Hardcore Gamer: The Last of Us and Bioshock Infinite are leaps and bounds above many other games released this year, so it's bizarre to criticize them for the odd missed detail. I’m fine with having little flaws in the game’s atmosphere if the rest of it is so captivating. I just don’t find it amusing when people continuously bring up these same little nitpicks about each game. What happened to the days when people just focused on the good in games?
The story in part 3 of Sony Interactive Entertainment and Naughty Dog's The Last of Us series may explore a "congregation of immune people."
Former Naughty Dog artist Gabriel Betancourt explains why the "sweet spot" for game teams is under 200 people and how AAA "factories" kill creativity.
There’s definitely some truth to this. When teams get too large, coordination starts to outweigh creativity—layers of approval, risk aversion, and tight deadlines can turn bold ideas into “safe” ones. Keeping a team under ~200 people sounds ideal for maintaining clear communication and a shared vision. That said, massive AAA projects also come with huge technical demands and expectations, so scaling up isn’t always avoidable. The real challenge is figuring out how to keep that small-team creativity alive inside big studio structures.
More than that, it's logistically untenable. Inevitably, when teams get too large, how do you keep tabs on accountability? I suspect this massive team size is a consequence of the perfectionism streak Naughty Dog has.
I wish we could have so many people working on something and it turns out great because I'm all for collaboration in spirit - the problem is too many people as part of the larger team and smaller units. Suppose for example that you have too many people in the art department; you will very often come up against fiercely competing visions for how things should look. That competitive vision will cause friction between team members, team doesn't work as a unit, the back and forth can further delay parts that the other departments are waiting for, etc etc.
A 200-person team says, to me, that we need to scale back game development. Even if it means we go back to PS2 era costs and scale, why not? Those games are still great fun, the budgets were in check, and you could literally break the 200-man team into like 10 20-man teams working on different projects.
The Last of Us Part I PS5 review covering visuals, combat feel, accessibility, performance modes, and whether it is really worth the asking price of $69.99.
This is so true. I honestly hate what gamers have become today. Whiny, entitled, and egotistic. Tell one of the average gamers that, and they'll groan about how they're "helping their favorite developer" by jumping on any hate bandwagon they can.
This is kind of ridiculous, sorry. No disrespect to the writer intended, but that scrutiny is necessary in all critique because it should, and usually does, push the makers to work harder and make better games. Also, you can't help what bothers you. You either roll with it or you don't. If you don't there is nothing wrong with it as long as you can back it up with actual substance and not misunderstanding.
Sorry, I just don't see it that way.
When a game is otherwise perfect, the un-perfect stuff tends to stand out better. When you have a game like The Last of Us and you're enjoying it a lot and everything seems to be really well done, then you come to a part where the textures don't load, it's really off-putting you know?
Great game though.