Velocity Gamer: An old school aspect of The Last of Us has us questioning why so many good ideas from the old days are abandoned.
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.
Uncharted is a perfect example of going the wrong way and giving you LESS gameplay (platforming that isn't platforming, making "cinematic" gameplay that isn't gameplay at all), so excuse me if i laugh at Naughty Dog pretending they have any ground to stand on.
"It’s true we didn’t completely leave the practice behind as it has remained a staple of survival games so perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised that The Last of Us will use the tried and true mechanic of the old days but it does raise questions about what is and is not acceptable as gaming moves forward under."
Holy crap use punctuation because it's very annoying to read things that sound like they are being spoken by a ten year old like this for example.
Outdated is a term I think critics use too much as "get out of jail free" card when it comes to description of video games mainly because too many people have a misconception of proper gaming evolution. Most gamers this generation believe that in order for a game to "evolve" it must start from scratch in making the new installment which throws the away a game's identity on the whole.
For a game to truly improve isn't just by getting ridding of the flaws of the previous titles but improving on the strengths of them as well. A structural foundation is required in order for a true next level experience to be attained which means creating a hybrid of both old and new methods.
Developers are focusing way too hard on grabbing from other companies' fanbases and reaching for the "Bieber" crowd instead of looking for ways of making their game stand out more on it's own two feet which results in so many games genre-swapping and so many comparisons to others.......
Regenerating health can burn in hell for all I care. So glad Resistance 3 went back to health packs. More games should follow.