zarx said:
And why do you think they picked that game to rework? And 2005 was when the directive was probably given. As for excluding certain studios I thought I made that clear, what part don't you understand, as Japan is a seperate entity with different management so common sense would dictate that Naughty Dog wouldn't be including them in the statement. not just shooters neccessaraly if you read the quote it only refers to visual styling, the fact that the majority of western Sony developed IPs this gen do match that brief, and that covers all the Studios working on AAA retail releases (note that I am using the industry meaning of the term, A grade budget, A grade telent and A grade advertising not review score) in the west. The only franchises that survived from last generation were ether very successful or also matched the brief. Also who is talking about right now? It's clear we are talking about games that were in development from 2005-7. Obviusly the directive was given at the start of the generation later in the generation Sony switched stratergy but that doesn't make the statement untrue. And there were other studios that conhtinued franchises that already met the brief like killzone, God of War (fantasy elements but gritty violent and 'realistically' modeled main char) and also suxker punch. Also I don't get why you think that a Naughty dog dev would lie about this he said all studios were directed to make games closer to a style that was popular on Xbox (notice I don't say 360) Killzone was positioned as a 'Halo killer' what more do you want? Also i don't get why you think a 'big push' would = all games changing it's not all or nothing |
Why do I think they picked Warhawk for a remake? I can think of a couple of reasons but I am not certain because neither of us can have such certainty and yet you throw yourself to a precipice while holding a "To copy Microsoft" sign. Hope you have a swift and painless fall. Tell me, how do you know that the remake was made because of that Sony directive? Tell me where did you read the reasons for such rework? And you also have the date of the directive, sir you are awesome. I hope you don't trust your common sense in everything.
If you cannot provide evidence, your speculations aren't enough for what you are trying to imply here. Warhawk was a ship battle game, as Sci-fi game and it continued to be such and just only now allowing you to fight with your soldier out of the vehicles. If you cannot prove to me that in the original concept of the game instead of a soldier(s) you were supposed to play as armored kittens and dogs with AK47s then what we have right now in the 2007 game is a natural concept of what the game could have been, without any directive of making it more "gritty".
Where did I say that the ND dev was lying? Tell me, where? Quote me. My position here is that, since I cannot find any reason to say that the ND dev is lying, that Sony may had expressed that desired approach to games, but what we have right now are only 2 (two) studios (ND and Insomniac) out of a bigger number of studios that focused in a shooter and more realistic game, possibly from that approach Sony wanted. Warhawk doesn't count.
Killzone was called the halo Killer by whom? I personally call Flower the Halo-Killer because it offers a wider array of colors than the raibow fest in Halo but that doesn't mean Flower was influenced by Halo. The article talks about "influenced by the success of Xbox 360′s “gritty shooters,” so that cannot count Killzone in any way (regardless if in some way in your mind you consider it to be created to fight with Halo), and this creates another question:
I re-read the OP in an effort to mantain focus in here and what is said there is a little confusing. Fact is that the article talks about "influenced by the success of Xbox 360′s “gritty shooters,” and if you take in consideration the gritty shooters that were successful in the Xbox360, what are their release dates? When did the Crackdown, Halo 3 and Gears games released? Since when was Uncharted in development? So how do you compute that? It doesn't make any sense. Am I trying to imply that what the dev said is wrong. Not really. But something there is definitely wrong. My only explanation is that what was meant in the article is that Sony wanted an approach to those gritty shooters that Micro was developing and then became a success. My guess it that Sony wanted to have competition to what Micro was creating and that had a repercussion in only two studios. Then, the article and both of us are wrong by attributing that that Sony approach was because of the success of those games, since they had not even released. If you want to consider Halo's success, I bet you will, where is the "gritty" there in H1 and H2? The little blood pond after someone is killed?
I'll have to repeat in here it would seem that you are the one that does not understand, I do not understand the reason you have to exclude studios. My interest here is to paste in the OP guy's forehead the words: your title is wrong since not "ALL SONY studios" offered games in the vein of what was coming out for the box. Am I saying something false in here? Where am I saying something untrue with what I said? Point me out where is that lie in that previous sentence I just wrote. Is it that you want to imply that if they wouldn't be focusing into those franchises they would have ended up copying something from Xbox? I am sorry but it seems to me that you have too much creativity and belief that what happens in your imaginary parallel dimension is something we need to take for granted, but this is not even part of what we are discussing here.
I don't understand the last sentence in your comment in the way it is redacted.
Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1
