Cross-play on PlayStation 4 is now available for all developers to use in their games

[DonFerrari]

Cerebralbore101 said:

@LudicrousSpeed I'll get to your post on monday. 

Azzanation said:

Comparing Days Gone, made by one of Sonys AAA devs team with a massive AAA budget behind it, to a game that was made by a small indy team with alot less budget behind it is not a fair comparison. Its like comparing Mario Odessey to Knack or Luckys Tails. Also 71 to 66 to me is only 5 points off and since most of the poor reviews with SOD2 was its bugs, now the game has been iron out over the years, those scores look alot closer. Look at the Zombie market, majority of Zombie games this gen havnt scored well. But credit to where credit is due, SOD2 offers both SP and MP modes and the game has a ton of replay value.

I agree Indy games can outpreform AAA games in many cases, Ori is one of my favourite games this gen. Except when you look at those Indy games, they follow a similar trend like Metroid Vania or Minecraft styled games that dont require tons of money or people to make. SOD2 is not a Metroid Vania or Minecraft game, its an open world Sandbox game that does require a big budget and team to get right. From my personal experience i will tell you SOD2 is a superior game to SOD1 even though the review scores are light years different. If you are going to play a SOD game many will say play SOD2.

SOTs lacked content at launch like most big ambishest titles this gen. Thats how service games work. If you base your review on someone else's than you are only assuming its bad because you might actually like it. Iv played games that didnt score well and actually enjoyed them. Everyone has different tastes. As they say, One mans trash is another mans treasure.

Adding MP in games is not easy. If you tack it on than expect critics to criticize the games. Metroid Prime 2 copped criticism for its tacked on MP and lost overall points in its total review score. So if companies tack it on with little to no effort they lose points, so Sony removing it,  avoids that extra critisizm. Thats playing it safe. MP requires alot of balancing, modes and they need to be good just like the SP mode. 

Uh, Nintendo rebuilt its brand during the WiiU era and came out firing with the Switch, MS rebuilt there brand during the X1 era and expect something similar with the Scarlett. These things can take years to plan out not at launch day on a console release. Thank the WiiUs failures for the Switches success.

I'd say those 5 points are a large gap considering that most reviewers don't want to issue a score below 70/100. Every point below 70/100 is like two points. But I guess I said that already. 

Sure SoD2 could be a good game now. Could be worse. But on release it was bad. 

Eh, just because the rest of the Zombie market is bad is no excuse. A bad game is a bad game regardless of how the rest of the genre is bad. 

its an open world Sandbox game that does require a big budget and team to get right.

That just backs up my original point that MS doesn't care enough, because their games are meant to be filler for Gamepass, and then put on as many platforms as they can get them on. If they cared why didn't they put a bigger team or more money into it? 

We agree that SoT lacked content at launch, and that SOD2 was extremely buggy at launch. Then why didn't MS give those games more time to reach a completed state at launch? Real question here. Not wholly hypothetical. Please answer. 


SOTs lacked content at launch like most big ambishest titles this gen. Thats how service games work. If you base your review on someone else's than you are only assuming its bad because you might actually like it. Iv played games that didnt score well and actually enjoyed them. Everyone has different tastes. As they say, One mans trash is another mans treasure.

I see a common theme here of trying to say that its okay for MS to do these bad things with their games because other games do them. That just doesn't work. Just because some bad players in the industry are doing things a certain way, is no excuse for another company to copy them. 

Should I just personally verify everything for myself? Do I need to whip out a telescope and do some math before I take Nasa's word for it on the orbital path of Jupiter? If I read a review by somebody that shares similar tastes to my own, then that is good enough for me. And if there's an overall consensus of reviewers saying that game X is bad, then that is good enough for me. 

Adding MP in games is not easy. If you tack it on than expect critics to criticize the games. Metroid Prime 2 copped criticism for its tacked on MP and lost overall points in its total review score. So if companies tack it on with little to no effort they lose points, so Sony removing it,  avoids that extra critisizm. Thats playing it safe. MP requires alot of balancing, modes and they need to be good just like the SP mode. 

By that logic avoiding extra single player levels in games is playing it safe. And since extra single player levels require vastly more work than extra multiplayer levels it is not Sony that is playing it safe overall. Single player games require balancing too. So that point is moot. Single player has way more levels than multiplayer has modes. Another moot point. 

 

You are forgetting another thing that makes the gap even bigger on the review.

The bar for Indie or AA games is much lower than AAA games. Or would you say Resogun (84 score) is that much better game than Days Gone?