By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
firebush03 on 16 September 2024
Edit Thread

twintail said:
firebush03 said:

(1) Playing it safe doesn’t mean making sequels. As you can see by my pfp, I love seeing IP evolve and grow over time. What I mean by “playing it safe” is that GoW v GOWR is nothing like Zelda OoT v Zelda WW nor SM64 v SMSunshine nor MKWii v MK8 (which, funnily enough, none of these sequels are anything revolutionary for their relative series. Yet God of War can’t even compare?). For one, art style does go a very far way in distinguishing games (there’s a reason why ppl are so reluctant to call TotK greater than BotW, for instance). Asset-reusing sequels on a new system for the three biggest Sony franchises is the safest possible route they could have chosen. For two, the gameplay loop shouldn’t simply be a rinse-and-repeat. It might be fine in the occasional instances, but not with every single game. (GOWR+SM2+HFB all rinse-and-repeat the core gameplay loops with small refinements to the overall experience.)

(2) Additionally, to “play it safe” also refers toward their reluctance to utilize pre-existing IP, and not just creating new IP. It’s a graveyard when discussing all the franchises Sony has chosen to abandon, and the reason for their abandonment has almost entirely to do with the fact that Sony doesn’t believe they have the potential to sell tens of millions of copies, thereby failing to churn out a net profit. Sony has chosen the expensive route, and thus has made producing such games an extreme risk with inevitable losses. They need to fix this, otherwise I will continue to complain that Sony has lost its charm which it once had in all prior generations.

(3) The fact that simply producing games which aren’t guaranteed money-makers is categorized as a “risk” says all that I’m trying to say. (Again, keep in mind I’m talking relative to previous generations of PlayStation. Relative to all prior generations, Sony has been far less willing to expand their horizons into risky territory on PS5.) And mind you, these “risks” are all shoty attempts made by Sony so as to “shoot for the moon” and create the next Fortnite, not to create a project of passion and love.

1. I'm not really sure what point you're making by comparing GoW>GoWR to Nintendo games from yesteryear. A more apt comparison would be GoWA>GoW in that regard. Why even bring up the jump from OoT>WW or MKW>MK8 when both of these had a full game release between them? Should we not then be comparing GoWA>GoWR, then? 

And other IP asset reuse too, unless I'm misunderstanding your point. ToTK from last year re-uses assets.

I think this argument is flimsy because you really have to go out of your way to make an argument between sequels being different or not from different IP over various decades of the IP's existence. The core gameplay loop of 2D Mario has not drastically changed in decades and I don't see anyone complaining about more 2D Mario. 

2. This doesn't make any sense. Whether Sony uses an existing IP or not, nothing is going to change in terms of the risk involved in the games they make. Just because another company wants to continually reuse their IP, doesn't mean everything needs to last forever. ND looked into the possibility of making a new Jak, but decided against it. Bend were contemplating a Day's Gone sequel, and decided against it (just 2 examples I can think of). IPs are not being abandoned purely because Sony thinks there's no money to be made. They're being abandoned because the creative teams have no interest in continuing them. Insomniac keeps churning out Ratchet games while also simultaneously to end the Resistance franchise (ending of R3 pretty much definitively closes the IP) .

Just because you might want more Ape Escape, or Wild Arms (or whatever it is you enjoyed from them) doesn't change that you need a dev team passionate enough to make those happen. Sony has since the PS3 gen at least, allowed their devs to make smaller budget games which they then sell for cheaper. That's exactly what Astrobot and Hell Divers 2 are examples of.

3. I feel acting like these projects lack passion or love is both incredibly baseless and pretty insulting to the teams working on these games. Firewalk wanted to create a hero shooter, Arrowhead's engagement with their audience shows how much they enjoyed making HD2, ND wanted to really push narrative in live service titles with TloU online, and Haven were the ones who proposed fairgames and actually were the ones who chose the project after Sony agreed to all 3 of their pitches. Then you have the teams behind MLB and Gran Turismo. No passion or love for these games? Give me a break. 

1. I mentioned OoT > WW and MKWii > MK8 b/c they were the only sequel examples I could think up at the time of writing. You could equally say MM > WW and MKWii > MK7. But the purpose in even mentioning these is to state how installments in a series should ideally (1) introduce a unique art style and (2) introduce gameplay elements which vastly shift the design. Asset-reusing sequels are great for getting that “one last hurrah!” like with SMG and Zelda BotW, but not for pushing the series forward. To choose the route of an asset reusing sequel as opposed to something far more original is to play it very safe: This is what I’m arguing. (I’m sorry if this reads like a broken record compared to my previous comment…though I feel maybe I needed to clarify some of my points which obviously didn’t hit with you.)

2. That’s a fair point. Sony just needs to find some way to allow for old IP to remain fresh and relevant. I know I’m going back to Nintendo a lot here…but this is where I’m most informed. You’ll rarely see a Nintendo franchise go dormant and then stay dormant forever. (Note: *rarely* implies existence of franchises which go to die and never return, such as Mother.) Nintendo is always resurrecting old series: Emio, Metroid Dread, Metroid Prime, F-Zero (if you want to call the F2P F-Zero service game as a “resurrection”) Donkey Kong Country, Kid Icarus, Punch Out, Star Fox, etc etc.

Though I do pose the question: Is it possible that Sony & their studios are so reluctant to revive dormant IP b/c they understand the heavy risk involved if they fail? So, while maybe Sony isn’t intentionally acting in a “safe” regard, it certainly is understandable to interpret an unwillingness to rebirth old IP as fear of failure/lost profits.

3. Lol you literally just responded to the last half line of that entire paragraph. You got me there…now please address everything else I wrote. (Also, maybe a better way to have written that last half sentence would’ve been to say that a lot of these “risk” games feel as though some higher-ups at Sony were looking to appease some investors, so they ordered [X] game to be produced.)