Just as I thought: Not Just Uncharted( which was oringinally fantasy game) but ALL SONY studios Sold out to XBOX styled games!

[AbbathTheGrim]

zarx said:

AbbathTheGrim said:

zarx said:

AbbathTheGrim said:

You say "ALL SONY studios Sold out to XBOX styled games". Japan Studio is amongst the highest level of gaming development within Sony and gaming as a whole. Sony is backing The Last Guardian up, you can see the game in the Kevin Butler ads, and this game is nothing like any of the games that Microsoft and even Nintendo are backing up and trying to shove to their followers.

Santa Monica is another Sony studio. You say "ALL SONY studios Sold out ot XBOX styled games" now tell me what did Santa Monica do to make a game in the vein of what is popular in the little box?

Did Sony cancel LBP because the little box did not have a successful platformer game and LBP could be too much of a risk? No, they backed that game up.

Yeah, and Halo was the first Sci-fi FPS shooter around, right? While Halo was a rainbow fest, Killzone was the gritty shooter that eventually led, after Killzone 2, to make the Halo Reach developers to look at Killzone to make the game with a more realistic experience. They said that themselves.

You say the "play.create.share." directive, where did Sony copied this from the little box? You say it with a negative connotation: "peared back" you say? As retreating from it? Those games released and had their promotion, what do you want from Sony, you want them to keep promoting the games even now. It is the natural way that promotion of a game goes, it releases and then the company focuses on the next thing. You don't know what Sony is or isn't doing right now about those titles, neither do I, but at least I know that Sony, in contrast to the little box, tell their first parties and second parties to do something.

Sony may had told Naughty Dog and Insomniac (don't know details about this one) to make shooters because of the success of Halo and Gears of What, but these little box games are neither the first third person shooters and first person shooters around. It was more of an influence of what the consumers wanted and make offerings in those already stablished gaming genres in the form of UC and Resistance. A direct influence of a game would be what Reach had with Killzone since Killzone doesn't sell even half of what Halo does. That was an artistic direction in which Halo was influenced instead of how Sony only saw what genres where selling the most and did something in those already stablished genres.

The fact is simple, two studios between several studios does not equal "ALL" in spite of any arguing you can do. Change the title of the thread because that is nothing but nonesense.

Now first off yes the thread title is an exageration but it is also not entiirely untrue.

I have alredy explained why Japan was most likely exempt.

Sony Santa Monica codeveloped Warhawk 

looks pretty ‘realistic’ games in terms of how it was modeled and rendered to me.

Little big planet was not in development under Sony when the directive was given out at the start of the generation, how is that hard for you to understand?

Killzone is Halo crossed hith medal of honor yes ince again copying a game that was sucessful on Xbox and one that was gritty and ‘realistic’ games in terms of how it was modeled and rendered.

that directive came much later and was spearhedded by ex MS guys, well ex lionhead to be exact, you could ague Sony was trying to steal the idea away from MS.

Yes it was influinced by what people wanted, that was being provided by MS more than Sony so Sony pushed to have more games of that type, simple as that. And all AAA SCE worldwide studios (excluding Japan as they are independantly run) from the start of the generation were instructed to make ‘realistic’ games in terms of how it was modeled and rendered games. And the fact is in the article from a quote from a Naughty Dog employee "not just at Naughty Dog but at all of Sony’s development companies at the time".

You mean Warhawk? The rework of the 1995 game and that was already in development in 2005?

I don't know what you are trying to do by excluding Studios. The problem here is that it was generalized that all of Sony's first party studios ended up doing gritty shooters which wasn't the case.

Even if Naughty Dog says that Sony pushed to make games more realistic and that was the case in that time, what happened? Why Insomniac and Naughty Dog were the only ones that turned from Jak and Ratchet to shooters? In the end all the other Studios did not followed the trend and released games that make Sony the most diverse first party developers or all gaming today. What do I want to say with this? What we have right now from Sony's first parties are games that weren't influenced by what was selling as hot cakes in the box.

Wait, are you saying that Killzone a PS2 game was influenced by the successful Xbox360 games? I ask because that is what we are talking about here. If you want to discuss the supposed influence of Halo in Killzone that is another discussion that has nothing to do with this, but even there, apart from being a Sci-fi FPS, there is nothing else there.

And why do you think they picked that game to rework? And 2005 was when the directive was probably given. As for excluding certain studios I thought I made that clear, what part don't you understand, as Japan is a seperate entity with different management so common sense would dictate that Naughty Dog wouldn't be including them in the statement.

not just shooters neccessaraly if you read the quote it only refers to visual styling, the fact that the majority of western Sony developed IPs this gen do match that brief, and that covers all the Studios working on AAA retail releases (note that I am using the industry meaning of the term, A grade budget, A grade telent and A grade advertising not review score) in the west. The only franchises that survived from last generation were ether very successful or also matched the brief. Also who is talking about right now? It's clear we are talking about games that were in development from 2005-7.

Obviusly the directive was given at the start of the generation later in the generation Sony switched stratergy but that doesn't make the statement untrue. And there were other studios that conhtinued franchises that already met the brief like killzone, God of War (fantasy elements but gritty violent and 'realistically' modeled main char) and also suxker punch. Also I don't get why you think that a Naughty dog dev would lie about this he said all studios were directed to make games closer to a style that was popular on Xbox (notice I don't say 360) Killzone was positioned as a 'Halo killer' what more do you want?

Also i don't get why you think a 'big push' would = all games changing it's not all or nothing

Why do I think they picked Warhawk for a remake? I can think of a couple of reasons but I am not certain because neither of us can have such certainty and yet you throw yourself to a precipice while holding a "To copy Microsoft" sign. Hope you have a swift and painless fall. Tell me, how do you know that the remake was made because of that Sony directive? Tell me where did you read the reasons for such rework? And you also have the date of the directive, sir you are awesome. I hope you don't trust your common sense in everything.

If you cannot provide evidence, your speculations aren't enough for what you are trying to imply here. Warhawk was a ship battle game, as Sci-fi game and it continued to be such and just only now allowing you to fight with your soldier out of the vehicles. If you cannot prove to me that in the original concept of the game instead of a soldier(s) you were supposed to play as armored kittens and dogs with AK47s then what we have right now in the 2007 game is a natural concept of what the game could have been, without any directive of making it more "gritty".

Where did I say that the ND dev was lying? Tell me, where? Quote me. My position here is that, since I cannot find any reason to say that the ND dev is lying, that Sony may had expressed that desired approach to games, but what we have right now are only 2 (two) studios (ND and Insomniac) out of a bigger number of studios that focused in a shooter and more realistic game, possibly from that approach Sony wanted. Warhawk doesn't count.

Killzone was called the halo Killer by whom? I personally call Flower the Halo-Killer because it offers a wider array of colors than the raibow fest in Halo but that doesn't mean Flower was influenced by Halo. The article talks about "influenced by the success of Xbox 360′s “gritty shooters,” so that cannot count Killzone in any way (regardless if in some way in your mind you consider it to be created to fight with Halo), and this creates another question:

I re-read the OP in an effort to mantain focus in here and what is said there is a little confusing. Fact is that the article talks about "influenced by the success of Xbox 360′s “gritty shooters,” and if you take in consideration the gritty shooters that were successful in the Xbox360, what are their release dates? When did the Crackdown, Halo 3 and Gears games released? Since when was Uncharted in development? So how do you compute that? It doesn't make any sense. Am I trying to imply that what the dev said is wrong. Not really. But something there is definitely wrong. My only explanation is that what was meant in the article is that Sony wanted an approach to those gritty shooters that Micro was developing and then became a success. My guess it that Sony wanted to have competition to what Micro was creating and that had a repercussion in only two studios. Then, the article and both of us are wrong by attributing that that Sony approach was because of the success of those games, since they had not even released. If you want to consider Halo's success, I bet you will, where is the "gritty" there in H1 and H2? The little blood pond after someone is killed?

I'll have to repeat in here it would seem that you are the one that does not understand, I do not understand the reason you have to exclude studios. My interest here is to paste in the OP guy's forehead the words: your title is wrong since not "ALL SONY studios" offered games in the vein of what was coming out for the box. Am I saying something false in here? Where am I saying something untrue with what I said? Point me out where is that lie in that previous sentence I just wrote. Is it that you want to imply that if they wouldn't be focusing into those franchises they would have ended up copying something from Xbox? I am sorry but it seems to me that you have too much creativity and belief that what happens in your imaginary parallel dimension is something we need to take for granted, but this is not even part of what we are discussing here. 

I don't understand the last sentence in your comment in the way it is redacted.