-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Sony PlayStation: First Party Studios |OT4| Because we're skipping 3
- Thread starter JuanLatino
- Start date
- Status
But why would they want to sabotage the game and limit its commercial and creative potential?
I agree that they are working on a multiplayer only FPS, but it will be a new IP.
Could be the SOCOM rumor tbh... Who knows at this point we don't even have PS5 codename yet
That'd be kinda disappointing. KZ2's MP was great because it was a big team battle MP game (only Bad Company 1/2 were better than it at that too imo), them going in pretty much the complete opposite direct would be a shame. It'd at least be different enough to Siege to stick out I suppose.
Just saw the Crackdown 3 scores right now.. The funniest thing was people still blaming Don for this game. Holy phuck lol
Would be cool if outside Horizone 2, it's a new IP that has its major focus on MP. Just for variety's sake.
A collaboration with Tabata is more likely than with someone coming from Platinum imo
I just don't see the upside in using the KZ brand to attempt to launch a major multiplaer game. It obviously has its supporters, but it has a lot of undeniable baggage. From the "HALO killer" moniker that the original game was saddled with by a magazine, the KZ2 CG trailer and the lukewarm reception of Shadow Fall. Trying to build any franchise into a big brand is difficult. But you make it even harder when you're trying to turn a franchise that's almost always struggled into that big brand.
Horizon gave them a fresh start without any expectations because it was a new IP. And it worked out beautifully for them. I also recall Herman talking about how happy they were to see how much people loved Aloy because they'd never created a character like that before that people were really fond of. With Killzone the most talked about character was Rico, and that was because people despised him.
Horizon gave them a fresh start without any expectations because it was a new IP. And it worked out beautifully for them. I also recall Herman talking about how happy they were to see how much people loved Aloy because they'd never created a character like that before that people were really fond of. With Killzone the most talked about character was Rico, and that was because people despised him.
+1 if they do a new multiplayer games not inside the Horizon universe, better be a new IP.
Let it fucking die. And no, I'm not sorry to the die-hard 400-500 die hard fans on era. We want something new from GG now that we've seen what they did with Horizon
Don't you have CD3 to play or are you that bored thta you come to the Sony thread to post cr*p mr. Be naughty, be xbox?
Fully agree .
If the doing a MP game i should be a new IP .
To bad it will be a FPS and that not my cup of tea .
This is my favorite post.
It's okay if you like a game most people don't but dude.
PS: I'm not so sure on Super Lucky's Tale being better than Knack.
It's okay if you like a game most people don't but dude.
PS: I'm not so sure on Super Lucky's Tale being better than Knack.
Killzone's a name, an aesthetic. It's not like Rainbow Six hadn't been dormant for years until Siege exploded, a thing that only happened because they didn't give up on the game after a discreet release (curious trivia: Shadow Fall and Siege have the same exact MC score).
I believe it's possible to use all the good that Killzone has to create a new game, under a new style. If we followed the opposite logic, God of War would be dead by now, yet here it is, witnessing its succesful rebirth.
I believe it's possible to use all the good that Killzone has to create a new game, under a new style. If we followed the opposite logic, God of War would be dead by now, yet here it is, witnessing its succesful rebirth.
I don't really care to dunk on a game that looked like it was going to be bad. Let's let folks enjoy their game.
I think multiplayer only could work for Killzone if only because multiplayer is what gets all the praise. Additionally it could allow you to reinvent the series a bit. Which is really the only way to change perceptions of a series even with the same name.
I think multiplayer only could work for Killzone if only because multiplayer is what gets all the praise. Additionally it could allow you to reinvent the series a bit. Which is really the only way to change perceptions of a series even with the same name.
Not really comparable. Let's look at the MC scores for those games:
Killzone - 70
Killzone 2 - 91
Killzone 3 - 84
Killzone SF - 73
God of War - 94
God of War 2 - 93
God of War 3 - 92
God of War Ascension - 80
God of aWards - 94
God of War was always more successful critically and commercially. Ascension got lower score because the formula got stale, but it was still a very good game. So they changed it and hit the jackpot. Guerrilla also tried with Shadow Fall and failed pretty bad, damaging the name even further. So I just don't think it is worth trying again, especially when Killzone was never that big to begin with.
I always thought SOCOM was supposed to be prestigious, and MAG was supposed to be the next big thing, sort to speak. I know Twisted Metal was a smaller game in a lot of ways, but I felt they really pushed the PS3 version, especially by having it close out their E3 and bringing Sweet Tooth's ice cream truck onto the stage.
There is no real reason why they couldn't do to Killzone what they did to GoW. Shadow Fall is no more of a franchise killer than Ascension was.
Will they? No because Guerrilla is doing something else and they closed the studio best fit to do it.
Will they? No because Guerrilla is doing something else and they closed the studio best fit to do it.
Lol people miss you over at the other threat...weird to see you here taking a jab ath Sony's games
Lol!
Agree, especially when Guerrilla proves they can create good new IP
If they could create a good Action-RPG open world after 10 years and 4 FPS games, they definitely can do a new FPS franchise and keep good ideas they had with Killzone franchise
Considering that you have provided good insight in this forum, could you elaborate further why you are not sold on this?
Are you worried about increasing budgets, which might impact the style of games the larger 1st party studios are producing for the PS5?
I'm undecided...they could also make a great Killzone game.
I wouldn't mind either or
Wasn't adress to me but if I may hitchhike the question I think GAAS games like Fortnite are hurting AA games and low tier AAA games. And possibly big AAA games as well, although not as much.
So I think it's smart to focus on less games, but bigger ones.
Just my opinion
It's an opinion that I understand. I, on the other hand, would like to see them try again. More than a straight comparison between both series (few in the industry have managed to maintain a record as impressive as God of War), my point is that a bump in the road shouldn't be all it takes to wrap up a franchise, or in this particular case, one that perhaps was not a juggernaut, but it's proven to be a solid performer.
This is somehow recurrent with Sony, as with other companies too: Twisted Metal, WipEout, Warhawk, Ape Escape, Siren, Sly Cooper, Resistance... There's a long list of AA, non-blockbuster licenses that have become orphans, so to speak, of any internal/external developer in a position to work with them again. The way things are looking right now, there's a high chance not only Killzone or Little Big Planet, but even Infamous, get to increase that list. Are these games no longer viable, because their developers have been told to strive for projects that need to sell several millions of units? Or because their developers were pressed to hit a release date no matter what, while others enjoyed a much longer cycle? What's the place in the actual PlayStation for games not aiming to set the market on fire? Shawn Layden talked about this mere days ago, a strategy where going bigger is the main goal for the future. I agree with that position, but it shouldn't exclude other offerings that cannot compete commercially with their desired holy cows.
At such rate, in a couple of years, they'd be entirely focused on releasing four blockbusters per fiscal year, plus the eventual VR title. But there are times when a system needs more than that to differentiate itself, and I believe these franchises mentioned above, Killzone among them, could take a second or third chance on the market. If expectations are moderate and they're designed as AA, smaller experiences, I'm certain they would be good both for the platform and the users.
I can see 2 things about this
- Another Killzone : Even rebooted ala God of War, it will be difficult to have the impact of God of War's reviews and hit 90+ Meta/Open especially for a FPS, and both franchises didn't start with the same love/appeal from gamers and GA
Even if the game is really good, the name "Killzone" will keep away a lot of people
- A new IP : Guerrilla gained a lot of popularity by making a great new IP, it will be easy to sell another new IP thanks to the momentum. And if they create another franchise which appeals (like they did with Horizon), in addition to making a new IP (what is well perceived by people because they take risks), they can apply the ideas they had for Killzone to this and maybe improve them
Therefore, Killzone fans will certainly be interested in this new FPS IP and a new IP will attract new people
I think the last Shawn Layden's interviews are very important to "guide" us into ours expectations on what Sony should do next :
- The "Best, First and Must" Strategy
- The "we build a ecosystem not to compete with 3P games" ( don't think it was this words exactly but this was the message )
So looking at those 2 pillars and looking at the KZ franchise I wonder : where KZ would fit on those terms?
The first thing that comes to my mind is : previous KZ games would be direct competitors to other 'traditional MP oriented FPS' so unless Sony reboots the series I don't see it fitting Shawns narrative.
After that we have to ask : would KZ be the first on something into the FPS genre? I don't think so. Would it fit the 'must stamp'? Based on what Shawn used of examples of must ( VR and Concrete Genie ) I don't think it would be this one either. So KZ would have to be the best on what is supposed to deliver.
So basically to KZ comeback not only it would have to reimagine itself, it would have to reimagine it without been a direct competitor to other 3P games and it would have to best on what offers.
My question is : it would be worth all the trouble to rebuild an IP that was never popular ?
I ask this sad because KZ SF is my most played FPS this gen and KZ2&3 are part of my best memories from last gen.
But still based on Shawn recent statements I don't see GG coming back to KZ just to make another KZ game and I don't see KZ as a such strong IP to the point where they would choose to reboot it instead of trying a new IP. Even tho I would love a FPA reboot with Eco Visari as the MC.
Anyway for those that still want KZ back how would pitch it so it follows the recent strategies exposed by Shawn?
- The "Best, First and Must" Strategy
- The "we build a ecosystem not to compete with 3P games" ( don't think it was this words exactly but this was the message )
So looking at those 2 pillars and looking at the KZ franchise I wonder : where KZ would fit on those terms?
The first thing that comes to my mind is : previous KZ games would be direct competitors to other 'traditional MP oriented FPS' so unless Sony reboots the series I don't see it fitting Shawns narrative.
After that we have to ask : would KZ be the first on something into the FPS genre? I don't think so. Would it fit the 'must stamp'? Based on what Shawn used of examples of must ( VR and Concrete Genie ) I don't think it would be this one either. So KZ would have to be the best on what is supposed to deliver.
So basically to KZ comeback not only it would have to reimagine itself, it would have to reimagine it without been a direct competitor to other 3P games and it would have to best on what offers.
My question is : it would be worth all the trouble to rebuild an IP that was never popular ?
I ask this sad because KZ SF is my most played FPS this gen and KZ2&3 are part of my best memories from last gen.
But still based on Shawn recent statements I don't see GG coming back to KZ just to make another KZ game and I don't see KZ as a such strong IP to the point where they would choose to reboot it instead of trying a new IP. Even tho I would love a FPA reboot with Eco Visari as the MC.
Anyway for those that still want KZ back how would pitch it so it follows the recent strategies exposed by Shawn?
I think Resistance was a AAA game that was meant to be the killer app of the Playstation upon launch.
I hear people lamenting about many of these IPs not getting sequels, but at what point should a company not make new IPs, then? There's no way Worldwide Studios is going to continue to pump out Jak/Sly/Resistance/Killzone/Warhawk/Twisted Metal/Ape Escape/Demon's Souls/Bloodborne/Infamous/LittleBigPlanet in addition to every new IP this gen, even in conjunction with external developers, ones who may want to work on their own stuff that they pitch to Sony.
You are correct, especially when taking into account the increasing development costs. Sony isn't in the position to publish many games any more and it's also not financially wise to compete with the third parties. They could maybe expand on MP games again if they are in the position to offer something unique that's not offered by the others.
yea I think it's best to let Killzone die. Like SolidSnakeX mentioned, the series has a lot of baggage attached to it. But I am most curious what GG is doing with the R6 Siege employees. Can't wait to see it
Regarding about what ArmGunar said about Killzone v a new IP, you could've said that that the name God of War would keep people away a lot of people and GoW fans would be happy to play a new IP like it.
If Sony's marketing department can redeem Kratos in the eye of the general public, they can do the same with Killzone.
Ah, okay.
The issue I have with that logic is that it's not the same thing. I think it's fitting that GoW launched the same year as Killzone because Killzone was ridiculed when it came out for not living up to the hype, some of it press-related as the "Halo Killer," whereas God of War launched to stellar reviews and was a GOTY contender. And its sequel is arguably better and also held its own against next-gen games in 2007.
And God of War III was released to critical acclaim as well. And its handhelds were big PSP titles. Killzone was never on the level of God of War, critically or commercially.
I like Killzone but if GG makes a shooter somewhere down the line, go for a new IP. Killzone as a franchise has never had much clout and It's divisive even among Sony fans. Guerrilla has a ton of goodwill at the moment and Sony exclusives have developed something of a good reputation. Take the opportunity and make some new and awesome.
Just make it a fake new IP. Have nothing to do with Killzone and if it's good, 2-3 games in you have a post-credits stinger showing it's a prequel to a rebooted Killzone. If it's mediocre to ok, then end it and move on.
I'm not sold because I have no visibility on how and what next-gen's 'bigger and better' will look like from a partner perspective.
So, at the moment Sony first-party outlook is simple. Major tentpole games that's about a 60:40 ratio from internal studios and external partners (KojiPro, Inso, etc), and then various outreach style games like Playlink, some indie (CG) and VR. ( secondary platforms )
In a new generation, if we factor in what he said about expanding the MP portfolio, does that mean more games from the tentpole end, an adjust of budget where there won't be the outreach games, but rather new AAA partnerships with MP-talented external partners?
There's a lot of ways that strategy of bigger-lesser can play out, and until I see more of how a "PS5 year one" lineup looks from Sony, I'm not sold on just broad promises and hints.
More than the first year line-up would be the line-up plus the announced titles that would come at a later date
I wonder if PS5 will support 8 layer Blu Ray discs that hold 200gb? Dual layer 50gb is already not enough for some games.
I'd like a Warhawk 2 for a multiplayer game from Sony it's still their best multiplayer game imo. It was great because it has a really high skill ceiling and is great for competitive play they made Starhawk but that game wasn't it.
I'm not sure how prominent the AAA mentality was in 2006's landscape, especially for a release title coming from a studio that hadn't worked in the genre since the PSX days. I also believe it's unfair to hold against developers and their work, what people in advertising or journalists write to get attention. It wasn't Guerrilla who came with the term "Halo killer", as it wasn't Insomniac who sold Resistance as a "killer app". By the way, and in this regard, I think Resistance did well enough to span a franchise and weather the storm that PS3's release was for the PS brand. Similarly, Shadow Fall was sent to struggle on release and did its job with a short development (two and a half years, according to Herman Hulst).
At some point, we start judging what happened back then in today's perspective. Perhaps we're forgetting that history is bound to repeat itself: games will be rushed to market, long developments will fail to meet expectations, franchises will be put in the fridge and studios closed forever. But that's a result of how their business is run, not because things have to be this way. They see an opportunity in remaking Shadow of the Colossus, or bringing back Medievil, yet that same people will ignore entire segments of the market, genres left uncovered. Hard to say they're doing wrong, when things look so bright for the brand. It doesn't mean, however, that they haven't missed a few chances in the process.
On the other topic, new things can still happen within an old, established framework. There are countless examples of that, God of War being only the most recent one. A second example: who could have imagined The Witcher would turn into the series it is nowadays, after that first rough, unpolished game? i don't want to get insistent about KZ, as it is not really about a single franchise but all those dormant licenses. But that series in particular started badly and from there it recovered (in other words: Guerrilla made it) with a couple of very good games. During the last cycle, Ratchet went through a similar process, yet Insomniac changed things up in 2016 with the reboot. Should R&C be over, because of Spider-Man? I'd prefer to see all these studios alternating between different series and styles. Otherwise, what's in their future? Exploiting their latest success until it's nothing but a husk of itself? That reminds me a lot of another big company, at a not so distant time. As good as these studios are, I wouldn't like to see them under the same burden.
At some point, we start judging what happened back then in today's perspective. Perhaps we're forgetting that history is bound to repeat itself: games will be rushed to market, long developments will fail to meet expectations, franchises will be put in the fridge and studios closed forever. But that's a result of how their business is run, not because things have to be this way. They see an opportunity in remaking Shadow of the Colossus, or bringing back Medievil, yet that same people will ignore entire segments of the market, genres left uncovered. Hard to say they're doing wrong, when things look so bright for the brand. It doesn't mean, however, that they haven't missed a few chances in the process.
On the other topic, new things can still happen within an old, established framework. There are countless examples of that, God of War being only the most recent one. A second example: who could have imagined The Witcher would turn into the series it is nowadays, after that first rough, unpolished game? i don't want to get insistent about KZ, as it is not really about a single franchise but all those dormant licenses. But that series in particular started badly and from there it recovered (in other words: Guerrilla made it) with a couple of very good games. During the last cycle, Ratchet went through a similar process, yet Insomniac changed things up in 2016 with the reboot. Should R&C be over, because of Spider-Man? I'd prefer to see all these studios alternating between different series and styles. Otherwise, what's in their future? Exploiting their latest success until it's nothing but a husk of itself? That reminds me a lot of another big company, at a not so distant time. As good as these studios are, I wouldn't like to see them under the same burden.
I don't think those are a thing. IIRC the biggest blu-rays are BDXL 100GB ones.
- Status