surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Coming in here I was assuming that this guy would have joined forces with the other guy but now I see he enjoys fantasy altering drugs.
I know Zenga employees are compensated very well for their work on their games so I can, again, only assume that this man will be getting more money.
I know Zenga employees are compensated very well for their work on their games so I can, again, only assume that this man will be getting more money.
If he had anything to do with Ico then good riddance. If he had anything to do with SotC, then that makes me sad.
This is another reason why online gaming has ruined this gaming generation. Why have new, creative, and artistic games when you can just make a quick cash-in and make small-sized games that are basically copies of other games like Farmville or Zynga on Facebook? Herp a Derp!
Well that sucks, I'm open to all kinds of games, but I just can't get into social games. One of the reasons I like games so much is because I don't like interacting with people (It's not that I'm anti-social I'm just introverted). I'll still give his new project the benefit of the doubt, but I doubt it'll grab me if it's a social game.
Its kinda sad for $ony fangrls outthere but I think this game might die the same way as Agent. But at least u peeps still have other titles to look forward to in 2012
@Jimbo:
Don't make me report you to support or Mr. Andy. Dead serious. Stop the trolling.
@Topic:
Hopefully the game will be released. I know it sounds selfish, but more than sometimes I feel the same way as Footbal Religion. I miss when games as entertainment was a niche, underground hobby...
Don't make me report you to support or Mr. Andy. Dead serious. Stop the trolling.
@Topic:
Hopefully the game will be released. I know it sounds selfish, but more than sometimes I feel the same way as Footbal Religion. I miss when games as entertainment was a niche, underground hobby...
This is a very bad omen, or should I say omens
-Sony is focusing on a more kid friendly market in 2012
-Microsoft is becoming more Kinect based, if evidenced by the last E3, which was underwhelming, to say the least.
-The last guardian, almost guaranteed to make a splash critically, and be fap material for the "gaming is art" crowd, has lost its executive producer, to social games.
I don't have a problem with casual gamers, they provide a much needed sales boost, and give gaming more exposure. What I have a problem with, is respected developers making a lesser experience to appeal to a broader audience.
-Sony is focusing on a more kid friendly market in 2012
-Microsoft is becoming more Kinect based, if evidenced by the last E3, which was underwhelming, to say the least.
-The last guardian, almost guaranteed to make a splash critically, and be fap material for the "gaming is art" crowd, has lost its executive producer, to social games.
I don't have a problem with casual gamers, they provide a much needed sales boost, and give gaming more exposure. What I have a problem with, is respected developers making a lesser experience to appeal to a broader audience.
Yes because clearly gaming would be where it's at today if Atari and Nintendo hadn't tried to make gaming mainstream....
God people don't seem to understand gaming history half as well as they think they do.
Anyways, I think this is a smart move. Neither Ico or SotC were huge successes so it makes sense that this guy would move on to make games that would have a better chance of having more customers while not having to develop them for as long. Whether they'll be successful or not is a different story.
Another thing is lately Sony seems hellbent on sabotaging any goodwill they've had with gamers with the PS Vita and the other moves they've been making with PSN and the like. I think it seems perfectly logical to move on to somewhere else where the company isn't actively attempting to piss off their fanbase.
God people don't seem to understand gaming history half as well as they think they do.
Anyways, I think this is a smart move. Neither Ico or SotC were huge successes so it makes sense that this guy would move on to make games that would have a better chance of having more customers while not having to develop them for as long. Whether they'll be successful or not is a different story.
Another thing is lately Sony seems hellbent on sabotaging any goodwill they've had with gamers with the PS Vita and the other moves they've been making with PSN and the like. I think it seems perfectly logical to move on to somewhere else where the company isn't actively attempting to piss off their fanbase.
@Vanor:
"Yes because clearly gaming would be where it's at today if Atari and Nintendo hadn't tried to make gaming mainstream....
God people don't seem to understand gaming history half as well as they think they do."
Could you elaborate on that statement some more, if I may ask?
"Yes because clearly gaming would be where it's at today if Atari and Nintendo hadn't tried to make gaming mainstream....
God people don't seem to understand gaming history half as well as they think they do."
Could you elaborate on that statement some more, if I may ask?
@ Football Religion
BECAUSE MW3 is clearly a bad game BUT realy I still dont get ur point with that antimainstream rant
BECAUSE MW3 is clearly a bad game BUT realy I still dont get ur point with that antimainstream rant
All this "gaming shouldn't be so mainstream" makes me sad. This is exactly the OPPOSITE attitude we should have in regards to the industry, and I completely agree with Vanor: the industry has always tried to make gaming MORE popular, not more niche.
Anyways, I'm sad to see him go, but if this means that there'll be better Facebook games, I'm all for it :)
Anyways, I'm sad to see him go, but if this means that there'll be better Facebook games, I'm all for it :)
@ Football Religion
By your logic because Monster Hunter is niche over here in the West I should like it yet when if I were to go to Japan where it's popular I should therefore hate it.
Mind you I love Monster Hunter (MGP2G was the first time I ever imported a game back when we didn't think it was coming out), but this stupid childish attitude of making game inclusive isn't just, well, stupid and childish, it's also damaging to gaming as a whole because if you don't expand gaming's popularity you don't get new gamers, which means you are left with a stagnant and shrinking group of gamers that are unable to sustain gaming as production values goes up and customers/revenue goes down. Eventually the industry will just collapse.
Right now my 7 year old nephew is playing Mario World, DKC, NSMB, Link to the Past, and Kirby Superstar Ultra on my old DS (which I gave to him), and he's loving those games to death. If this keeps up I'll make him a gamer for life. When I get a chance I'll let him play Goldeneye Reloaded with me and even Black Ops' Zombie Mode. He watches me play these games. He likes watching me play these games. Shit, he even enjoys watching me play the original Final Fantasy.
I guess by your logic my nephew isn't entitled to enjoy gaming like the rest of the elite few. I also suppose my 50 year old manager isn't entitled to play a 007 game because he happens to be a huge fan of 007. When people like you speak about making games more exclusive it comes across like some petulant preteen trying to act all pretentious and bourgeois.
By your logic because Monster Hunter is niche over here in the West I should like it yet when if I were to go to Japan where it's popular I should therefore hate it.
Mind you I love Monster Hunter (MGP2G was the first time I ever imported a game back when we didn't think it was coming out), but this stupid childish attitude of making game inclusive isn't just, well, stupid and childish, it's also damaging to gaming as a whole because if you don't expand gaming's popularity you don't get new gamers, which means you are left with a stagnant and shrinking group of gamers that are unable to sustain gaming as production values goes up and customers/revenue goes down. Eventually the industry will just collapse.
Right now my 7 year old nephew is playing Mario World, DKC, NSMB, Link to the Past, and Kirby Superstar Ultra on my old DS (which I gave to him), and he's loving those games to death. If this keeps up I'll make him a gamer for life. When I get a chance I'll let him play Goldeneye Reloaded with me and even Black Ops' Zombie Mode. He watches me play these games. He likes watching me play these games. Shit, he even enjoys watching me play the original Final Fantasy.
I guess by your logic my nephew isn't entitled to enjoy gaming like the rest of the elite few. I also suppose my 50 year old manager isn't entitled to play a 007 game because he happens to be a huge fan of 007. When people like you speak about making games more exclusive it comes across like some petulant preteen trying to act all pretentious and bourgeois.
I do hope he's not leaving a sinking ship, that would be such a shame.
Social games are so vile. I don't even consider them games, really. From the get-go they're psychologically and economically thought out as schemes to reel in massive amounts of people and extract enough nickles and dimes from that fleshy mass to turn a massive profit. It's just a money sink with a game-y shell on top of it.
And what's so social about social games anyway? Is bugging your friends with annoying messages in hopes that they'll undertake a specific action to grant you more resources to build your lame farm considered social? Fuck no, that's just using your friends for your own gain, effectively turning them into resources.
Evil little social games. Even Wii Shovelware and Taiwapanesian F2P MMO #69395 are on a golden pedestal compared to that shit.
Social games are so vile. I don't even consider them games, really. From the get-go they're psychologically and economically thought out as schemes to reel in massive amounts of people and extract enough nickles and dimes from that fleshy mass to turn a massive profit. It's just a money sink with a game-y shell on top of it.
And what's so social about social games anyway? Is bugging your friends with annoying messages in hopes that they'll undertake a specific action to grant you more resources to build your lame farm considered social? Fuck no, that's just using your friends for your own gain, effectively turning them into resources.
Evil little social games. Even Wii Shovelware and Taiwapanesian F2P MMO #69395 are on a golden pedestal compared to that shit.
@Football Religion:
"I don't want everyone to enjoy this hobby."
I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with you on this. I find it selfish at best.
I'm not asking you to like Facebook games or anything of the sort, but to consider them the "destruction" of gaming, I find it rather naive. There can be all sorts of games for everybody, and if you want to see more games of the kind you like, then vote with your wallet.
I prefer my mom to enjoy Angry Birds, a fun game in its own right, than her considering gaming a "kids" hobby :)
"I don't want everyone to enjoy this hobby."
I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with you on this. I find it selfish at best.
I'm not asking you to like Facebook games or anything of the sort, but to consider them the "destruction" of gaming, I find it rather naive. There can be all sorts of games for everybody, and if you want to see more games of the kind you like, then vote with your wallet.
I prefer my mom to enjoy Angry Birds, a fun game in its own right, than her considering gaming a "kids" hobby :)
@Football Religion:
"Fuck your mom. I rather she never get involved in video games except for when she's buying them as a gift."
OK, where do you want me to fuck my mom: your house or mine? You can come over if you want to! :P
"Fuck your mom. I rather she never get involved in video games except for when she's buying them as a gift."
OK, where do you want me to fuck my mom: your house or mine? You can come over if you want to! :P
The game is still coming out... shit's probably already finished. Don't need an executive producer to get a game through testing stages.
Casual games are fine and exist just for that audience and if this guy is going to improve them and make them less grating and shitty, so be it. That will just lead to more people understanding why people play the "hardcore" games.
Everything is gonna be JUST fine, everybody.
Casual games are fine and exist just for that audience and if this guy is going to improve them and make them less grating and shitty, so be it. That will just lead to more people understanding why people play the "hardcore" games.
Everything is gonna be JUST fine, everybody.
I don't know what planet some people come from, but video games have always been marketed to families aside from Sega's push for the frantic masturbator zitface niche.
I don't think the problem is the further mainstreaming of gaming itself, but in the way this mainstreaming is gone about. I think it would be hard to argue that publishers seem to abandon a lot of creative directions in favor of focusing on broad appeal, and it has lead to a lot of homogenization.
Back when GTA3 hit, a lot of us were complaining that everything was going open world. In retrospect, this may have been an overreaction on the part of those people, but given the landscape at the time, it really did feel that way. If I had known how far "me too" would go with gritty realistic Hollywood-esque mookiness a decade later, I myself probably wouldn't have complained so much.
With the wild proliferation of the mainstream market, it seems only natural that the same business models that created the "listen, we like the idea of this fantasy game, but we really need you to make it more palatable for a broader audience if you want us to publish it" mentality would give rise to another perceived honeypot. When opening up everything to a broader audience became incredibly important, it laid the foundation for the logical continuance of that mentality.
We are definitely approaching that point. Social/smart device games are cheaper to make, and allow for far less risk when trying to hit that home run. The industry has more than proven that opening up to a more mainstream audience pays dividends, the numbers are there and easily interpreted. To do so again, with an even more broad audience, would conceivably do just the same.
Maybe, now just maybe, these "non-traditional" forms of gaming pay dividends enough to allow the console market to contract a little, and allow for the kind of financial risk mitigation the industry hasn't seen in a while (arguably, my opinion anyway). What I do hope, however, is that the opening up of broader audience yet will not be treated as the kind of honeypot that the move was treated as this generation.
Back when GTA3 hit, a lot of us were complaining that everything was going open world. In retrospect, this may have been an overreaction on the part of those people, but given the landscape at the time, it really did feel that way. If I had known how far "me too" would go with gritty realistic Hollywood-esque mookiness a decade later, I myself probably wouldn't have complained so much.
With the wild proliferation of the mainstream market, it seems only natural that the same business models that created the "listen, we like the idea of this fantasy game, but we really need you to make it more palatable for a broader audience if you want us to publish it" mentality would give rise to another perceived honeypot. When opening up everything to a broader audience became incredibly important, it laid the foundation for the logical continuance of that mentality.
We are definitely approaching that point. Social/smart device games are cheaper to make, and allow for far less risk when trying to hit that home run. The industry has more than proven that opening up to a more mainstream audience pays dividends, the numbers are there and easily interpreted. To do so again, with an even more broad audience, would conceivably do just the same.
Maybe, now just maybe, these "non-traditional" forms of gaming pay dividends enough to allow the console market to contract a little, and allow for the kind of financial risk mitigation the industry hasn't seen in a while (arguably, my opinion anyway). What I do hope, however, is that the opening up of broader audience yet will not be treated as the kind of honeypot that the move was treated as this generation.
" Anyways, I think this is a smart move. Neither Ico or SotC were huge successes so it makes sense that this guy would move on to make games that would have a better chance of having more customers while not having to develop them for as long."
Yeah, cuz gaming is all and only about the monies! No one ever makes these to genuinely entertain people or make the feel or experience something new!
Yeah, cuz gaming is all and only about the monies! No one ever makes these to genuinely entertain people or make the feel or experience something new!
Man these comments got crazy. That being said I could care less about the "casual" gamers and what not as long as good games continue to come out I don't care what else comes along with it and so far good and great games are still coming out. On a aside note however I think that the Kinect, and really motion controls in general, are stupid and believe that a controller works just fine but that's another argument. Back to the actual topic of the post while I'm sure that The Last Guardian will still come out this is still starting to worry me. I mean with this guy leaving and, more importantly, Ueda possibly leaving I'm starting to get worried about Team Ico. They created two of my top five favorite games and is the one studio that I trust above all others to make an amazing, quality, immersive, and immensely entertaining gaming experience. These guys are amazing at what they do, especially Ueda, and if he does actually quit and The Last Guardian is the last game made by this team then the gaming industry as a whole will lose one of the best developers that has ever been in the industry, and that would be a damn shame.
Well that was long as hell and probably too long for anyone to take the time to read but whatever there's my thoughts on the matter. So here's to hoping that Ueda actually stays and that no one else leaves so that Team Ico can continue to create some of the most wonderful experiences in gaming history.
Well that was long as hell and probably too long for anyone to take the time to read but whatever there's my thoughts on the matter. So here's to hoping that Ueda actually stays and that no one else leaves so that Team Ico can continue to create some of the most wonderful experiences in gaming history.
@tekbunny
Gaming is a business and business is about making customers. While Ico and Sotc may sell better than SMT (which I do like, mind you), it isn't exactly selling on the same level as say Super Mario Bros. If you keep making games that have nothing but production values and no actual *replay value* then did you really make a game?
Look at Skyrim. It's selling out like crazy. There is genuine excitement for this game. When I went to a Gamestop to pick up MGS Collection there was a perfectly normal looking couple there to preorder Skyrim. Playing Skyrim I can see why. What I expect we'll get out of The Last Guardian is what we got with SotC. A huge, expansive, beautiful world...with about fuck all inhabiting it outside of the Colossi. Skyrim has huge fucking dragon, giants, bandits, vampires, werewolves, and a whole fuckton of stuff to explore and do and the means to do so in any way that you want. Where is that kind of replay value in SotC?
I'm not hating on people that like those games. But if you are gonna whine about why people aren't getting the "genius" of these games that people don't buy, it's probably because they lack replay value after you've finished it. Even a game like DMC 3 features different playstyles so that people can play in the way that they want, with the weapons they want. Can you do that in SotC?
Making something new doesn't matter much when there's no replay value or content behind it. In Skyrim we got a huge world to explore. In SotC we got a "narrative". Yeah, it's no shock that Skryim is curbstomping a lot RPG games of the last decade.
Gaming is a business and business is about making customers. While Ico and Sotc may sell better than SMT (which I do like, mind you), it isn't exactly selling on the same level as say Super Mario Bros. If you keep making games that have nothing but production values and no actual *replay value* then did you really make a game?
Look at Skyrim. It's selling out like crazy. There is genuine excitement for this game. When I went to a Gamestop to pick up MGS Collection there was a perfectly normal looking couple there to preorder Skyrim. Playing Skyrim I can see why. What I expect we'll get out of The Last Guardian is what we got with SotC. A huge, expansive, beautiful world...with about fuck all inhabiting it outside of the Colossi. Skyrim has huge fucking dragon, giants, bandits, vampires, werewolves, and a whole fuckton of stuff to explore and do and the means to do so in any way that you want. Where is that kind of replay value in SotC?
I'm not hating on people that like those games. But if you are gonna whine about why people aren't getting the "genius" of these games that people don't buy, it's probably because they lack replay value after you've finished it. Even a game like DMC 3 features different playstyles so that people can play in the way that they want, with the weapons they want. Can you do that in SotC?
Making something new doesn't matter much when there's no replay value or content behind it. In Skyrim we got a huge world to explore. In SotC we got a "narrative". Yeah, it's no shock that Skryim is curbstomping a lot RPG games of the last decade.
@Vanor
This is an entertainment medium we are talking about here. While gaming is indeed a business (what isn't), there is as much to be said about enriching the medium itself as opposed to simply profiting as much as you can off of it. This is broadly understood in all other large entertainment industries, and the reason why you don't get summer blockbusters all year round. Failing to enrich your medium forces you to pander to your most lucrative audiences, as you are no longer trying to push the creative boundaries far enough to find new audiences that could be pulled in by said projects.
A game like Skyrim was made using what was likely a huge team with a huge budget. Not only is this not possible the vast majority of the time, it is also not feasible for the medium, or any medium, to base its success as a whole on the work of a huge, well funded team. If it were possible to have that kind of support all the time, I'm sure people would be jumping all over it.
Can I do that in SotC? No. Can Skyrim move me the way SotC did? Absolutely not. I am more than capable of enjoying both games for exactly what they offer, in their own context, without faulting either of them for what they do not, and simply could not (again, in their own context), do in trying to entertain me.
The fact that we still talk about ICO and SotC to this day is proof enough those kinds of games more than deserve to exist. They stand as a testament to narrative through design. They both told a robust tale without having to sit you down and telling you what it was.
Will these games make huge amounts of money? Fuck no. They audience that responds to that kind of design is small in relation to that of a game like Skyrim. Does that mean that those kinds of games should not be made, as they don't have home run potential? Of course not, though that seems to be the prevailing opinion in large industry circles.
The fact that a lack of huge market success potential is somehow considered a bad thing by anyone, industry and fan alike, should go to show just how much gaming has room to grow as a creative medium. The market for an amazing experience is small compared to that of an amazing piece of interactive entertainment, but to trivialize the former does the entire industry a disservice.
This is an entertainment medium we are talking about here. While gaming is indeed a business (what isn't), there is as much to be said about enriching the medium itself as opposed to simply profiting as much as you can off of it. This is broadly understood in all other large entertainment industries, and the reason why you don't get summer blockbusters all year round. Failing to enrich your medium forces you to pander to your most lucrative audiences, as you are no longer trying to push the creative boundaries far enough to find new audiences that could be pulled in by said projects.
A game like Skyrim was made using what was likely a huge team with a huge budget. Not only is this not possible the vast majority of the time, it is also not feasible for the medium, or any medium, to base its success as a whole on the work of a huge, well funded team. If it were possible to have that kind of support all the time, I'm sure people would be jumping all over it.
Can I do that in SotC? No. Can Skyrim move me the way SotC did? Absolutely not. I am more than capable of enjoying both games for exactly what they offer, in their own context, without faulting either of them for what they do not, and simply could not (again, in their own context), do in trying to entertain me.
The fact that we still talk about ICO and SotC to this day is proof enough those kinds of games more than deserve to exist. They stand as a testament to narrative through design. They both told a robust tale without having to sit you down and telling you what it was.
Will these games make huge amounts of money? Fuck no. They audience that responds to that kind of design is small in relation to that of a game like Skyrim. Does that mean that those kinds of games should not be made, as they don't have home run potential? Of course not, though that seems to be the prevailing opinion in large industry circles.
The fact that a lack of huge market success potential is somehow considered a bad thing by anyone, industry and fan alike, should go to show just how much gaming has room to grow as a creative medium. The market for an amazing experience is small compared to that of an amazing piece of interactive entertainment, but to trivialize the former does the entire industry a disservice.
@vanor
while pretty much everything you said makes sense from a business perspective, it doesnt make it any less saddening to me. if anything, it just makes it moreso.
i understand you gotta take the good with the bad, but this sucks. plain and simple.
while pretty much everything you said makes sense from a business perspective, it doesnt make it any less saddening to me. if anything, it just makes it moreso.
i understand you gotta take the good with the bad, but this sucks. plain and simple.
@Vanor: The point you are trying to make is odd. You can't exactly compare a hugely popular IP which has existed for almost 18 years with what is essentially a niche game with a cult-following. Also, replay value is more subjective than you think. A game can offer all the replay value in the world but that doesn't mean I'm automatically inclined to replay it. It's generally a good thing, but since the pleasure derived from games is entirely subjective, it doesn't automatically make the game better, nor does it invalidate games which barely offer any replay incentive.
Anyway, OneRed's response said things much better than I ever could.
Anyway, OneRed's response said things much better than I ever could.
@tekbunny
The thing is, at this point, the "AAA" games model isn't one that is being followed so staunchly because everyone wants to, but more or less because they have to. Publishers have created a situation for themselves that is rife with insurmountable risk, as years of focusing on the Skyrim kind of blockbuster has driven prices through the roof. The situation vanor describes is not one of choice, but one of necessity.
The "smart move", so to speak, was never having driven the industry down this path to begin with, one where a game that sells 1million+ copies and is widely lauded as some of the most well designed games in a generation (IGN rated SotC as the best PS2 game made. Its IGN, but still, if SotC is rated #1 given their readership, that may say something), is considered a failure.
If this was the case here, Hayama would have logically split to work on more lucrative traditional gaming ventures, no? If ICO and SotC were such failures, why not move to making more mainstream console games? Because it isn't the failure of those kinds of games that are driving industry minds to social gaming, it is the failure of the "AAA" games business model as a whole. They're not just being priced out of making niche style games, they're being priced out of making anything on a console.
The thing is, at this point, the "AAA" games model isn't one that is being followed so staunchly because everyone wants to, but more or less because they have to. Publishers have created a situation for themselves that is rife with insurmountable risk, as years of focusing on the Skyrim kind of blockbuster has driven prices through the roof. The situation vanor describes is not one of choice, but one of necessity.
The "smart move", so to speak, was never having driven the industry down this path to begin with, one where a game that sells 1million+ copies and is widely lauded as some of the most well designed games in a generation (IGN rated SotC as the best PS2 game made. Its IGN, but still, if SotC is rated #1 given their readership, that may say something), is considered a failure.
If this was the case here, Hayama would have logically split to work on more lucrative traditional gaming ventures, no? If ICO and SotC were such failures, why not move to making more mainstream console games? Because it isn't the failure of those kinds of games that are driving industry minds to social gaming, it is the failure of the "AAA" games business model as a whole. They're not just being priced out of making niche style games, they're being priced out of making anything on a console.
Loving the discussion in this topic, even though I'm not a fan of Team ICO's games myself (though I do own and enjoy SotC casually).
Vanor and OneRed are the MVPs of the thread.
Vanor and OneRed are the MVPs of the thread.
Hahaha tekbunny. As long as you don't have gnarly biceps, and promise to put me down in timely fashion. I fear having my feet off the ground for too long might cause me to float away.
Fuck this guy and fuck The Last Guardian. All I've been seeing is that same bloody screenshot for how many years now and fanboys gawping over it. Sony has given this guy and Team ICO all the time in the world to make this game and give him all this freedom despite his last two games not bringing in the green.
If he wants to go make Facebook games, to hell with him.
Not that I'm saying that's a bad thing; not all Facebook games need to be crap and I'm sure he can bring something fresh to the medium as a creative director, maybe switch things up a bit.
But I for one am sick of all this hype and anticipation, delays and all that for a game nobody really knows anything about. Then just having people drop off the radar on it. I don't think that says a lot of good things about the game itself and I really have to ask whether all this waiting is worth it.
And nobody is speaking up to answer that question.
Team ICO can suck it with their arty enigmatic enigma.
(then again, I wasn't a huge fan of SotC, either so ya)
If he wants to go make Facebook games, to hell with him.
Not that I'm saying that's a bad thing; not all Facebook games need to be crap and I'm sure he can bring something fresh to the medium as a creative director, maybe switch things up a bit.
But I for one am sick of all this hype and anticipation, delays and all that for a game nobody really knows anything about. Then just having people drop off the radar on it. I don't think that says a lot of good things about the game itself and I really have to ask whether all this waiting is worth it.
And nobody is speaking up to answer that question.
Team ICO can suck it with their arty enigmatic enigma.
(then again, I wasn't a huge fan of SotC, either so ya)
Fuck this guy and fuck The Last Guardian. All I've been seeing is that same bloody screenshot for how many years now and fanboys gawping over it. Sony has given this guy and Team ICO all the time in the world to make this game and give him all this freedom despite his last two games not bringing in the green.
If he wants to go make Facebook games, to hell with him.
Not that I'm saying that's a bad thing; not all Facebook games need to be crap and I'm sure he can bring something fresh to the medium as a creative director, maybe switch things up a bit.
But I for one am sick of all this hype and anticipation, delays and all that for a game nobody really knows anything about. Then just having people drop off the radar on it. I don't think that says a lot of good things about the game itself and I really have to ask whether all this waiting is worth it.
And nobody is speaking up to answer that question.
Team ICO can suck it with their arty enigmatic enigma.
(then again, I wasn't a huge fan of SotC, either so ya)
If he wants to go make Facebook games, to hell with him.
Not that I'm saying that's a bad thing; not all Facebook games need to be crap and I'm sure he can bring something fresh to the medium as a creative director, maybe switch things up a bit.
But I for one am sick of all this hype and anticipation, delays and all that for a game nobody really knows anything about. Then just having people drop off the radar on it. I don't think that says a lot of good things about the game itself and I really have to ask whether all this waiting is worth it.
And nobody is speaking up to answer that question.
Team ICO can suck it with their arty enigmatic enigma.
(then again, I wasn't a huge fan of SotC, either so ya)
@ Mainstream Haters - Right, so because action movies exist theres no such thing as art and indie films right? as soon as an entertainment medium becomes popular, thats supposed to mean its also bad? grow the fuck up, every last one of you
follow
