S.T.A.G.E. said:
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.
|
Oh, MS's development failure rate is worse than Sonys? Id love to see the criteria and tallies for that conclusion. Not saying youre wrong, but please, lets check the math. It should be a fun read.
As for their own version of SCE Japan or SSM, I dont think Japan Studios has really been relevant in almost 10 years, theyve mostly assisted with other devs games or developed mostly stinkers. If Halo 5 turns out to be any good then you could put 343 up there with them both in terms of quality and more importantly success. Japan Studios games are casual/handheld/shovelware type stuff with the occasional niche quality title thrown in. SSM is basically a GoW factory. MS actually has a GoW factory of their own. The Coalition. They both even had new IPs canceled to get that GoW churning out again.
LOL, cinematic experiences has been a trend in the industry ever since technology allowed it. Thats not some Sony style. Its what all devs try to do in order to sell games and tell stories.
In closing my last reply to you here on this matter, id welcome you to look over who actually develops a lot of PS4 and PS3 exclusives. Apparently youll be very surprised to see they contract out loads of games.
