By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - What Has Happened to Sony’s First-Party Exclusives?

sundin13 on 24 February 2015
Conina said:

Crash Bandicoot 1 on PS1 for example?


They both solved the problem in two vastly different ways. Crash operated with a largely on rails camera instead of a free camera which allowed each input to function in a specific two dimension plane. This allowed precise movement because the camera was always on a rail and your possibilities for movement were severely limited. It functioned a lot like any horizontal section of a game, like the horizontal sections in contra, however with free backwards forwards movement.

3D World/Land did things in a much more open and much more abstract way. The main ways they solved this problem was through level design, specific camera placement (of a much higher degree of complexity than Crash), and specific tweaks of controls. I think the combination of these factors all worked together to produce new ideas and a new way of playing.

I would say that both series were innovative for 3D platformers, and as such, they both felt like nothing else.



Around the Network
MikeRox on 24 February 2015
TheVoraciousFox said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Sony first party games are still as good as ever. Reviewers may have changed and are now hating on everything all the time, but the games are far from disappointing. Killzone SF, Knack and Infamous SS were fantastic games!


The argument that reviewers are hating on everything is completely invalid. Knack wad absolutely atrocious.


If Knack is your defnition of an attrocious game, you've had a very sheltered gaming experience. You lucky bugger!



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

MikeRox on 24 February 2015
POE said:
I believe almost every developer in the world (aside from Nintendo and a few others) are focusing too much on graphics these days. You cant blame them,that seems to be what sells a game.


You only need to look at the number of threads where visuals are prioritised over frame rates as a preference to see that graphics are king for a lot of people. Pity, I miss 60fps being the target. One thing I am glad Nintendo are sticking to.



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

POE on 24 February 2015
MikeRox said:
POE said:
I believe almost every developer in the world (aside from Nintendo and a few others) are focusing too much on graphics these days. You cant blame them,that seems to be what sells a game.


You only need to look at the number of threads where visuals are prioritised over frame rates as a preference to see that graphics are king for a lot of people. Pity, I miss 60fps being the target. One thing I am glad Nintendo are sticking to.


Exactly.



Jimbo1337 on 24 February 2015

What ever happened to a breakdown when reviewers scored games?

I am talking about, Presentation, Graphics, Sound, Gameplay, and Lasting Appeal.

Its almost like reviewers pull a random number out of their ass when they review a game.



Around the Network
mornelithe on 24 February 2015
Shadow1980 said:
Samus Aran said:

It's only normal that sequels score lower if they don't change up enough.

Why? If a game is good, then it should be scored on its own merits. The core mechanics could differ very little from the previous game, but if the core mechanics are good, then there's not much need to reinvent the wheel. If it ain't broke don't fix it. NSMBU changed little from NSMBWii aside from a new power-up (the squirrel suit) and a few new enemies, but it excelled in its level design and challenge, which I (and many others, it seems) consider a step up from NSMBWii. Mega Man 9 not only went back to the classic 8-bit MM style, but it took it even further by eliminating the slide ability and the charged Mega Buster. Despite the steps backward, it was still an amazing game, with great levels, great bosses, and solid challenge, making it perhaps the best classic MM game since MM3. Speaking of Mega Man, MM2 changed very little from MM1 aside from E-tanks and a couple of new support items, but its superior level and boss design make it perhaps the most well-regarded classic MM game.

And this conversation precisely illustrates the problem with all reviews, and metacritic.  Different people value different things, with their gaming experience.  What one reviewer finds amazing, another reviewer might see as 'old gameplay'.  Frankly, it's why reviews and metacritic need to die in a fire.  How can you possibly base any kind of aggregate ratings system on games, when the review process is so completely open ended, and up for interpretation depending upon what you enjoy as a gamer?  Seems illogical.



NavyNut on 24 February 2015
oniyide said:
NavyNut said:


Its more like reality at this time.

oh please, sales says otherwise


Sales doesn't mean the games are good.



mornelithe on 24 February 2015
NavyNut said:
oniyide said:

oh please, sales says otherwise


Sales doesn't mean the games are good.

Only person who's opinion matters, mine, says it's a good game.



NavyNut on 24 February 2015
mornelithe said:
NavyNut said:


Sales doesn't mean the games are good.

Only person who's opinion matters, mine, says it's a good game.


good = mediocre, alright, nothing special.



mornelithe on 24 February 2015
NavyNut said:
mornelithe said:

Only person who's opinion matters, mine, says it's a good game.


good = mediocre, alright, nothing special.

LoL, another person attempting to redefine words, hilarious.