Play: "Last week, we gave you Retro Gamer Editor Darran Jones stating the case against the trend for HD remasters on current-gen consoles. This week we present the counter argument from Play Editor Luke Albigés."
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.
So because a PS4 owner may not have owned a PS3, the rest of us must deal with the remake?
That's the lamest excuse I have ever read. If they missed out, that's what happened. Why must the developers cater to them?
And yes, remakes do replace new games. Resources and time spent on remakes are wasted when considering how they can be used toward new games.
Lets get real here. The only reason they exist (remakes), is because they return more than twice the profit due to ease of development. Any other argument in favor of remakes is just mental gymnastics.