By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
firebush03 on 20 September 2024
Edit Thread
twintail said:
firebush03 said:

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. 

👍🏻