Is Sonys image starting to stain in your view? (Poll)

[twintail]

firebush03 said:

twintail said:

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.)

1. While I understand the point you're making here, I still don't think it means much in the grand scheme of things. You can't possibly complain that GoW>GoWR or HZD>HFW are examples of Sony not taking risks when the first game in each of these were massive risks in the first place. GoW2018 and HZD are fundamentally nothing like anything the studios had done before and there was absolutely zero chance that their sequels were going to change their art style or introduce gameplay elements that vastly shift the gameplay loop. This criticism is just flimsy, I'm sorry.

2. Maybe, it's always possible. But that would just be conjecture at this point. Sony studios have failed even by introducing new IPs. So, I don't personally believe that studios and creators are ignoring older IP due to fear of failure, as I think it's just more likely they want to do new and different things. Insomniac ended Resistance on their own terms. Sony Bend did the same with Syphon Filter back on PSP (though you could argue there's niggle room to explore the IP again). ND appear to still be continuing with Uncharted (with rumours that a new one is underway). Santa Monica bet big on going back to GoW. Studios are making the games they want to make. I don't think it's anything more than that.

3. I didn't respond because I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make in the first place. Risk in something like the gaming industry, would be creating something that can potentially fail, but you appear to be defining risk as willingness to do something original based entirely on either art style or gameplay loop. Or perhaps, now, you're defining it as not making games that please investors.

I'm ultimately unsure what point you're trying to make here, because if the risk is the former, then what exactly is the risk? Alienating your userbase?

And if it's the latter, then my point that creating something which isn't a financial guarantee would be correct. 

I mean, I could level this criticism at virtually any publisher.