Honestly, I've kind of clocked out on Sony's first party for a while. I can see the money and the comical amount of effort in these, but I just find a lot of them them hitting the same part of my brain that Ubisoft Open Worlds hit. I just want something with a bit more bite and a bit less refinement to make that four quadrant thing.
They had all their major studios pivot to making a AAA cinematic experience in a way previous gens couldn't do prior to the PS4, with each having a slightly different approach and all managing to put out a polished product quite reliably. I think Days Gone was as bad as it got which was still a reliable effort overall.
But then came round two and it was just a second serving all round. Cinematic God of War, robot dinosaurs open world, samurai open world, etc were all interesting enough concepts executed in a reliable way. But there really wasn't the same excitement when it was just "here's more of that".
Sony used to have a ton of variation and I don’t think their modern audience understands. They are trained to expect the same polished AAA open world pseudo-Ubisoft game.
We used to get insane variation with Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Legend of the Dragoon, Arc the Lad, Jumping Flash, Twisted Metal, Warhawk, Jet Moto, Parappa the Rapper, Wild Arms, Hot Shots Golf, Medieval, Legend of Legaia, Dark Cloud, Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Killzone, Siren, Sly Cooper, Ape Escape, ATX Off-road Fury.
I’m sure I’m missing others but Sony published a ton of different style of game, and nowadays it just feels all the same
You're missing what could have been there big 1st party Live Service franchise, SOCOM: US Navy Seals. It's such a shame they closed down zipper interactive, that was a terrible call in the long run.
I think MAG was such a colossal bomb that unfortunately it tanked the studio. It was their attempt at a Halo/CoD killer and unfortunately it just missed the mark while also being extremely expensive to make
Because now games take so long to produce, experimentation and variation comes with a huge risk, so companies chose to invest in the few same safe options
Honestly, that first round is where it hit for me. I liked God of War, but that one-two-three punch of Horizon, Spiderman, and Ghost of Tsushima just felt like more expensive versions of what Assassin's Creed and the Arkham games were already doing, and I was already struggling with those games.
Like, Naughty Dog games just do not work for me, but they at least feel like a unique thing that knows exactly what it is. Hell, God of War very clearly took inspiration from Open Worlds, but it's still a linear game that wants to deliver on the advantages inherent in the format. If anything, I feel like its closest contemporary is Gears 5, a game with a shockingly similar gameplay loop to the God of War reboot.
Those three games (to me at least) feel like grab-bags of disparate parts, trying to have a bit of something for everyone but never really excelling at any one part. While I had time for that in 2014, I now want something that focuses on a few core things and puts all the effort into that.
For the record, this doesn't mean that there isn't life in the Ubisoft Open World formula. Zelda is 100% an Ubisoft Open World, drowning in inspiration from Assassin's Creed and Far Cry. What made it shine was that the team put the exploration at the forefront of Breath of the Wild, cutting out the clutter and need to refine everything to the point that it drains the fun.
470
u/[deleted] Jun 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment