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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sucker Punch explain their exclusivity

Kynes on 11 June 2009
JEDE3 said:
jesus kung fu magic said:

...

O no dont take the J man the wrong way because he isnt pointing fingers at anyone..........its just that this thread has a better "atmosphere" then the essencially same valve thread.


NO FUCKING DUH!

That's because of all the 360 and valve fan boys who brought out the torches and pitch forks looking for a witch hunt and got overly defensive.

It wasn't because anyone flamed them it was because of the VDF.

No one gives a rats ass if people say SP is crap.

Oh come on, you can't be serious... or so blind.



Around the Network
JEDE3 on 11 June 2009
Kynes said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
axumblade said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
JEDE3 said:
again the question is asked. "How so?"

Valve does the exact same thing and they get flamed.....need the J man say more?

I don't think I personally flamed Valve for it.

JEDE3 did though but he also flamed Sucker Punch...

Personally I think it's best for some 3rd party's to make exclusives for their consoles...It adds diversity to the systems and for each game on only 1 platform, it makes my decision of which system to buy the game for that much easier..

O no dont take the J man the wrong way because he isnt pointing fingers at anyone..........its just that this thread has a better "atmosphere" then the essencially same valve thread.

J man is spot on. While in one thread we have tons of comments bashing Valve, here we have a majority of comments praising Sucker Punch. Double standards.


Show me where people have double standards? and how am i blind? because people were crying when I called out one of their favorite developers?



Akvod on 11 June 2009
axumblade said:

Valve are a way higher profile production company then Sucker Punch. I think that probably has a lot to do with it.

@JEDE3, yes it is Sheldon.

Yeah, Valve is the type of company to spend YEARS on their games... oh wait.

*drops his flame thrower and runs away*



JEDE3 on 11 June 2009
axumblade said:
Akvod said:
axumblade said:

Valve are a way higher profile production company then Sucker Punch. I think that probably has a lot to do with it.

@JEDE3, yes it is Sheldon.

Yeah, Valve is the type of company to spend YEARS on their games... oh wait.

*drops his flame thrower and runs away*

lol! that's not what I was referring to.

I'm saying they are higher profile. People know Valve because of The Orange Box, Half-Life and most recently Left4Dead. Sucker Punch are known for Sly Cooper (great series but overshadowed by Ratchet & Jak) and infamous (new game that came out recently).


Basically you go against Valve and its gonna get a whole lot more recognition.



Squilliam on 11 June 2009

Didn't we have a thread about them saying it was not possible on the 360? An exclusive developer saying anything about another console, especially a console platform which is owned by a competitor of the platform they are exclusive to is bashing.

So now they are lazy bashers!!! At least Valve are less lazy bashers than Sucker Punch so there!!!!!!



Tease.

Around the Network
whatever on 11 June 2009
Crazymann said:
whatever said:
Kynes said:
Ok, please, explain this to me.


According to Fleming, while going cross-platform puts a game in front of more potential eyeballs, "it also introduces a whole bunch of problems and compromises and difficulty that doesn't make making games a lot more fun. In fact, I think it subtracts from that."

Sucker punch + PS3 -> Great!

"The PC and the 360 are just more straightforward. We can focus on what we want to do, which is make game experiences, instead of sweating bullets over obscure architectural decisions they make with their platform."

Valve + X360 -> Lazy devs!

I just don't get the difference (apart of console preference of the forumers)

Are you for real?

Where did Sucker Punch anywhere say anything negative about the 360.  They just stated that working on more than one platform will make things more difficult in general.

Meanwhile Valve has continually trashed the PS3 with statments like "it's too difficult" or that Sony's made an "obscure architectural decision".

So where Sucker Punch is saying that it is simply there choice to make exclusives and there is no fault with M$ or Nintendo, Valve continually blames Sony.

See the difference now!

I think we can all agree that Newell is tactless with his anti-PS3 comments.  Apart from that, however, the statements are the same - only more eloquently worded in one case.  One cannot applaud Sucker Punch and demonize Valve for doing the SAME thing for what amounts to the same reason* without being a hypocrite.  Or a total fanboy - which ends up being the same in a startling amount of cases.

By implying that Valves anti PS3 stance invalidates the overall message, you are commiting a logical fallacy know as a non sequiter.

For the record, I think that if a multiplat can be made without artisitic compromise it should - if the company feels it is in their OVERALL best interest.

*  Reason = specialization = better game, more fun to program, less compromise.

Except the reason you gave "Reason = specialization = better game, more fun to program, less compromise." is not, according to Valve, why they don't code for the PS3.  It may be the real reason, but its not the stated reason.  The stated reason is that it is just too difficult.  This would then generally lead people to say they are lazy because obviously other developers have figured it out without a problem.



snyperdud on 11 June 2009

Well, good for Sucker Punch. Business-wise it's not the smartest decision, but if they are happy with what they're doing, kudos to them.



Add me on Steam

Squilliam on 11 June 2009
axumblade said:
Squilliam said:
Didn't we have a thread about them saying it was not possible on the 360? An exclusive developer saying anything about another console, especially a console platform which is owned by a competitor of the platform they are exclusive to is bashing.

So now they are lazy bashers!!! At least Valve are less lazy bashers than Sucker Punch so there!!!!!!

But it's the truth...there isn't a blu ray player built in to the 360...

Thats a lie! I installed a blue LED in my Xbox 360, it makes Blue Rays!!!



Tease.

Squall_Leonhart on 11 June 2009

I agree with inFamous being addictive! It is an amazing game, just playing through it again at the moment being evil as finished the game on hero!

I wonder if this will be a one off or if the game will get a sequel....



Crazymann on 12 June 2009
whatever said:
Crazymann said:
whatever said:
Kynes said:
Ok, please, explain this to me.


According to Fleming, while going cross-platform puts a game in front of more potential eyeballs, "it also introduces a whole bunch of problems and compromises and difficulty that doesn't make making games a lot more fun. In fact, I think it subtracts from that."

Sucker punch + PS3 -> Great!

"The PC and the 360 are just more straightforward. We can focus on what we want to do, which is make game experiences, instead of sweating bullets over obscure architectural decisions they make with their platform."

Valve + X360 -> Lazy devs!

I just don't get the difference (apart of console preference of the forumers)

Are you for real?

Where did Sucker Punch anywhere say anything negative about the 360.  They just stated that working on more than one platform will make things more difficult in general.

Meanwhile Valve has continually trashed the PS3 with statments like "it's too difficult" or that Sony's made an "obscure architectural decision".

So where Sucker Punch is saying that it is simply there choice to make exclusives and there is no fault with M$ or Nintendo, Valve continually blames Sony.

See the difference now!

I think we can all agree that Newell is tactless with his anti-PS3 comments.  Apart from that, however, the statements are the same - only more eloquently worded in one case.  One cannot applaud Sucker Punch and demonize Valve for doing the SAME thing for what amounts to the same reason* without being a hypocrite.  Or a total fanboy - which ends up being the same in a startling amount of cases.

By implying that Valves anti PS3 stance invalidates the overall message, you are commiting a logical fallacy know as a non sequiter.

For the record, I think that if a multiplat can be made without artisitic compromise it should - if the company feels it is in their OVERALL best interest.

*  Reason = specialization = better game, more fun to program, less compromise.

Except the reason you gave "Reason = specialization = better game, more fun to program, less compromise." is not, according to Valve, why they don't code for the PS3.  It may be the real reason, but its not the stated reason.  The stated reason is that it is just too difficult.  This would then generally lead people to say they are lazy because obviously other developers have figured it out without a problem.

Well, Newell did say that he didn't get into the business to totally worry about tech, and that with their current business model it allowed him to concentrate on just making the game.  I read that as "more fun to program" and I could also make a strong case for "less compromise".  Now, that may be an unpopular stance, but - as with Sucker Punch - it is their choice.

I still say that Valve is doing us PS3 users a favor as the (puts on flame suit) true Half Life experience is on the PC anyway.  With 360 a PC port requires less optimisation - so they do it.  Personally, I wouldn't ever buy the 360 port.

OFF TOPIC

Also JEDE3 has remained entirely consistent on this issue - disliking the sentiment reguardless of platform (though seemingly fighting less diligently in this thread).  I don't see whyhe is getting any grief
.