Quantcast
Locked: Are Sony's 1st Party Studios Leading The Way?

Forums - Sony Discussion - Are Sony's 1st Party Studios Leading The Way?

leatherhat said:
irstupid said:
Hynad said:
irstupid said:
Hynad said:
irstupid said:
 

and we are not solely arguing sales, we are arguing that personal tastes don't also correlate to quality

just because you don't like Barbies Pony Fun Ride doesn't mean it can't be a quality game. 

You can argue that all you want.  But would you argue that Uncharted 2, Little Big Planet, Killzone 2 or God of War 3 have reached a really high ground quality wise (in their own respective game genres), regardless of your personal bias for Nintendo?

no, god of war 3 seemed the same as its predicessors, uncharted is alike a mix of many old games (prince of persia, tomb raider, assassins creed, indiana jones), killzone 2 is a shitty fps.  I will say lbp is a neat creative game on the console, but the others i dn't see anything special at all in them besides visuals.

visuals are 1 small piece of a bigger puzzle in what makes a game a great quality fun game.

So, apllying some of your own criterias, Zelda, Super Mario seires and especially Mario Kart are not quality titles since no matter how fun they are, they're still more of the same. ¬_¬


no i was talking individual games.  what makes uncharted 2 so much better than uncharted 1?  what makes god of war 3 better than its predicessors?  If god of war 1 & 2 weren't the top dogs, genre defining hack and slash games before, why is god of war 3 now the top dog when it is the same as those?   When Killzone 1 sucked ass and come killzone 2 which has much worse controls than most other fps out on market how come it is top dog?

i'm not saying these games aren't good, i'm just curious what made them top dog NOW.  What did they add in these sequals that made them go from Zero to Hero.  (figure of speech, they weren't zero's before)


Uncharted added depth and fluidity to the gameplay, as well as a pretty cool online mode. It also really immersed you in that "indiana Jones movie" feel that the first one went for but fell a bit short. 

Killzone sucked, 2 was good. A lot of that can be chalked up to sony buying guerilla and guerilla getting more experience than when they made killzone, which was their first game. In the first killzone, you couldn't even jump for instance. And the KZ2 controls are great, to me its the closest a console game has gotten to giving the feel of PC and mouse. 

I don't know what you're saying about God of war. Its been top dog of hack and slash since the first one. Only DMC and NG compared and they weren't better, just more difficult. Don't get me wrong, I love all 3, but GoW was definitely the best reviewed and most beloved of the bunch. 

well i did kind of figure god of war was top dog before, but people have been putting god of war 3 on a pedistool on top of the pedistool and i was wondering what so revolutionary it did to set itself insanely far ahead of its predicessors.

the post follwing yours though summed up what i assumed perfectly though, graphics.

well killzone 2 you might be in minority on controls, all i've heard and the little i tried it is almost feeling like we went back a step on contorl for that.  and have you played shooters with a pointer yet?  or wii should say, soon to be wand as well, or move i mean. 

already answered uncharted earlier, wasn't my type of game.  first one was so boringly easy puzzles in a linear fashion, but the kicker was i hate 3rd person shooters.  so maybe you thought it was amazing but i prefer say assassins creed over uncharted and i would almost classify them in same genre.  though actually maybe more prince of persia since that is also linear.



Around the Network

Wow, this thread went right off a cliff didn't it? I wish the author rewrote the article but instead took into consideration arbitrary terminology like 1st/2nd/3rd party.

We all know what the article is trying to say. And that whether or not something is 1st party doesn't matter. He's saying everything in regards to Sony games. Take Demon's Souls, that's a Sony game. Sony owns the IP and helped develop it into the glory it is today. It's undeniable, Demon's Souls is a Sony game. The same for games like Infamous, Infamous 2, Ratchet/Clank, Resistance, Flower, etc.
 
Take Nintendo's relationship with many of their "2nd party" games, IE Metroid: Other M. I think we can all agree that Other M is a Nintendo game, right? First, they own the IP. And second, Nintendo has taken keen interest in making that a fantastic game full of quality goodness, yes? Yes. It's a Nintendo game in the same way that Demon's Souls is a Sony game. This is where the article is really coming from. And I think it's disingenuous to say "No, that's not a Sony game because it wasn't completely made by a 100% owned subsidiary of Sony!!!"
 
If you disagree that Sony is the only place of innovative games, then by god go about it that way! Don't try to say that Demon's Souls or Infamous aren't Sony games... because you are wrong. I personally think each of the big 3 have highly innovative, unique experiences. I also think this article is very one sided. The only thing I 100% find myself agreeing with the author is when he says Sony is THE leader in technical graphics. This is pretty much factual so far. But I guess we'll have to see how titles like Rage and Brink turn out. Don't worry though, Slenor will keep us informed!


Hynad said:

Answer this. What makes Galaxy 2 so much better than the first game?


Galaxy 2 worked on a core game design that made the game already very good and built on top of it, adding different power ups, a mount, tools for the mount, genius level design that easily outranks the 1st with those new and different power ups in mind, a world hub that is nowhere near as confusing as the original, and starts to kick your ass in the first world and still manages to hold your hand with something like super guide if you are a new gamer which is good for both serious gamers and new comers. A musical score that's even beyond the first Galaxy. Also a girlfriend mode that no longer screws you over. I still don't know how Nintendo does it, the level design they come up with are just so out there beyond the reach of other devs, it's fucking crazy. For example, look at something like Crackdown 2, then look at Galaxy 2, you just can't help but wonder sometimes. We definitely need more devs like EAD Tokyo or ND, that's for sure.



I disagree with this article. The games that lead the way are the ones that change the industry in my opinion.

Wii Sports was industry changing, as was Wii Fit. Industry changing titles aren't the games that are the best, they're the ones that change the way every other developer thinks about the game they're making. The only one on their list that is first party and really does that at all is LBP with it's massive emphasis on UGC.



I don't want to say this for fear of being flamed but here it goes, since the release of MGS4, the experience of the PS3 exclusives have been unparalleled, with games like Uncharted, MGS4, LBP, inFamous, Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, God of War III, Modnation Racers, and many more to come have all excelled in their Genre and notice the variety in the types of games listed. With Xbox 360 you get good games, but you don't get a variety of game types, you mostly get shooters, with the Wii you also get good games, but most of them are platformers or RPGs. All I'm trying to say is the PS3 offers a greater variety of good games,and we owe that all to the developers at SCE.I'm saying this with all due respect to any fans of the 360 and Wii. IMO PS3 is winning when it comes to games.



Around the Network

Just going to prove my point here about why I find talking with Nintendo "fanboys" better than talking with Sony "fanboys"  If you want to call them that.   Here is two simple questions, one asking what makes Galaxy 2 better than Galaxy 1, and the other asking what makes God of War 3 better than God of War 1 & 2.

dahuman said:
Hynad said:

Answer this. What makes Galaxy 2 so much better than the first game?


Galaxy 2 worked on a core game design that made the game already very good and built on top of it, adding different power ups, a mount, tools for the mount, genius level design that easily outranks the 1st with those new and different power ups in mind, a world hub that is nowhere near as confusing as the original, and starts to kick your ass in the first world and still manages to hold your hand with something like super guide if you are a new gamer which is good for both serious gamers and new comers. A musical score that's even beyond the first Galaxy. Also a girlfriend mode that no longer screws you over. I still don't know how Nintendo does it, the level design they come up with are just so out there beyond the reach of other devs, it's fucking crazy. For example, look at something like Crackdown 2, then look at Galaxy 2, you just can't help but wonder sometimes. We definitely need more devs like EAD Tokyo or ND, that's for sure.

Qays said:

"what makes god of war 3 better than its predicessors?  If god of war 1 & 2 weren't the top dogs, genre defining hack and slash games before, why is god of war 3 now the top dog when it is the same as those?"

Easy: the graphics. God of War is a series whose primary purpose is to wow you with the sheer visual spectacle of killing things in grotesque and badass ways. Graphics don't matter for all games, but for some they certainly do matter.





irstupid said:
leatherhat said:
irstupid said:
Hynad said:
irstupid said:
Hynad said:
irstupid said:
 

and we are not solely arguing sales, we are arguing that personal tastes don't also correlate to quality

just because you don't like Barbies Pony Fun Ride doesn't mean it can't be a quality game. 

You can argue that all you want.  But would you argue that Uncharted 2, Little Big Planet, Killzone 2 or God of War 3 have reached a really high ground quality wise (in their own respective game genres), regardless of your personal bias for Nintendo?

no, god of war 3 seemed the same as its predicessors, uncharted is alike a mix of many old games (prince of persia, tomb raider, assassins creed, indiana jones), killzone 2 is a shitty fps.  I will say lbp is a neat creative game on the console, but the others i dn't see anything special at all in them besides visuals.

visuals are 1 small piece of a bigger puzzle in what makes a game a great quality fun game.

So, apllying some of your own criterias, Zelda, Super Mario seires and especially Mario Kart are not quality titles since no matter how fun they are, they're still more of the same. ¬_¬


no i was talking individual games.  what makes uncharted 2 so much better than uncharted 1?  what makes god of war 3 better than its predicessors?  If god of war 1 & 2 weren't the top dogs, genre defining hack and slash games before, why is god of war 3 now the top dog when it is the same as those?   When Killzone 1 sucked ass and come killzone 2 which has much worse controls than most other fps out on market how come it is top dog?

i'm not saying these games aren't good, i'm just curious what made them top dog NOW.  What did they add in these sequals that made them go from Zero to Hero.  (figure of speech, they weren't zero's before)


Uncharted added depth and fluidity to the gameplay, as well as a pretty cool online mode. It also really immersed you in that "indiana Jones movie" feel that the first one went for but fell a bit short. 

Killzone sucked, 2 was good. A lot of that can be chalked up to sony buying guerilla and guerilla getting more experience than when they made killzone, which was their first game. In the first killzone, you couldn't even jump for instance. And the KZ2 controls are great, to me its the closest a console game has gotten to giving the feel of PC and mouse. 

I don't know what you're saying about God of war. Its been top dog of hack and slash since the first one. Only DMC and NG compared and they weren't better, just more difficult. Don't get me wrong, I love all 3, but GoW was definitely the best reviewed and most beloved of the bunch. 

well i did kind of figure god of war was top dog before, but people have been putting god of war 3 on a pedistool on top of the pedistool and i was wondering what so revolutionary it did to set itself insanely far ahead of its predicessors.

the post follwing yours though summed up what i assumed perfectly though, graphics.

well killzone 2 you might be in minority on controls, all i've heard and the little i tried it is almost feeling like we went back a step on contorl for that.  and have you played shooters with a pointer yet?  or wii should say, soon to be wand as well, or move i mean. 

already answered uncharted earlier, wasn't my type of game.  first one was so boringly easy puzzles in a linear fashion, but the kicker was i hate 3rd person shooters.  so maybe you thought it was amazing but i prefer say assassins creed over uncharted and i would almost classify them in same genre.  though actually maybe more prince of persia since that is also linear.

I played the umbrella chronicle games with the wiimote, and RE4. Controls were fine but they felt floaty to me. I prefer a more solid feel. 



ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

irstupid said:
leatherhat said:
irstupid said:
Hynad said:
irstupid said:
Hynad said:
irstupid said:
 

and we are not solely arguing sales, we are arguing that personal tastes don't also correlate to quality

just because you don't like Barbies Pony Fun Ride doesn't mean it can't be a quality game. 

You can argue that all you want.  But would you argue that Uncharted 2, Little Big Planet, Killzone 2 or God of War 3 have reached a really high ground quality wise (in their own respective game genres), regardless of your personal bias for Nintendo?

no, god of war 3 seemed the same as its predicessors, uncharted is alike a mix of many old games (prince of persia, tomb raider, assassins creed, indiana jones), killzone 2 is a shitty fps.  I will say lbp is a neat creative game on the console, but the others i dn't see anything special at all in them besides visuals.

visuals are 1 small piece of a bigger puzzle in what makes a game a great quality fun game.

So, apllying some of your own criterias, Zelda, Super Mario seires and especially Mario Kart are not quality titles since no matter how fun they are, they're still more of the same. ¬_¬


no i was talking individual games.  what makes uncharted 2 so much better than uncharted 1?  what makes god of war 3 better than its predicessors?  If god of war 1 & 2 weren't the top dogs, genre defining hack and slash games before, why is god of war 3 now the top dog when it is the same as those?   When Killzone 1 sucked ass and come killzone 2 which has much worse controls than most other fps out on market how come it is top dog?

i'm not saying these games aren't good, i'm just curious what made them top dog NOW.  What did they add in these sequals that made them go from Zero to Hero.  (figure of speech, they weren't zero's before)


Uncharted added depth and fluidity to the gameplay, as well as a pretty cool online mode. It also really immersed you in that "indiana Jones movie" feel that the first one went for but fell a bit short. 

Killzone sucked, 2 was good. A lot of that can be chalked up to sony buying guerilla and guerilla getting more experience than when they made killzone, which was their first game. In the first killzone, you couldn't even jump for instance. And the KZ2 controls are great, to me its the closest a console game has gotten to giving the feel of PC and mouse. 

I don't know what you're saying about God of war. Its been top dog of hack and slash since the first one. Only DMC and NG compared and they weren't better, just more difficult. Don't get me wrong, I love all 3, but GoW was definitely the best reviewed and most beloved of the bunch. 

well i did kind of figure god of war was top dog before, but people have been putting god of war 3 on a pedistool on top of the pedistool and i was wondering what so revolutionary it did to set itself insanely far ahead of its predicessors.

the post follwing yours though summed up what i assumed perfectly though, graphics.

well killzone 2 you might be in minority on controls, all i've heard and the little i tried it is almost feeling like we went back a step on contorl for that.  and have you played shooters with a pointer yet?  or wii should say, soon to be wand as well, or move i mean. 

already answered uncharted earlier, wasn't my type of game.  first one was so boringly easy puzzles in a linear fashion, but the kicker was i hate 3rd person shooters.  so maybe you thought it was amazing but i prefer say assassins creed over uncharted and i would almost classify them in same genre.  though actually maybe more prince of persia since that is also linear.


LoL irstupid your first post "just because you don't like Barbies Pony Fun Ride doesn't mean it can't be a quality game. "

Reading your other posts you sound like a hypocrit.



silicon said:
irstupid said:
leatherhat said:
irstupid said:
Hynad said:
irstupid said:
Hynad said:
irstupid said:
 

and we are not solely arguing sales, we are arguing that personal tastes don't also correlate to quality

just because you don't like Barbies Pony Fun Ride doesn't mean it can't be a quality game. 

You can argue that all you want.  But would you argue that Uncharted 2, Little Big Planet, Killzone 2 or God of War 3 have reached a really high ground quality wise (in their own respective game genres), regardless of your personal bias for Nintendo?

no, god of war 3 seemed the same as its predicessors, uncharted is alike a mix of many old games (prince of persia, tomb raider, assassins creed, indiana jones), killzone 2 is a shitty fps.  I will say lbp is a neat creative game on the console, but the others i dn't see anything special at all in them besides visuals.

visuals are 1 small piece of a bigger puzzle in what makes a game a great quality fun game.

So, apllying some of your own criterias, Zelda, Super Mario seires and especially Mario Kart are not quality titles since no matter how fun they are, they're still more of the same. ¬_¬


no i was talking individual games.  what makes uncharted 2 so much better than uncharted 1?  what makes god of war 3 better than its predicessors?  If god of war 1 & 2 weren't the top dogs, genre defining hack and slash games before, why is god of war 3 now the top dog when it is the same as those?   When Killzone 1 sucked ass and come killzone 2 which has much worse controls than most other fps out on market how come it is top dog?

i'm not saying these games aren't good, i'm just curious what made them top dog NOW.  What did they add in these sequals that made them go from Zero to Hero.  (figure of speech, they weren't zero's before)


Uncharted added depth and fluidity to the gameplay, as well as a pretty cool online mode. It also really immersed you in that "indiana Jones movie" feel that the first one went for but fell a bit short. 

Killzone sucked, 2 was good. A lot of that can be chalked up to sony buying guerilla and guerilla getting more experience than when they made killzone, which was their first game. In the first killzone, you couldn't even jump for instance. And the KZ2 controls are great, to me its the closest a console game has gotten to giving the feel of PC and mouse. 

I don't know what you're saying about God of war. Its been top dog of hack and slash since the first one. Only DMC and NG compared and they weren't better, just more difficult. Don't get me wrong, I love all 3, but GoW was definitely the best reviewed and most beloved of the bunch. 

well i did kind of figure god of war was top dog before, but people have been putting god of war 3 on a pedistool on top of the pedistool and i was wondering what so revolutionary it did to set itself insanely far ahead of its predicessors.

the post follwing yours though summed up what i assumed perfectly though, graphics.

well killzone 2 you might be in minority on controls, all i've heard and the little i tried it is almost feeling like we went back a step on contorl for that.  and have you played shooters with a pointer yet?  or wii should say, soon to be wand as well, or move i mean. 

already answered uncharted earlier, wasn't my type of game.  first one was so boringly easy puzzles in a linear fashion, but the kicker was i hate 3rd person shooters.  so maybe you thought it was amazing but i prefer say assassins creed over uncharted and i would almost classify them in same genre.  though actually maybe more prince of persia since that is also linear.


LoL irstupid your first post "just because you don't like Barbies Pony Fun Ride doesn't mean it can't be a quality game. "

Reading your other posts you sound like a hypocrit.

no i'm not saying these games aren't quality, i'm just merely asking what makes them so much more quality than their predecessors.

and if you read up a couple posts where i quote two different people one explaining why God of War 3 is better than its predicessors and why Galaxy 2 is better than its predecessor is my main gripe.



best developer in the world: Lionhead IMO

so... no.



There once was a great sig here, but it got killed.

A moment of silence would be appreciated.