Currently Online 
| Mnementh said: As mentioned before, I see that Death Stranding has some creativity to it. But the point also is: Sony never would've greenlighted it, without such a name like Kojima attached to it. And that is the point: in the past they greenlighted games like Loco Roco and Patapon. That is why this quote by Jim Ryan pisses me off as it is. Because I stand by it: Sony is the least creative they have been since entering the gaming console space. ... Microsoft of all companies is bolder than Sony. Sure, they have their safe bets with Forza and Halo. But then they have Flight simulator, which pushes technical innovation at something new than the usual "more polygons, more effects". It is also not the usual gameplay. And while Starfield and Redfall look like what you expect from the industry, MS still has games like Psychonaut, Grounded or 12 minutes. |
I've responded to most of what you wrote in other posts around this thread, but just wanted to respond to the stuff quoted above briefly.
I have no formed opinion of Jim Ryan as yet. He mouths some phrases that I like, but also sometimes sounds more like a typical corporate exec to me. We'll see. All I've got to say about that subject at this time.
Anyway, as to the idea that a game like Death Stranding wouldn't have been greenlit if not for the Kojima name...mmm, possible, but I don't know. I would just say that what I see is the way Hideo Kojima was treated by Konami versus the way he's treated by Sony and the contrast is night and day.
What I see from Sony right now is them publishing games (like Death Stranding) that introduce whole new genres, games (like Returnal) that bring previously obscure genres like roguelikes and innovative story structures into the AAA gaming scene, the first AAA video game ever to center a lesbian character, sequels that radically challenge assumptions about the original title in a franchise, etc. I'm just wanting that to continue whether it makes a lot of money or not. That's all I'm really getting at here.
