Starcraft better than Total Annihilation? Anyone fans of TA will give you a resounding "NO!". WoW came out in 2004, but the graphics look like they are from 1998.
Not to mention, I feel like it harbors its success the same way as Halo, or Family Guy. WoW is not a particularly good MMO, or original, its just extremely easy to play; EQ2 came out 2 days before it, was far superior in graphics, gameplay and story; not to mention EVERY line of text in the game was voiced over from day one. But it failed to see the success because of difficulty. WoW also succeeds in the Blizzard name alone, and the constantly random pop culture references. Unfortunately, just like Halo, WoW stifles creativity in the MMO industry. Every MMO wants to be the next WoW, and not the next EQ2; why spend the money making a quality game, when shitty graphics, and easy gameplay sell just as well.
GAS POWERED GAMES: A+
I guess I lied... another A+. After talking about Total Annihilation, I thought it felt relevant to list GPG. Total Annihilation was made by Cavedog, but the people who made TA formed GPG when Cavedog closed. GPG has made success after success, starting with Dungeon Siege 1 and 2 (you made have seen that horrid Uwe Boll movie based on it), eventually going on to the pseudo-sequel to TA, Supreme Commander. GPG then made the best DOTA clone ever made: Demigod... and coming soon, Supreme Commander 2.
SQUARE ENIX: F
Jesus Christ... what has happened to this company? I remember the days when they were only making 1 or 2 big budget titles a year. So few that they split into 6 different studios so that each one could focus on a different title at the same time. Now, Square-Enix is comprised of TWELVE development studios, and anything coming from the bottom 9 are all garbage (sadly, that also includes Tri-Ace)... meanwhile, the top 3 studios only release 1 game each every 3 or 4 years. Now Square has converted into a production company, instead of a software developer, and it shows with their lack of development quality. Hell, they are producing GPG's Supreme Commander 2! They aren't even making Dragon Quest anymore!
LEVEL 5: A-
The new kid on the block. Every Japanese developer today, wants to be the next Level 5. They blew up the scene with their first game: Dark Cloud... which was received so well that Square Enix optioned them for the Dragon Quest series. Every game they make is an instant hit in not only Japan, but America as well.
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT: A+
I had forgotten about this one... I bet you did to. SCE has this ability to find and fund absolutely spectacular independent studios. They discovered Level 5, and contracted development for Dark Cloud. They discovered Fumito Ueda and contracted development for ICO and all of their titles. Just thinking of the titles SCE owns, you see their vision and how good they are at finding quality amongst the trash. And this is why I prefer games on PSN, over games on XBL. PSN games are just way more unique, as Sony is much more willing to take risks with their development studios.
Looking at wikipedia... Alunda, Ape Escape, Arc the Lad, Dark Cloud, Demon's Souls, Destruction Derby, God of War, Gran Turismo, Heavenly Sword, Heavy Rain, Ico, Infamous, Jeanne D'arc, The Last Guardian, The Legend of Dragoon, The Legend of Legaia, LittleBigPlanet, LocoRoco, Parappa the Rapper, Patapon, Ratchet & Clank, Resistance, Rogue Galaxy, Shadow of the Colossus, Sly Cooper, SOCOM, Twisted Metal, Uncharted, Warhawk, Wild Arms, White Knight Chronicles... to name a few... So yes, they aren't perfect, but they are much more willing to take risks. Without taking risks, you don't have creativity or change in the gaming industry.
