Is Sony losing its publishing moxie?

[iroboto]

Its not easy either. Plus, I doubt if Sony is going that route anyway. Infamous and TO aren't your typical dudebrah games and while Sony has KZ. That game alone doesn't hold up well when MS is delivering Halo:MCC and TF, which were games that more fit the dudebrah mold.

Yea that's correct, but they have their hands in destiny and possibly get their hands on TF2, they still have full access to the CODs and BFs. Only thing missing is Halo - which if it fails to make an e-sport impact I'm unsure if it will continue to be a factor especially after the failed MCC rollout.

 

[east of eastside]

Sony should have sold ND and bought Platinum. Maybe I'll get a PS4 for SFV.

 

[Rurouni]

Sony should have sold ND and bought Platinum. Maybe I'll get a PS4 for SFV.

Why? This is really not a smart decision. Yes, Platinum makes fun games, but they are probably less successful than ND. If I'm in charge of Sony and my employee tell me to sold ND for Platinum, I would fired that employee on the spot. It's just that stupid.
As much as I love Platinum games and I hope Bayonetta 2 miraculously coming to other platform, I can acknowledge that the appeal to their game is even more niche and their technical prowess is probably isn't as good as ND (which maintain excellence since the PS1 days).

 

[RDGoodla]

Yes, it's hard to understand how they managed to produce what they did, especially partnering with Sony Santa Monica. Third person shooters aren't new, there are plenty of games that exist as examples of what works and what doesn't. They seem to have take many of the gameplay design elements that I really dislike and put them all in one game

There is report that only 80 workers developed the order 1886. How could it cost too much with only 80 developers while other AAA titles have 200 or more? It seems that the order 1886 is just like driveclub, which were rushed to publish without complete game contents.

 

[upnorthsox]

There is report that only 80 workers developed the order 1886. How could it cost too much with only 80 developers while other AAA titles have 200 or more? It seems that the order 1886 is just like driveclub, which were rushed to publish without complete game contents.

I would say it more like smaller devs stepping up and out of their comfort zone and under estimating the man hours needed to complete their vision.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

There is report that only 80 workers developed the order 1886. How could it cost too much with only 80 developers while other AAA titles have 200 or more? It seems that the order 1886 is just like driveclub, which were rushed to publish without complete game contents.

I don't know if the size of the team matters in terms of what went wrong, and by 'wrong' I mean the game not living up to expectations. From Ready at Dawn's perspective the game may have been exactly the experience they intended to deliver from the outset, rather than something that became compromised and truncated through lack of time.

Hopefully they'll talk about it in the future. Sony studios, and studios working for Sony, have a good reputation for 'post mortem' talks at events like GDC and Develop.

 

[Cyan]

We've all just got more jaded as we've got older. It's all still fresh and exciting to the younger generation.

Sometimes we just gotta accept it, that we're old. Games were amazing when we were kids, but we grew up. That transition into adulthood really does play a factor as much as you don't want it to. I used to be fairly competitive gamer, but I've completely lost my competitive edge, and no game seems to be able to bring it back. Competition in small doses for me is okay, but it's not like before where I could be competitive for a whole year straight and each victory just felt more glorious than the last.

I'm not sure if it's because games have changed in such a way that narrative and emotion is easier to enjoy with less effort or what not. But we're screwed in a way. All the game reviewers are, more or less in their 20s+ and lived through the golden ages of gaming. We might be at a weird spot for gaming, and both MS and Sony failing to put out a definitive title for this gen yet might be proof that we're exhausted as gamers, or that we've run out of ideas.

I am not sure it has anything to do with age. The problem to me are the expectations. The games that @Nesh mentions were okay because people didn't expect them to be great AAA games, saviours of the platform or technology showcases on a particular console.

The Order 1886 was expected to be a AAA game with incredible graphics showcasing the powers of the PS4 and turned out to be a half baked game.

I recently purchased games like Threes, Lara Croft: The Temple of Osiris, Styx: The Master of Shadows, Giana Sisters...for the Xbox One and I had a lot of fun with them, simply because I didn't expect anything out of the ordinary from those games.

 

[Cyan]

For me, part of it is that I feel I enjoy gaming a bit less than the old days. Partly it's because we've really seen it all by now, and current gaming isn't innovating as much, partly because half the time I think of how I could spend my valuable time in other more profitable ways. I'm sure there are other reasons I can't express right now, that would explain why I haven't even touched my ps4 in weeks.

But one thing is for sure, the latest supposedly AAA games I've played lack that bit of extra soul that was still present even in the last generation.

That could be caused for the reasons you listed, plus the library of games. I am enjoying my Xbox One more than ever because I am playing fine AAA games like Far Cry 4 -also on PS4- and Halo the Master Chief Collection, plus some great indie games.

Far Cry 4 certainly has a lot of soul, in its characters, situations, the love put into it... Then Skyrim is a relatively recent game, and to me one of the Top 3 games of my life. I recently got a girlfriend and gaming is something I miss more than ever because of that, but we play Monopoly together.

 

[iroboto]

I am not sure it has anything to do with age. The problem to me are the expectations. The games that @Nesh mentions were okay because people didn't expect them to be great AAA games, saviours of the platform or technology showcases on a particular console.

The Order 1886 was expected to be a AAA game with incredible graphics showcasing the powers of the PS4 and turned out to be a half baked game.

I recently purchased games like Threes, Lara Croft: The Temple of Osiris, Styx: The Master of Shadows, Giana Sisters...for the Xbox One and I had a lot of fun with them, simply because I didn't expect anything out of the ordinary from those games.

But do we truly 'play' games for graphics? I think it can wow us, but that's about it. There is something that can be said about reading a novel, and seeing the movie version of it. Something can be said about the amount of fun you can have playing a board game vs playing a video game.

If gameplay is a major factor behind the game it is likely we will continue playing it. Who buys settlers of catan of 60 dollars and only plays it once? Not many. But who pays $60 dollars and only completes Bioshock campaign only once? I'm guessing a lot of people.

There are a couple of movies you're willing to watch more than once, but not all of them. And the same principle seems to be applying to video games that have heavy narrative, once you got what you want from the story the interest level in playing the game drops off steeply.

As for age - well, we've played a lot of great games that never had crazy graphics and we still loved them anyway. We just don't have that as much anymore, graphics and epic set pieces and cutscenes sell an emotion of playing the game; which is why they are used for commercials, but you quickly drop out of the honeymoon phase and gameplay, or lack of hits you right in the face.

 

[London Geezer]

You're right, Far Cry 4 has been the highlight of this generation to me, and by a fair margin. Still, it lacked that liiiiiiittle bit of characterisation that made FC3 such a perfect game. And as discussed on another thread, it makes it feel that little bit more hollow than previously.

Or maybe I'm just clinically depressed and I can't connect emotionally to anything right now. It's not them, it's me.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

But do we truly 'play' games for graphics? I think it can wow us, but that's about it.

As somebody for whom gameplay is the number one consideration and graphics very much a secondary factor, I've seen a fair few comments from users saying they won't buy a certain game because it lacks x, y or z graphics techniques. It seems for many that technology is more than just the means for delivery a good game, it's the greater part of the experience.

 

[Billy Idol]

But do we truly 'play' games for graphics?

I am not sure about 'we', but I personally do. But it is important to note: not every game. There are so many games I play: some for gameplay only, some for story, some for coolness, some just because everyone plays them and I want to try them as well...and yes, some I play just to see what the fuss is about its highly praised graphics. Most of them because of a combination of things above. Games are nowadays so much more than 'just' gameplay...and this is for me the best thing about my hobby.

Imo, it is absolutely ok to play a game 'just' because of graphics. If it adds fun and value to the game to me...why should it be something bad if it makes fun?

 

[DrJay24]

One disturbing trend is rewarding games that add fluff then calling it content and giving them bonus points in reviews. It's the Ubisoft school of game development, mostly to do with open world games. Give the game so many collectibles and side missions that the map is littered with multi-colored symbols. FC4, AC, Mordor, DA:I, etc. all do this. While they are usually good games in their own right, the amount of padding makes your head spin. While you can ignore most of it, even if you do 10% of this fluff the story ends up hurting. For most of these games I have no idea what the main story is because there are so many interruptions to the story. Most of these games already have poor stories, then you interrupt them non-stop and the player can't even get involved.

DA:I is a prime example of an average game covered with fluff and then called GOTY. I would bet many reviewers never finished the game and then just slapped a 9/10 on it and moved on.

 

[iroboto]

As somebody for whom gameplay is the number one consideration and graphics very much a secondary factor, I've seen a fair few comments from users saying they won't buy a certain game because it lacks x, y or z graphics techniques. It seems for many that technology is more than just the means for delivery a good game, it's the greater part of the experience.

Yea, ugg the resolution? I won't buy if it's on parity? I won't buy if it's less than 1080p? I won't buy if it's not 30fps?

uggg.. shakes head

 

[iroboto]

I am not sure about 'we', but I personally do. But it is important to note: not every game. There are so many games I play: some for gameplay only, some for story, some for coolness, some just because everyone plays them and I want to try them as well...and yes, some I play just to see what the fuss is about its highly praised graphics. Most of them because of a combination of things above. Games are nowadays so much more than 'just' gameplay...and this is for me the best thing about my hobby.

Imo, it is absolutely ok to play a game 'just' because of graphics. If it adds fun and value to the game to me...why should it be something bad if it makes fun?

It's certainly not. Feel free to enjoy games however you like to. It wasn't my intent to say that graphics have been holding back games, or is making us become 'bad gamers'. It's like saying summer movies shouldn't exist therefore no transformers and stuff like that. That would be uncool because some summer movies are just awesome. But the movies we like the most are but of course the movies that can capture it all, much so like the games that we like the most.

 

[BoardBonobo]

I am not sure it has anything to do with age. The problem to me are the expectations. The games that @Nesh mentions were okay because people didn't expect them to be great AAA games, saviours of the platform or technology showcases on a particular console.

The Order 1886 was expected to be a AAA game with incredible graphics showcasing the powers of the PS4 and turned out to be a half baked game.

I recently purchased games like Threes, Lara Croft: The Temple of Osiris, Styx: The Master of Shadows, Giana Sisters...for the Xbox One and I had a lot of fun with them, simply because I didn't expect anything out of the ordinary from those games.

I disagree there! Our expectations change as we age and as we gain experience. The longer you have been playing games the more familiar games become, especially their core functionality. As the technology moves on and we move with it our expectations of what that technology can provide also change and this is coloured by the experiences we had with the games we previously played.

Age definitely plays a big role in what we find as new or exciting or immersive. We can't help that. I've been playing games since I got my first VCS and I've been living in a gaming groundhog day since the mid 80's! But I have adjusted what I can consider to be a 'game' instead. I've always seen it as a progression of sorts books->films->games->...

Maybe as the media has matured we need to expand how we define the various elements that make it up. A game like TO or Beyond 2 Souls is still a game, if we loosely hang gaming as interactive media, but it's not the same as playing Tetris or Arkanoid. It's time for some academic to get their teeth back into the whole thing and looking at the subjectivity of the experience and not the black and white objectivity that is normally applied to the definitions of these things.

 

[Cyan]

I disagree there! Our expectations change as we age and as we gain experience. The longer you have been playing games the more familiar games become, especially their core functionality. As the technology moves on and we move with it our expectations of what that technology can provide also change and this is coloured by the experiences we had with the games we previously played.

Age definitely plays a big role in what we find as new or exciting or immersive. We can't help that. I've been playing games since I got my first VCS and I've been living in a gaming groundhog day since the mid 80's! But I have adjusted what I can consider to be a 'game' instead. I've always seen it as a progression of sorts books->films->games->...

Maybe as the media has matured we need to expand how we define the various elements that make it up. A game like TO or Beyond 2 Souls is still a game, if we loosely hang gaming as interactive media, but it's not the same as playing Tetris or Arkanoid. It's time for some academic to get their teeth back into the whole thing and looking at the subjectivity of the experience and not the black and white objectivity that is normally applied to the definitions of these things.

That's an interesting point of view I don't fully disagree with, in fact I fully agree with you. Where I don't agree with you is in the fact that you blame the low scores of The Order 1886 on those realistic factors you are talking about, like people like you and me maturing.

The problem I see here is that the failure of this game affects an entire platform, because this game has been hyped with the tag of being Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo, Lebron James or Michal Jordan, the pinnacle of videogames.

And you demand more and want more from a Lebron James or Kobe Bryant than from a Craig Ehlo or Dickey Simpkins, or you expect more from Cristiano Ronaldo or Messi than from Khedira, or Alves. I mean...this score leaves the PS4 in a crisis til other PS4 exclusives come out later this year, because this game was hyped to be a true AAA in every sense of the word.

The videogaming press are very magnanimous with AAA games, and this wasn't the case.

 

[ArcticCircle]

But do we truly 'play' games for graphics?

I don't know about others, but modern graphics are big part of why I play the games. For me it's more important then story, writing, rule set, world setting, characters, character interaction, sound, music, UI, gameplay, game mechanics or style. Only choices and consequences and genre itself are more important.

I've played games since the early 80's and I never get tired of graphical advancement. When I play older game, I always think how much better it would be with modern graphics. I know that certain type of games can only happen on certain budget, thus we get crappy looking games in most genres. Thus we beggars can't be choosers. But damn, games like Vampire Bloodlines or Deus Ex would be so great on Order 1886 like graphics. I'd almost argue that those updated games would have even mainstream potential.

Sony, Microsoft or any first party or second party developer / publisher should take risks (graphical and otherwise) if third parties won't. Yeah, Order 1886 or Ryse might not be THE hit, but as long as they keep trying, they might find next Uncharted or Halo.

 

[Sigfried1977]

I will definitely skip a supposedly good game if it's visually unappealing. "Ys: somehing something Celceta" on the Vita springs to mind. It's just soo fucking hideous. Thankfully appealing doesn't mean on the bleeding edge of technology. I completed A Link Between Worlds on the 3ds this weekend and at no point did I ever wish for The Order's visuals. A Link Between Worlds also reassured me that my age and gaming experience isn't really the issue. God that game is so fucking smart, well crafted, captivating and rewarding. No, I really do think that games - big games to be more specific - are becoming ever more patronizing, dumber and interchangeable as the years go by. AAA
games are like block buster movies, except where the best of those carry the clear hand writing of their directors - not even 220 Million dollars and the straight jacket that comes with a meticulously pre-planned franchise such as the Marvel universe kept Guardians of The Galaxy from feeling like a James Gunn movie -, big games are generally faceless, entirely toothless and mostly forgettable.

 

[Nesh]

I will definitely skip a supposedly good game if it's visually unappealing. "Ys: somehing something Celceta" on the Vita springs to mind. It's just soo fucking hideous. Thankfully appealing doesn't mean on the bleeding edge of technology. I completed A Link Between Worlds on the 3ds this weekend and at no point did I ever wish for The Order's visuals. A Link Between Worlds also reassured me that my age and gaming experience isn't really the issue. God that game is so fucking smart, well crafted, captivating and rewarding. No, I really do think that games - big games to be more specific - are becoming ever more patronizing, dumber and interchangeable as the years go by. AAA
games are like block buster movies, except where the best of those carry the clear hand writing of their directors - not even 220 Million dollars and the straight jacket that comes with a meticulously pre-planned franchise such as the Marvel universe kept Guardians of The Galaxy from feeling like a James Gunn movie -, big games are generally faceless, entirely toothless and mostly forgettable.

I agree that very few games manage to be memorable. But it shouldnt be the norm with those big budget games. There are exceptions out there that show a big budget game can be a very memorable experience. Unfortunately quite often there are also games that although brilliant in every aspect, they fail from a business perspective, because the consumers are used to the "dumb" formula and automatically reject them. Most of us got spoiled with the "mindless" experiences we are offered by the mainstream. A game that requires more active participation and thought from the player in order to proceed can be mistaken for a badly designed game or simply boring. A game that is thought provoking can be hated by the players because they dont want to provoke their thought. They simply want to be mindlessly entertained. Games that are different are often rejected without being given a chance because players dont want to touch what they have not experienced.

This mainstream formula is the same as the one followed by Hollywood and is tied to human psychology. Action, violence and sex always sell. These are elements that make an impression easier. If something requires effort or a certain background from the viewer in order to understand is rejected if the viewer doesnt have that background or the tendency to seek what is not explicitly communicated. Mindless entertainment has been evolving for a lot of time and has become flashier and easier to express, whereas real creative work resides absolutely in human intelligence and does not evolve as fast nor is it easier or explicit to communicate to everyone. Our brain tendencies to absorb whatever requires the least effort has given birth to more mindless and shallow entertainment which in turn conditioned us back (and especially newer generations) to be attracted to it