The argument that Sony exclusives look an play all the same is truly baffling to me (GIF heavy thread).
- Thread starter Lant_War
- Start date
We are lucky that those "cinematic experience" have some of the best gameplay of this gen and probably ever.
I mean horizon, gow, spiderman, bloodborne, uncharted 4, ratchet etc. Are all games with EXCELLENT gameplay.
I say Give me more of this cinematic experience if they play so well...
(Sorry for my english)
I mean horizon, gow, spiderman, bloodborne, uncharted 4, ratchet etc. Are all games with EXCELLENT gameplay.
I say Give me more of this cinematic experience if they play so well...
(Sorry for my english)
Last edited:
Did we play the same God of War?
Old games were narrative driven cinematic action games. The new ones are still the same but they made it RPG semi open world. And it is still fast and I would say more intense compared to the past games.
I know what you mean, but I don't think any of those trolls had bloodborne in mind when they were talking about ps4 first party exclusives.
It comes from the same place as 'Nintendo are for kiddies' and 'XBox/PS has no gaems'.
It's not even worth the energy to refute.
It's not even worth the energy to refute.
When you exclude the japanese games, they do share quite a few similarities, even in places that make no sense. I don't know why God of War needed a compass, for example.
But I feel like it's more of an issue with western AAA games than Sony specifically, because why would you exclude the japanese games?
But I feel like it's more of an issue with western AAA games than Sony specifically, because why would you exclude the japanese games?
Ooohh i do remember and i remember people saying: but it's the most powerful, unlike the puny Xone, which makes it the better system ever, because of the huge amount of 3rd party games. Now power doesn't matter again.Perpectives change i guess.
As for the OP, it's stupid to make statements like that, same as saying Nintendo is a kiddy console and that all games are Mario or similar to Mario. Sony has plenty of diverse games, there's no mistake about it. Their heavy hitters tend to be cinematic 3rd person games, but they're good games, i don't really see the point of discussing it.
It's console warrior rhetoric that only console warriors take personally and feel the need to refute, as they defend their empire from the salacious slander of the heathen hordes.
I just wish Sony put more of its marketing heft behind titles that don't fit snugly inside the 'PlayStation Template'. The treatment of Gravity Rush and Astro Bot prior to release was kind of shitty for instance. Kudos for actually making the games, but if you're not going to put the effort in to alert the general public of their existence then they're dead out of the gate. Let's not forget how cruelly snubbed at E3 Gravity Rush was. There is certainly diversity among Sony's first-party offerings, but it kinda sucks that the real big bucks are generally afforded to your Days Gones and Horizons and Uncharteds.
Fund more 3D platformers you cowards. With a fucking budget behind them!
Fund more 3D platformers you cowards. With a fucking budget behind them!
I dunno. I always thought there was a grain of truth to it. High budget cinematic games (emphasis on script, voice acting, camera work, scripted sequences) that are usually third person with RPG mechanics. There is definitely a trend there among Sony's higher profile games. Gravity Rush 2 doesn't disprove that it just shows that it's not exclusively what Sony makes, which good for them. Sony has shown a willingness to experiment with smaller games but their larger very expensive games tend to have similar mechanics and ideas. And because those larger games tend to have larger advertising budgets that also might skew people's perceptions on what types of games Sony makes.
Me too. Do people actually think this?
It's fairly thick if they do.
It's no different to people claiming that the market is "flooded" with FPS games (singleplayer FPS games have always been relatively rare and they have grown even rarer in recent years). Some people think that FPS games all look and play the same. A lot of people think that, for example, something like Perfect Dark or GoldenEye is no different to Halo. This makes no sense to anyone familiar with how they actually play, but gamers love being reductive. For example, some people felt that Battlefield: Hardline was a "reskin" of Battlefield 4. Battlefield 4 was an FPS game where you basically walked down a wide corridor and shot things. Hardline was essentially a stealth game. That encouraged players to not shoot people. With frequent bouts of branching and non-linear level design.
You know this one game that is all about shooting people and this other game that is specifically about not shooting people if you can avoid it? Yea, they're totes the same.
I think that there is, however a grain of truth to the idea that a lot of Sony's games are shoehorned into a particular mold. What do I mean by this? You know how there's a new Perfect Dark coming? Well, it's very telling that some people's idea -- particularly on Era -- of the best way to bring back Perfect Dark sounds an awful lot like wanting Microsoft to make a game cynically designed to compete with Sony's games. They want it to be third person. They want it to have a stealth focus. They want it to focus on its protagonist and try to make her "iconic". They want it to focus on her life struggles, basically.
What's curious is that Sony do make first person games. But they're almost all VR games now. There is a bit of a third person fixation in sections of the current gaming market. People being vocally "disappointed" that Cyberpunk 2077 was an FPS game instead of a TPS game is an example of that. They wanted Cyberpunk 2077 to be a certain kind of game. This kind of game could be crudely distilled down to a bunch of adjectives like "third person cinematic action game with RPG elements", to be deeply reductive.
Here's what I wonder to myself sometimes: If a Sony-owned studio wanted to make System Shock 3 with a different name, would they make something like Prey (or Alien: Isolation for the PSVR audience), or would they make something like Dead Space? Would Sony nudge them to steer away from first person perspective, and gameplay with a late 90s PC mindset in favor of over the shoulder third person shooter action with a cinematic camera that never cuts? Would Sony have greenlit Horizon: Zero Dawn if it had been a Far Cry: Primal-esque first person title? Still have a great female protagonist, but you never see her face ingame because all the cutscenes are first person. Would Sony be okay with that?
If a Sony studio came to Sony and said, "We want to make a game that's basically STALKER with another name," would Sony greenlight that? Or would Sony want the game to be pushed into some kind of third person open world post-apocalyptic third person shooter with a cinematic presentation and a strongly defined protagonist mold? I guess we may never know. Most of this stuff is firmly behind closed doors.
You know this one game that is all about shooting people and this other game that is specifically about not shooting people if you can avoid it? Yea, they're totes the same.
I think that there is, however a grain of truth to the idea that a lot of Sony's games are shoehorned into a particular mold. What do I mean by this? You know how there's a new Perfect Dark coming? Well, it's very telling that some people's idea -- particularly on Era -- of the best way to bring back Perfect Dark sounds an awful lot like wanting Microsoft to make a game cynically designed to compete with Sony's games. They want it to be third person. They want it to have a stealth focus. They want it to focus on its protagonist and try to make her "iconic". They want it to focus on her life struggles, basically.
What's curious is that Sony do make first person games. But they're almost all VR games now. There is a bit of a third person fixation in sections of the current gaming market. People being vocally "disappointed" that Cyberpunk 2077 was an FPS game instead of a TPS game is an example of that. They wanted Cyberpunk 2077 to be a certain kind of game. This kind of game could be crudely distilled down to a bunch of adjectives like "third person cinematic action game with RPG elements", to be deeply reductive.
Here's what I wonder to myself sometimes: If a Sony-owned studio wanted to make System Shock 3 with a different name, would they make something like Prey (or Alien: Isolation for the PSVR audience), or would they make something like Dead Space? Would Sony nudge them to steer away from first person perspective, and gameplay with a late 90s PC mindset in favor of over the shoulder third person shooter action with a cinematic camera that never cuts? Would Sony have greenlit Horizon: Zero Dawn if it had been a Far Cry: Primal-esque first person title? Still have a great female protagonist, but you never see her face ingame because all the cutscenes are first person. Would Sony be okay with that?
If a Sony studio came to Sony and said, "We want to make a game that's basically STALKER with another name," would Sony greenlight that? Or would Sony want the game to be pushed into some kind of third person open world post-apocalyptic third person shooter with a cinematic presentation and a strongly defined protagonist mold? I guess we may never know. Most of this stuff is firmly behind closed doors.
Mostly troll speak. Reduced to abstraction, sony seems to favour 3rd person cinematic experiences...which means good graphics and production values, as well as strong story telling. Beyond that, there is a lot of variation I would say. They have excellent output, aside from a lack of JRPGs I would say. Just playing through Xenoblade Chronicles 2 now, and would love to see a high production value JRPG released by Sony. At least Horizon had some of the flashiness characteristic of JRPGs, they definitely took much inspiration from both western and eastern aesthetic preferences.
Pointing out a single argument about people being impressed by a tree texture....
The title doesn't portray the argument accurately, it's more about first party games and many of those being quite similar in their core not entirely the same. Just like with Ubisoft, not all Ubisoft games are exactly the same, but there are many similarities across many of their biggest titles. No different to Sony first party. If one recognizes the similarities with many Ubi games, I don't know how they could argue otherwise about Sony first party. Personally I don't have an issue with either tbh, they both do well what they are best known for. Ubi is known for open world action and Sony for cinematic action. But in addition they do take some risks with their other games and also develop/publish interesting smaller titles that have nothing in common with their flagship franchises. It doesn't have to be some inflammatory thing. Now of course if someone says "Ubi only does open world games and those are all the same" or "Sony only does cinematic action games and those are all the same", they would be wrong (there's been people saying those things). But saying that many of their flagship games share a lot core similarities is accurate. If it's a bad thing or not, is ofc dependant on personal preferences.
Last edited:
He´s not saying that and your reply kinda agrees with him. You´re lumping together Burnout, Mario Kart, Spintires and Gran Turismo under the label of "racing games", even though it´s clear that they´re very distinct games and you point to that. The user you´re replying to was saying the very same thing: GoW, TLoU, Uncharted...are obviously not equal to one another, but they do share a lot of defining components: 3rd person, action-adventure, narrative driven and realistic looking.
They look the same to me...
/s
Resident Evil 4 truly changed gaming
Well if a person doesn't like racing games then they're probably not going to like any of the titles you listed.
Halo, PUBG and CoD all play completely differently but if you don't like competitive multiplayer FPS titles you probably won't like any of them.
The fact is that a fair number of Sony's exclusives share defining aspects. If someone isn't a fan of single player, 3rd person action adventure games with a strong focus on cinematic narratives then they're probably not going to be interested in a fair chunk of Sony's high profile exclusives, even if they do play fairly differently.
I really don't see how games like Ratchet & Clank, Tearaway Unfolded, The Last Guardian. Gravity Rush 2, Spider-Man, Horizon Zero Dawn. Bloodborne, Dreams and Astro Bot look samey.
Even Alfheim in God Of War had a really beautiful orange and blue colour palette
Get your head out of the past and think about what could be done today. Instead of just another third person action title.
They lack multiplayer games. Sony produced Muktiplayer games. I don't care if they have COD and Destiny, I don't play those games on Sony platforms anyway.
Where is another resistance fall of man? How have they not thought of a cutesy ratchet and clank themed shooter multiplayer game(which we haven't had since PS2)? Do anything. Besides mature action adventure
Yeah there are more single player games but some of Sony's bigger games do have multiplayer. Bloodborne, Uncharted 4, Uncharted The Lost Legacy, The Last of Us, GT Sport and the upcoming The Last of Us 2 all have multiplayer.
I agree they should do another Resistance game, although I would still play the single player campaign over multiplayer, but good to have a choice I guess.
Doesn't really matter even if they were, as long as they are enjoyable.
Some people don't enjoy the style of games sony are making, that is their loss. Be happy that you do :-)
Some people don't enjoy the style of games sony are making, that is their loss. Be happy that you do :-)
lol i think OP just wanted to post some gifs and didnt know how to. never have i even remotely heard about this complain.
in that case, theres a certain fidelity, artystyle, tech, graphics and other factors that you can immediately tell its a Sony exclusive. Xbox just doesnt have the same level of flare to their exclusives.
in that case, theres a certain fidelity, artystyle, tech, graphics and other factors that you can immediately tell its a Sony exclusive. Xbox just doesnt have the same level of flare to their exclusives.
This.
You can't actually make a good faith argument that the exclusives all "play the same", whatever that means. It's objectively false.
What? You don't like variety, compare the variety they gave us during the PS2 era compared to today.
Aaaaah you sweet sweet son of a gun you, Poimandres!!!
You spoke the magic words that are sheer music to my ears.
I now want this sooo bad.... lol
This is a better way to frame this subject.
In a sense, Sony is still in the "no 2D on our shiny brand new 3D-capable console" frame of mind they had in the early PSX era.
They do make games that don't fit into the infamous "template", but they haven't exactly acted like they're proud of those games, too.
Alas, generalizations are pretty quick to make (and usually just as quick to dismiss with sound evidence) when someone gets into console warrior mode.
It's quite ironic that someone still uses the expression "Nintendo games" as if there's a striking single common denominator between those games nowadays. Zelda, Mario, Mario Kart, Splatoon, Donkey Kong and Smash certainly look more different to each other than the games in the "Sony template".
I kinda understand when people say they look samey. I mean, I take a look at a screenshot and I know it's a Sony game, just because of the camera angle or whatever it is.
Letting me hit home runs as Kratos in Yankee Stadium would get me to buy the next Show game.
I do, but I need it less often then most. And it heavily dependent on what that variety looks like.
But when it comes to that Sony template that this whole topic is based on, I can play hundreds of those games, I want hundreds of those games, I need hundreds of those games. This current PlayStation generation has been (by far) my favorite because of their exclusive output.
A lot of PS4s first party big budget games are story driven 3rd person action adventures running at 30fps. Sure they don't play exactly the same, but still not as varied as it could be.
Exceptions often are games with smaller budget (Astro Bot) or Remakes/Ports of older games. If you compare with older generations, the current AAA exclusives are less varied and boring. Without indie games and ports/remakes the current generation would offer very limited gameplay experiences.
Where are fast 60fps actions games, platformers with the magnitude and production value of Mario Galaxy/Odyssey, round based tactical games, fun racers, etc.? Sony had those genres in the past.
Exceptions often are games with smaller budget (Astro Bot) or Remakes/Ports of older games. If you compare with older generations, the current AAA exclusives are less varied and boring. Without indie games and ports/remakes the current generation would offer very limited gameplay experiences.
Where are fast 60fps actions games, platformers with the magnitude and production value of Mario Galaxy/Odyssey, round based tactical games, fun racers, etc.? Sony had those genres in the past.
People act like more cinematic = less gameplay. Thats simply NOT TRUE. Most of the games in here that people are bitching about being "cinematic" you spend most of the time outside of a cutscene. Even uncharted, probably the most "cinematic" Sony game is mostly gameplay. Good production values, camera angles, and story do not make a game short in the gameplay department.
It's kind of a shame that you either love all these games/think they're all vastly different, or you're a "dumbfuck troll" (quoting because I've seen it in this thread).
I've been guilty of saying they're all similar, and I can admit that it's an oversimplification, but as others have pointed out, they're all third person action/RPG games with a photo-realistic art style, and most of them are open-world or close to it. They're also (for the most part) really narrative-heavy.
While you might be able to argue they're all vastly different, I've certainly felt the fatigue for the above type of game and find myself playing more indie games these days - and I'm definitely not the only one I've seen on Era who feels that way.
I've been guilty of saying they're all similar, and I can admit that it's an oversimplification, but as others have pointed out, they're all third person action/RPG games with a photo-realistic art style, and most of them are open-world or close to it. They're also (for the most part) really narrative-heavy.
While you might be able to argue they're all vastly different, I've certainly felt the fatigue for the above type of game and find myself playing more indie games these days - and I'm definitely not the only one I've seen on Era who feels that way.