Jo from GamersFTW writes: "There are so many games out there these days it is often hard to know where to start. There are also many long running franchises that flood our gaming consoles or PCs. Sequels, prequels, spin offs, remakes, and remasters. You name it there are very few stand alone games that at some point or another don’t end up with another title associated with it in some way."
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.
Capcom has announced and released the original Resident Evil, Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil 3 on Steam.
If the sequel is good, then why not? There are some games that really should just stop at one though. Any that go past 3 or 4, are often lazy and just feel like an excuse to gain money from the franchise.
Depends what it's a sequel too. I'm really excited for:
Dragon Quest XI
Star Ocean 5
Ni no Kuni 2
Uncharted 4
The established sequels will continue because major publishers aren't going to take a huge gamble with millions of dollars..That's why the rise of indie studios is a good thing being as they often push creative fresh experiences.
actually yeah , like syndicate was surprisingly one of the best games this year (IMO it was better built than fallout 4) , and maybe BF5 will make a huge hit like 4 did oh and don't forget the awesome (that i can't play) halo 5 :3 and uncharted 4 on the way :D :D :D
It simple really.. I don't need the devs/pub's to tell me when to stop playing.. Once it gets stale for me I stop buying.
Thank God we've got more new IPs coming next year.
The most original game I've played so far in the gen is till Sunset Overdrive. It felt fresh, unlike anything I've ever played. That's a keeper.
--
That said, there are sequels that trump their predecessors like Rise of the Tomb Raider..
sequels are a safe bet for these publishers, I'd love to see more gambles ^_^