Jason Rubin will quit Naughty Dog / Sony

[MrWibble]

And I imagine it sticks in ND's collective throats a little bit, that the TT developed Crash game for PS2 sold considerably more than Jak did...

When you consider how much the public will follow a name they recognise rather than investigate how good an unknown game is, it's not surprising that many companies try desperately to develop a successful franchise rather than just develop original games.

And I guess thats what Rubin was on about - if you get the public to recognise the names *behind* the game, then you can develop an original game and have it sell. It didn't matter that Black and White was an over-developed folly of a game, nor that it was a new title from a new developer that no-one would've heard of. The very fact that people know Molyneux's name generated enough interest in it, to make it sell.

Jak on the other-hand... well, it's just another PS2 title - who the hell are Naughty Dog to the majority of the public?

Personally I don't think we should be bashing anyone for trying to build up a name for either themselves or their game characters, provided that they also maintain some integrity through making those games as good as they can. ND may want to churn out sequel after sequel, but they do push the platform to it's technical limits, and they also try to cram in an awful lot of gameplay.

 

[cthellis42]

And I imagine it sticks in ND's collective throats a little bit, that the TT developed Crash game for PS2 sold considerably more than Jak did...

Excepting that it didn't--at least on the PS2. (In the US, 1.35 vs 1.5 million.) If you count the other platforms in as well then it does, but uh... duh. Three-platform games have a broader audience. If Jak weren't exclusive, it would likely have fared that much better all around. (And offhand I'm not sure how worldwide sales compare between the two.)

When you consider how much the public will follow a name they recognise rather than investigate how good an unknown game is, it's not surprising that many companies try desperately to develop a successful franchise rather than just develop original games.

A-yup. 's why it's never surprising, and something almost any studio making more than two games is guilty of.

And I guess thats what Rubin was on about - if you get the public to recognise the names *behind* the game, then you can develop an original game and have it sell. It didn't matter that Black and White was an over-developed folly of a game, nor that it was a new title from a new developer that no-one would've heard of. The very fact that people know Molyneux's name generated enough interest in it, to make it sell.

True enough. There's been more visability of the studios and creators behind games, but recognizable licenses still have more effect right now. One can always hope for the future...

Jak on the other-hand... well, it's just another PS2 title - who the hell are Naughty Dog to the majority of the public?

You might be surprised. A number of people I wouldn't have expected to have mention ND as its own entity. ^_^ Then again, I do hang out with geeks... Hehe.

Personally I don't think we should be bashing anyone for trying to build up a name for either themselves or their game characters, provided that they also maintain some integrity through making those games as good as they can. ND may want to churn out sequel after sequel, but they do push the platform to it's technical limits, and they also try to cram in an awful lot of gameplay.

Hear, hear. I doesn't matter if a game has a plumber, a weird-ass tasmanian-devil-like thing, or the word "Final" in the title despite there being umpteen games in that license... The GAME is what matters. Anyone who can't see a game through it's license--no matter how overused--is certainly missing out.

 

[London Geezer]

The GAME is what matters. Anyone who can't see a game through it's license--no matter how overused--is certainly missing out.

That's good and all, but tell that to the millions who bought (and keep buying) the Army men games... Or the Harry Potter ones.. Or Dragonball... the list goes on and on and it's sad but true: license-based games sell and will always sell several times as many units as much better GAMES that are not based on known franchises.
WE, the geeks at B3D, KNOW what's good, the kids out there don't.

The only thing one could do is fusing the best games out there with some very well known franchises. That way we get the best of both worlds. And it HAS happened, although rarely.

 

[cthellis42]

But I'm not discussing business and marketing decisions or anything like that. (The sales comparison was just because it got brought up.) Licenses can and will make undeserved games sell, but they don't make good games bad, and there are far too many who things like that affect them. (Then again, I think there are too many people who are way too critical of games, and play them to pick them apart rather than to have FUN! )

 

[Li Mu Bai]

Jason Rubin: Nintendo had the drivers and the hardware, not to mention the franchises to make it number 1. They just didn't use them like I would have used them. It has always been my dream to work with the guys at Nintendo on a dream project and if things keep going the way they are, I just might get my wish. "he winks at the camera."

The man can push the hardware, despite his arrogance & being outspoken. A J.R./Nintendo colloboration would be a great thing to see.

 

[Guden Oden]

Oooh, Jason's gonna work with Nintendo? Wow, hehe.

As long as what he'll do for them does not involve a furry pet jumping on platforms, or a lanky guy with a furry pet on his shoulder jumping on platforms I'll probably be happy.