sasquatchmontana said:
Guerilla Amsterdam has 1 team with multiple concepts in flux as any studio would. They make 1 game every 3 years, thats one studio. They start making 2 games every 3 years, they're a 2 game studio. Development for KZ: SF began in early 2011, it's in the link I showed you. That same link is Geurillas announcing - a few months before KZ:DF launched - they were working on a new IP, they didn't announce this in 2009. No output of a studio has nothing to do with how many teams they have. Their second teamhad been working on the same IP for years so they obviously could not have had any better output. And games aren't announced right when they begin development, it just doesn't make sense to do so.
KZ3 scored less than KZ2 and didn't sell appreciably better. If it continued that way, somethings gotta change. It did continue with Shadow Fall, something changed. What you're saying has no relation to metacritic, no ne can forsee the scores their game would get in metacritic. There could have been no signs of anything till Shadow Fall actually came out.
Not really, i said Halo 4 sold like Halo and kept in line with the meta depreciation of Reach despite changing studios. It's not like Halo 4 hasn't taken its knocks. Uncharted 3 neither sold like Halo 4 and had a steeper depreciation, no change of studio either. Bear in mind GT5 wasn't performing on par with GT4 (not even close) a year before in sales or scores, Uncharted got accidentaly bumped up to the great Playstation hope and was stumbling. It's no surprise Sony might want to branch out. Lol WTFare you saying, Halo Reach - 4 and Uncharted 2 - 3 had the same amount of depreciation (4 points on metacritic) even though Halo Reach was already much lower than Uncharted 2 (even Uncharted 3). And why the fuck does Uncharted need to sell like Halo to continue? It was never selling like Halo to begin with. GT sells like Halo, Sony doesn't need two franchises as big as Halo.
It did, but the first wasn't particularly remarkable was it. YYes it was, it took the gaming world by storm. It was one of the most innovative shooters of its time. Thing is, Uncharted evolved rapidly cause Naughty Dog wanted to improve further over what they already acieve, and not be lazy and make the series stagnant like Bungie and now 343i.
Because they've said its the last one? Probably meta 87% (same drop off as Arkham Knight). Best case scenario it sells as much as the last 2. Everything else is downhill from there. Ok, this is another one of those statements where you're taking numbers out of your ass.
The original was no sweetheart, 2 was much improved, 3 was problematic and SF was meh. That right there is 10 years of Killzone, that is a lot of time and effort for a franchise that did maybe around 10-11 million on consoles. Ask Sony if they could have another franchise that does 25 million in 7 years or...they could have another Killzone...its a simple choice. Ensured mediocrity or possible greatness. 3 was great, not realy "problematic". And you know, if Sony had this mentality, none f their niche games would have existed and neither would GT and God Of War. I'm glad Sony doesn't have this kind of mentality, I don't want them to be MS.
Eh, i'm just reiterating what Forzas community manager has said. I'm well aware F2 & 3 were bundled so the figures are inflated, it's main competitor Gran Turimo did no less, so did Uncharted. GT sold well even wiithout bundling, Forza did not. And the community manager never went into depth about how much each title sold, you're just pulling out bullshit numbers that you made up. All we have is VGC sales data and it clearly indicates a decline for the franchise since FM3.
People are smart. They know that Journey was a spin-off, Anniversary was a remake and Heroes was an XBLA game. Fable III was their Killzone 3, likely Fable Legends will be their KZ:SF. Lionheads been concepting a new IP for a year now. They can see it coming too. Unlike you I have no problems acknowleging this. Except Killzone 3 had a higher metascore than Fable III.
Not really. all I'm saying is Uncharted is being bumped off because Sonys financial issues put the kibosh on Naughty Dog becoming 2 teams, their plans in 2011 were to make Uncharted and TloU alternately. These plans fell apart with Uncharted 3's qualititive issues and TLoU 6 month delay into 2013...which may well have caused Uncharted 4's 6 month delay as well. So its one or the other, TLoU resonated better in the USA in a June launch then any Uncharted has during the holidays, it had a higher meta score then Uncharted 3, and has suffered less IP fatigue. In the long term, its more advantageous to Sony to ditch it. Uh...what qualititative issues did Uncharted 3 have? It scored a damn amazing 92 on metacritic, sold over 6 million units and made a huge fanbase worldwide. USA matters little, its wordlwide sales that matter and Uncharted is sells extremely well, though I can see that TLOU has sold better, if they really wanted to ditch it Uncharted 4 would not have been made.
Yep and for a mainline sequel, being outsourced is hardly having much faith. Yes and that's what I'm saying, it started out better than Uncharted but LBP hasn't grown or continued to have a large fanbase. That's why first game in an IP doesn't matter all that much, its how you nuture and grow the IP which matters.
|
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
