ThisGuyFooks said:
Naughty Dog aproached the situation with the right mindset imo. It would be silly for a company to just abandon a successful IP just to avoid sequelitis. Every Uncharted game was more successful than the previous game, they were all well received by the critics, and all of them had a story to tell. Naughty Dog felt that there was nothing more to do in the Nathan Drake saga so they just backed away from the franchise with Uncharted 4. Imagine if they were secluded with a single franchise, TLOU wouldn't exist. Im all for sequels as long as they make sense. This is all about SP games tho. If we are talking about Games as a Service, it makes more sense for a studio to revolve around a single franchise. |
We may think it's silly but ND moved away from Crash and Jax, SP moved from Infamous, GG moved from KZ... Sony studios maybe due to the narrative choice for the games (and in here you can see the games without history are the ones Sony have been doing sequels for longer periods like GT and MLB) they will tell the story they want and when they are done they will go for a new IP. UC4 was a surprise because not only did ND said they were done with it, they also released a game that was an even bigger success, but from all we know they decided they had more to tell on the game and made not only UC4 but also the expansion.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."