By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Retro Studios and Naughty Dogs

S.T.A.G.E. said:


Exactly. Nintendo takes the low risk high reward route with their games to keep profits high. Keep the development low in cost and keep things profitable and not risk new IP's. Focus less on pushing power and obviously all you would have to work on is pretty much gameplay. Nintendo has a commercially formulaic way of doing things.

If western companies would stop focusing on creating lush graphics intensive worlds games like crash would be created ten fold. Personally I think crash had the more interesting power of spinning than Sonic who ran and mario who jumped. Blowing people up with TNT was always fun. Naughty Dog did a lot of trend setting things, Nintendo fans will always discount anything just because it seems simple when it really wasn't, it was painstakingly made. If Naughty Dog games were all on a three year to four year cycle, Nintendo gamers would not be able to question to depth of ND games. 

Imagine they took the Last of Us a game created practically in Uncharteds image and created a sci-fi survival/triller title with it. Changing up the gameplay to survival and thinking about how much ammo, and things you have in your inventory opposed to going in guns blazing in a post apocalyptic world. They still complain.


LOL totally not biased. Kinda expected something like this from you. You seriously think a 3rd Mario is a low budget game? Laughable. You act like  Nintendo Games are just made out of gameplay. And nothing else.  Mario galaxy looked superb for a Wii Game rivaling 360 games back then.

BTW. Creating the best selling Metroid (Metroid Primme) with elements not usual for the franchise and also on the lowest sold console from Nintendo besides Virtual Boy isn't really easy. And saying crash bandicoot spinning is superior then Super Mario 64 3D free jumping and running and combining the different moves in actual 3D levels is.....not gonna say anthing here. Or I will get banned. Which trends did Naughty Dog create?


Wait...you're telling me Mario games match AAA budgets of today? Please dude those games are pure profit and you can see it in the way they were made. Those games are made with lower budgets compared to todays major AAA titles which tend to have two year cycles.  Miyamoto's major method of going things is much like graphic design in order to make something popular use the k.i.s.s. rule or "keep it simple stupid". I learned about this rule when working on graphics and everytime I try to go all out I have to come back down to earth and remember what I am creating is for everyone. He recycles old ideas and puts characters faces on them. Game development today is far more complex, but the problem is that most things are created in a much more cosmetic manner than they should. Mario games are simple, so they take less time for cosmetic design and more on the structure of the world, thus leaving you believing you're in a structured game rather than an actual world. Games today have become so labor intensive that they try to deliver the world and then introduce you to the game. A Super Mario game doesnt have as complex of controls as Uncharted, but yet Uncharted is downplayed because its a shooter, but then again, its also a stealth, brawler, platformer, semi-exploration game. The last of us is about to take that to the next level.  Games are about being played, but today its about how they feel and giving a reason to fight. It adds to the diversity.

First of all it's totally obvious that a Wii Game won't cost as much as a AAA HD title.

Second of all, most money  that goes into an AAA title is marketing and hyping. 

Third of all a 3D Mario is obviously not for everyone. 2D Mario is for everyone but that's the way since the first one. Simple conecpt doesn't mean game quality sucks. 

4th Point: Hyping Uncharted to the moon I guess. You act like Uncharted combat is deep or anything. Uncharted isn't the first game with these mechanics. I can guarantuee you that the controls of a 3D Mario game is more difficult to master then the controls from a 3rd Person Game. Quick Time event's arent the pinnicle of game controls.

I love how you always try to downplay the quality of Nintendo Games cause they aren't graphics based/story based. You know why they reuse the same control scheme since the N64? It shows how good it was back then. So many games borrowed the gameplay mechanics introduced in Mario 64/ OoT, even today.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:
Ultimately, risks taken =/= quality. What matters is their ability to create great games, and in that respect Retro and ND are pretty much tied at the highest level of the industry. It's them and Tokyo EAD, everyone else is in a different ballpark.


i agree, I never said otherwise, I was simply responding to people spouting nonsense. 



Th3PANO said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


Exactly. Nintendo takes the low risk high reward route with their games to keep profits high. Keep the development low in cost and keep things profitable and not risk new IP's. Focus less on pushing power and obviously all you would have to work on is pretty much gameplay. Nintendo has a commercially formulaic way of doing things.

If western companies would stop focusing on creating lush graphics intensive worlds games like crash would be created ten fold. Personally I think crash had the more interesting power of spinning than Sonic who ran and mario who jumped. Blowing people up with TNT was always fun. Naughty Dog did a lot of trend setting things, Nintendo fans will always discount anything just because it seems simple when it really wasn't, it was painstakingly made. If Naughty Dog games were all on a three year to four year cycle, Nintendo gamers would not be able to question to depth of ND games. 

Imagine they took the Last of Us a game created practically in Uncharteds image and created a sci-fi survival/triller title with it. Changing up the gameplay to survival and thinking about how much ammo, and things you have in your inventory opposed to going in guns blazing in a post apocalyptic world. They still complain.


LOL totally not biased. Kinda expected something like this from you. You seriously think a 3rd Mario is a low budget game? Laughable. You act like  Nintendo Games are just made out of gameplay. And nothing else.  Mario galaxy looked superb for a Wii Game rivaling 360 games back then.

BTW. Creating the best selling Metroid (Metroid Primme) with elements not usual for the franchise and also on the lowest sold console from Nintendo besides Virtual Boy isn't really easy. And saying crash bandicoot spinning is superior then Super Mario 64 3D free jumping and running and combining the different moves in actual 3D levels is.....not gonna say anthing here. Or I will get banned. Which trends did Naughty Dog create?


Wait...you're telling me Mario games match AAA budgets of today? Please dude those games are pure profit and you can see it in the way they were made. Those games are made with lower budgets compared to todays major AAA titles which tend to have two year cycles.  Miyamoto's major method of going things is much like graphic design in order to make something popular use the k.i.s.s. rule or "keep it simple stupid". I learned about this rule when working on graphics and everytime I try to go all out I have to come back down to earth and remember what I am creating is for everyone. He recycles old ideas and puts characters faces on them. Game development today is far more complex, but the problem is that most things are created in a much more cosmetic manner than they should. Mario games are simple, so they take less time for cosmetic design and more on the structure of the world, thus leaving you believing you're in a structured game rather than an actual world. Games today have become so labor intensive that they try to deliver the world and then introduce you to the game. A Super Mario game doesnt have as complex of controls as Uncharted, but yet Uncharted is downplayed because its a shooter, but then again, its also a stealth, brawler, platformer, semi-exploration game. The last of us is about to take that to the next level.  Games are about being played, but today its about how they feel and giving a reason to fight. It adds to the diversity.

First of all it's totally obvious that a Wii Game won't cost as much as a AAA HD title.

Second of all, most money  that goes into an AAA title is marketing and hyping. 

Third of all a 3D Mario is obviously not for everyone. 2D Mario is for everyone but that's the way since the first one. Simple conecpt doesn't mean game quality sucks. 

4th Point: Hyping Uncharted to the moon I guess. You act like Uncharted combat is deep or anything. Uncharted isn't the first game with these mechanics. I can guarantuee you that the controls of a 3D Mario game is more difficult to master then the controls from a 3rd Person Game. Quick Time event's arent the pinnicle of game controls.

I love how you always try to downplay the quality of Nintendo Games cause they aren't graphics based/story based. You know why they reuse the same control scheme since the N64? It shows how good it was back then. So many games borrowed the gameplay mechanics introduced in Mario 64/ OoT, even today.


Get a casual to play Uncharted and any 3D Super Mario game. I already know abot the charm of Mario in its simplicity yet the that does not hold down difficulty at moments. Yes, Uncharted is more complex, but to a person who has been gaming for years its not a hard game to master. I've seen casuals freak out trying to figure out where to do only to be told my someone that you need to get cover to regain health and survive in Uncharted. I've seen them try to run and gun and get blown up easily by a normal cpu. I've also heard them ask why the cpu never stays still. In the evolution of games the ai gets smarter. This isnt uncommon, but for most peopl who game avidly Uncharted is a fun yet quick story they can go through. The higher difficulties are rather challenging, especially in Uncharted 2.

I never downplayed the quality of Nintendo games, but I understand that Nintendo games are the building blocks for which we game today even if western games have lost of their way. Theres plenty of Nintendo games on my radar that I hope Nintendo reveals but I am just putting things into perspective and that is games are getting more complex around what Nintendo built.

The point is at some point art immitates life. Technology has allowed this to happen.



As 1st party studios go, the only studio comparable to ND level of greatness is Nintendo's EAD.



Daisuke72 said:
TGM said:
All im going to say is that everything Retro touches turns to gold. Naughty Dog not so much.

Judging by how most of you post, and your track records I wouldn't doubt if you guys have ever played the Uncharted series and simply posted to support your favorite IP, which is ridiculous when you consider this isn't even a comparison thread. Also, I find it very hard to believe someone was able to beat the first Uncharted, but couldn't finish 2 because it was less interesting? I'm sorry but I find that very hard to believe, 2 was simply the better game in every way. 

 

Also the Metacritic for Metroid Prime 1: 97, Metroid Prime 2: 91, Metroid Prime 3: 90. Average = 92.6. Sales: Less than 9M.

 

Uncharted 1:89, Uncharted 2:96, Uncharted 3: 92. Average:  92.3. Sales: More than 15M.  

 

They're both critically acclaimed studios. The fact you guys are arguing which one is better is silly to me when most of you are bias towards the IP on your prefferred console. No matter how good Metroid or Uncharted is you guys will simply downplay it if it's not on your console, I simply can't believe anyone could call these two studios overrated. It's annoying that EVERY thread here ends up in a console wars bias debate. 

He didnt mention consoles at all. It seems like you are the one bringing it up. And metacritic doesnt mean a thing as well as game sales.

I prefer Metroid because i find Uncharted a boring hallway. Belive it or not I did beat Uncharted 1 and 2 was just more of the same so i didnt bother with it after 2 hours. There is no exploration even though its supposed to be an adventure game. It wasnt fun and the combat was really frustrating and repetative.

The only thing Naughty Dog has done exceptionally well at was crash bandicoot, 



Around the Network
crissindahouse said:
don't forget that naughty dog has two teams and one is probably already working on a ps4 title for some time.


Retro has two teams now, as well.



The Screamapillar is easily identified by its constant screaming—it even screams in its sleep. The Screamapillar is the favorite food of everything, is sexually attracted to fire, and needs constant reassurance or it will die.

Daisuke72 said:
zorg1000 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
zorg1000 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Sure...if you believe Retro has set more standards for themselves than Naughty Dog I leave you to that. Somwhere, someone will believe that as well.

Please have the maturity of respect opinions that differ from your own.


Thats pretty much the same way of saying I respect your opinion. Theres no equality to me between a company that makes new hits and a company that is a sequel factory. Sorry. I will enjoy them as the next guy but I have standards but in my book the team that takes the most risk and succeeds time and time again is the more valuable company. We agree to disagree plain and simple.

I get what ur saying but Metroid Prime was a pretty big risk, Iit was a revival of a series that hadnt released in 8 years and went from 2D side scroller to 3D FPS. If it failed it very possibly would have killed Metroid for good and Nintendo might not have let Retro work on a big game again.


Metroid Prime wasn't a risk, Nintendo knew the shift to FPS was coming after Rare hit it big with Goldeneye. They brought Metroid into the modern era. Samus had a hand thats a gun, I would've thought it would've been a given. Glad it succeeded though. Im going to get some rest. :)

Well in ur opinion what was so risky about Naughty Dog games? Crash was a mascot platformer, basically Sonys answer to Sonic/Mario/DKC.

Jak was also a mascot platformer could be described as the next logical step forward from the many N64 collectathons. Jak 2 just added in elements of Ratchet & Clank.

Uncharted Is also primarily a platformer that is a mix of Tomb Raider and Prince of Persia. The Last of Us

is a zombie game in an industry filled with zombie games.

 

 

Im not bashing these games, I have enjoyed every Naughty Dog ggame ive played but I dont see how its taken huge risks.

 

 


What did they do Risky? They made new IP's every generation, leaving behind their old critically acclaimed and mass selling IP's, crash bandicoot has sold over 25M copies and they left behind for Jak which also sold pretty well and went with Uncharted. That's pretty much unheard of, dropping a franchise that was as popular as Crash in place of a new IP, that's a pretty huge financial risk, one that you don't see from other studios, who simply milk their franchises and bring sequels across generations until they eventually die out. 

 

Retro took a well known IP and added their own twist to it, and did the same with DK. While these games are amazing, they aren't really taking risks, for instance Crash Bandicoot wrath of the cortex was TRASH compared to Naughty Dog's Crash games, and yet it sold almost 6 Million copies alone, which is more than the Metroid Prime sales, this simply goes to show that by taking a popular IP alone grants sales, so I don't know where the risk was in remaking Metroid and DK games. 

 

Also consider that while Uncharted has its similarities to Tomb Raider, that upon release the Tomb aider games weren't selling very well and they're also all kinds of different, and The Last Of Us isn't like any zombie game we've seen so far. While I agree both are top-notch studios it's simply absurd to say that Naughty Dog hasn't taken bigger risks than Metro. 

I agree that they have made more risks but Stage was implying Prime wasnt a risk and a disagree storngy with that.

Retro didnt simply give Metroid a new twist, They completely changed the way people see Metroid. Also they were an unknown developer that was tasked to make the follow up to what many conaider the greatest game of all time and had been dormant for 8 years, that sseems pretty risky to me.

The things I said about Naughty Dog games were jsut to give perspective on how there not leaps and bounds more risky like he stated.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

BossPuma said:
Daisuke72 said:
TGM said:
All im going to say is that everything Retro touches turns to gold. Naughty Dog not so much.

Judging by how most of you post, and your track records I wouldn't doubt if you guys have ever played the Uncharted series and simply posted to support your favorite IP, which is ridiculous when you consider this isn't even a comparison thread. Also, I find it very hard to believe someone was able to beat the first Uncharted, but couldn't finish 2 because it was less interesting? I'm sorry but I find that very hard to believe, 2 was simply the better game in every way. 

 

Also the Metacritic for Metroid Prime 1: 97, Metroid Prime 2: 91, Metroid Prime 3: 90. Average = 92.6. Sales: Less than 9M.

 

Uncharted 1:89, Uncharted 2:96, Uncharted 3: 92. Average:  92.3. Sales: More than 15M.  

 

They're both critically acclaimed studios. The fact you guys are arguing which one is better is silly to me when most of you are bias towards the IP on your prefferred console. No matter how good Metroid or Uncharted is you guys will simply downplay it if it's not on your console, I simply can't believe anyone could call these two studios overrated. It's annoying that EVERY thread here ends up in a console wars bias debate. 

He didnt mention consoles at all. It seems like you are the one bringing it up. And metacritic doesnt mean a thing as well as game sales.

I prefer Metroid because i find Uncharted a boring hallway. Belive it or not I did beat Uncharted 1 and 2 was just more of the same so i didnt bother with it after 2 hours. There is no exploration even though its supposed to be an adventure game. It wasnt fun and the combat was really frustrating and repetative.

The only thing Naughty Dog has done exceptionally well at was crash bandicoot, 

I brought up consoles because most of the Retro vs ND arguments came from bias, seeing as each Sony fan or Nintendo fan is downplaying the other studio. 

 

It's pretty apparent. 



Wow, honestly? Some guys here arguing over a 0.3 difference in Metascore? That's...pathethic. Most developers would kill to have an average metascore even close to 90...



Daisuke72 said:
BossPuma said:
Daisuke72 said:
TGM said:
All im going to say is that everything Retro touches turns to gold. Naughty Dog not so much.

Judging by how most of you post, and your track records I wouldn't doubt if you guys have ever played the Uncharted series and simply posted to support your favorite IP, which is ridiculous when you consider this isn't even a comparison thread. Also, I find it very hard to believe someone was able to beat the first Uncharted, but couldn't finish 2 because it was less interesting? I'm sorry but I find that very hard to believe, 2 was simply the better game in every way. 

 

Also the Metacritic for Metroid Prime 1: 97, Metroid Prime 2: 91, Metroid Prime 3: 90. Average = 92.6. Sales: Less than 9M.

 

Uncharted 1:89, Uncharted 2:96, Uncharted 3: 92. Average:  92.3. Sales: More than 15M.  

 

They're both critically acclaimed studios. The fact you guys are arguing which one is better is silly to me when most of you are bias towards the IP on your prefferred console. No matter how good Metroid or Uncharted is you guys will simply downplay it if it's not on your console, I simply can't believe anyone could call these two studios overrated. It's annoying that EVERY thread here ends up in a console wars bias debate. 

He didnt mention consoles at all. It seems like you are the one bringing it up. And metacritic doesnt mean a thing as well as game sales.

I prefer Metroid because i find Uncharted a boring hallway. Belive it or not I did beat Uncharted 1 and 2 was just more of the same so i didnt bother with it after 2 hours. There is no exploration even though its supposed to be an adventure game. It wasnt fun and the combat was really frustrating and repetative.

The only thing Naughty Dog has done exceptionally well at was crash bandicoot, 

I brought up consoles because most of the Retro vs ND arguments came from bias, seeing as each Sony fan or Nintendo fan is downplaying the other studio. 

 

It's pretty apparent. 

I dont judge based on consoles, i judge on if the developers make fun and engaging gameplay. I couldnt play Uncharted 2 for more than 30 mins at a time because the combat was so monotonous, sure it might be better than Uncharted 1 but its still much the same. The pace of Metroid Primes 1-3 is finely broken up so you arent stuck doing one thing for a long period of time and there is a lot of things to explore.