By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Squilliam on 14 February 2012
Edit Thread
theprof00 said:
Squilliam said:

Actually the reality is this:

Sony: Make the game you want to make, with the features you want to include. (This is why PSN has less features for developers but is more flexible)

Microsoft: Reviewers and hardcore gamers start noticing paterns in game releases, makes games feel a little stale on release. However many of the required features are beneficial to longevity and user satisfaction such as consistancy and having basics like coop. Whilst the graphics and innovation may suffer, the titles push more of the right buttons for mainstream users. Also games start to look a little like candied hardcore games with bright lights and pastel colours, Halo/Fable/Forza especially, but the mainstream likes shiny things.

I noticed something the other day about Fable. I was talking to some gurl gamers I know and they were all like, "Fable is sucha game for girls". It's shiny, it's easy, and it's really pretty. And I was like, man I didn't even think of that. No wonder girls play WoW too. 

Sony must lose a lot of demographic without those shiny pretty graphics. Sony is probably the biggest offender in terms of brown and bloom. Thinking about it again, Halo is super colorful as well, to the point of awkwardness almost. Hordes are sometimes a rainbow cascade of warfare. etc etc Sony really does not to look at being pretty again. They need better artistic direction.

Oh man...yaknow, I love brown and bloom and could never understand why people used it as a negative, but I totally see now why that is. Games on PS are just too gritty. It's almost like their games are stuck in the 90s.......hmmmm

I remember trying to get a friend to play Killzone 2 and he gave up after a few minutes, why? Because it was too dark. Bright lighting is great for people who need glasses or are more casual whereas darker titles are better for core/hardcore gamers who want that 'moody and deep' experience.

The perenial Halo vs Killzone argument is pretty clear as well. In gameplay for instance in Halo you can stick with the standard assault rifle the whole game whereas in Killzone 2/3 it is constantly switching engagement settings and making you switch guns. So if you've got a small TV or poor eyesight you'll struggle to see what is going on whereas even though Halo has big maps you can cover the ground easily and also see where the enemies are edit: and what kind of threat they are.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Sony's best selling titles are lighter in palate and brighter overall than their duskier titles. Also the story doesn't get in the way of the gameplay and user engagement, I.E. Why would I want to play Resistance 3 when almost everyone left alive from Resistance 1 died in Resistance 2?



Tease.