By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
S.T.A.G.E. on 01 August 2015
Edit Thread
LudicrousSpeed said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
EspadaGrim said:
I guess that people seem to forget that almost all of Sony's big studios were bought Naughty Dog, Guerrilla, Sucker Punch and Media Molecule.


True...Sony bought a lot of companies and invested in them creating their own development style. Notice how sonys developers make games in different genres but follow a similar art style? Also naughty dog never made the games they made with sony before they were with sony. Sony changed their direction and restructured naughty dog. Now they've split naughty dog into two teams.

"similar art style"? What does that even mean?

Killzone games do not follow the same art style as Uncharted.

LittleBigPlanet games do not have the same art style as Infamous.

God of War and Last of Us have very different art styles.

Most of Sony's "artsy" games aren't even made by Sony but are just funded by Sony. Which is fine.

Just put it bluntly and honestly. Sony bought a lot of their studios after they proved themselves to be talented. Nothing wrong with that. They also bought some that didn't pan out, just like MS.


Then sony should have the failure rate in development  of microsoft. They are not the same. Microsoft has no sony Santamonica even a sony Japan that they build from scratch but sony has their own turn ten in polyphony. Sony has always had an idea of what they want to make. Getting talented teams to work with is obvious but you have the edge when you have a goal for yourself and the talent internally tomake it happen. Today microsoft has more developers than sony and still petitions third party to make their first party ips more than sony. This gives sony the edge and sony will  continue to out develop microsoft until microsoft learns how to develop key aaa first party from the inside. If Nintendo could get their act straight with third party and build relationship with third party like Sony or microsoft it would be evident that Microsoft is the weakest link because if you add up development by all parties involved the longevity is strong in the ones who have all parties working  on key content, rather than  just everyone else.

 

As for sonys development  style. They tend to focus on making games borderline cinematic action games, with tight camera movement and have a strong sense of western storytelling. They are big on immersion and wanting a game to be an experience and not just a typical game. Sometimes they go too far like ready at dawn whom has been working for them for a while now. That game is definitely sonys style in the order but it went way off the handle with the cinematics. As I said sony has various genres  but they bring it all together with cinematic direction.