N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
Aw Yiss. More R&C.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
IGN Preview: Traditional Ratchet is back in 'Ratchet and Clank: Into the Nexus'
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
:fistbump, doniewhalberg.
NoirVisage
Banned
neh, its pretty dull. it must have been a short form of all the worst aspects, because I've played all the other ratchet games to completion and that one just seemed poorly paced, especially being a shorter experience.
you said this:
I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill
If the game has enough reason for me to come back for a second playthrough, and it clocks in above 4 or 5 hours, then I'm more than happy enough to spend $30 on it.
You're speaking for yourself, his post was actually a realistic post from an average consumer who isn't a superfan.
Arc Christelle
Member
That looks really good. Can't wait to see more.
I didn't realize there were average consumers on GAF who wished to discuss the quality / caliber of a development team, the length of a product based on vague information, sales, potential, etc.
Seems a bit more than casual, and all of the points he hits as reasons for a "longer game" are unrealistic given the current climate for demand when it comes to R&C titles.
Hey, who wants to listen to me, super fans shouldn't be listened to, right? No matter how logically we put together our information, we must be full of shit, lol.
NoirVisage
Banned
"lol"? you saw what I quoted, don't be coy.
Realistic in this capacity is subjective, i was stating I felt his concerns were more realistic and fell in line with my own.
Incendiary
Banned
What confuses me is that there's always tons of threads on how games shouldn't always be a static $60 price, prices should reflect content, blah blah blah. And then when Insomniac actually releases a full Ratchet game at $30, the response is "oh it must be short on content, pass" or "why couldn't they make a $60 game, it must be too short, pass."
I'll buy Day One. Can't wait. Hopefully this is a return to form for Insomniac.
I'm not trying to be coy. While my thoughts of what I said I would be fine with do speak to my interests, they also speak to the nature of the situation. What you two want, while ideal and also a desire of my own, is not realistic. Not only that, it wouldn't be a wise choice for Sony at this point.
Why invest money into a bigger project with a higher price point during the transition of a generation? At this point Sony needs to attack families with the PS3, and that is exactly what R&C Nexus is for. Lower priced PS3 + low price family game.
I get it, a longer game would be great, even better if it were on PS4, but that simply doesn't make sense to anyone except for a few core consumers (who cannot support this franchise on their own).
Commanche Raisin Toast
Member
That's a good way to put it.
I also think you guys used it as a means to try a few small things here and there. The grabbing of worms with the wrench felt new and experimental, relative to the way ToD felt.
Sly 4 seemed to do great at $40 and that was the full game(With Vita Cross buy). Not unreasonable for people to want Ratchet to get the same treatment.
Get off the internet with your logic.
no it didn't- it went to $20 soon after and now new Sly games probably will never happen.
Do you want the same fate for Ratchet!? I don't.
"Seemed to do great" feels like a statement that largely reflects anecdotal evidence and some PR side speak.
I don't feel like Sly 4 was a failure, but I think it's a bit unfiar to say "it did well" without a solid foundation of information, and then assume that this title should be reflective of that one. Two different studios with two different goals, and Sony is obviously working different angles with each title.
I get that they're both family friendly titles, but the situation under which each title is being developed is certainly not the same.
Because literally every consumer-based industry shows sweeping evidence of consumers taking a multitude of factors into account, up-to-and-including past experiences with products from a company? There have been endless studies about this stuff. And those factors have included things like longevity of the product, support for it from the company (including things like customer service) and the things he talked about too like price.
Consumers have not and never will be even remotely as dumb as people think they are. They're not as smart as they should be, but they certainly consider a wide range of factors. Having a good experience with a console in the past from a company where that company demonstrated that they would continue supporting it well after new platforms are out certainly would be a factor for many consumers looking into future products from the company.
It's not the ONLY factor, and if there are other factors that are much worse and outweigh those consumers might take those instead, but it's absolutely not remotely true what that guy said.
I know! And now Q4B is suddenly being called poor and sub-standard, even for the cheap price point? It was a short-form traditional R&C game. It game was great!
Lunacy, I tells ya, lunacy.
It was in the top ten that month across all platforms, right? #9, I want to say, and that didn't include digital sales? Beat Fire Emblem.
eddfromtheriver
Banned
Are you guys open to the possibility of working on the PS4?, do you even have devkits for it?, it would rock to have a Ratchet game for the PS4 made by you guys.
Always up for some more Ratchet & Clank! Gimme gimme. Hopefully it bridges towards a new PS4 series 
This makes a lot of sense to me.
Exactly. I bet they'll have $199 PS3 bundles with this game this holiday season.
Beer Monkey
Member
Ugh, Sony, support your damned Vita. It's the nicest piece of portable tech that I've ever owned.
Sony would be foolish to not drop the PS3 price this fall to capitalize on people who want to play TLOU and other exclusives. The price gap between the PS3 price right now and the PS4's launching price is far too small IMO.
Agreed, it looks bad if your new console is only 100 dollars more then the current. It just communicates to people that its not a powerful upgrade, a price drop has to come. Otherwise its just poor marketing imo.
Just curious but it's Until Dawn still in development?
Even if Sly 4 didn't sell well, I doubt "We gave too much value for money" was one of the reasons.
"We admit it is less game, but we're lowering the price to balance things out" is a confusing message to get across. "Full game for less" is an easier message to convey.
Also the non committal Vita stuff is a problem. Insomniac should be developing the Vita version in house. That's the only way they can properly both versions are done on time and in proper quality.
Pretty much, and it will be a 7 year old console come this fall.
http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/05/07/ps3s-until-dawn-still-very-much-in-development
From 2 months ago, but it is still in development (apparently). We just haven't heard much on it though since it was revealed last year at GC.
NoirVisage
Banned
This dude gets it.
PlanetSmasher
Banned
Then like I said before, maybe Insomniac should've just waited until the movie was coming out and released a full-spec sequel then. They didn't have to make this game right now, and they especially didn't have to do it with a smaller team and tight financial constraints, which Jstevenson just alluded to earlier in this thread.
They chose to release a smaller product with a tighter development time frame and lower available resources, and as such they now have to fight against customers' expectations, rather than work with them. I don't envy the position they're in right now.
Well at least it's better than nothing, I 'm interested in this game but I really fear the day sony announce it's cancelled on the same way they did with Ruin :_(.
thanks for the info.
So don't release a new Ratchet for how many years, and potentially lose mindset of new consumers? You're making less and less sense with each response, and I don't mean offense there.
You're taking jstevenson's comments out of context with regards to budget and team size. If he says smaller budget and smaller team, that does not mean they have financial constraints or that they didn't have the capability to do what they wanted. Insomniac has been able to release games so frequently because they're good at managing their people, and keeping the scope of their projects under control, so as not to bloat the budget. They knew what they pitched to Sony, they knew how long they would need to do it, and how much it would cost.
They're not fighting against customers expectations, because the "customers" that are expecting an "epic" game can't support the franchise on their own. Those that will be buying the (undoubtedly cheaper) PS3 this holiday season will definitely be looking for new games, and with a brand new Ratchet game releasing at such a low price (both digitally and physically)...this choice was a no brainer.
I'm sorry, I get your wishes, and I share the desire for a longer, beefier Ratchet. I just live in reality, and I don't expect Insomniac (or any other company) to cater to my "niche". They need money, and what you're suggesting doesn't really make them money, lol.
That's not the impression I get at all. I don't feel like Insomniac was apologizing for the size of the game, or the price, as you are suggesting. I feel like they assessed the value of the project, and priced it fairly, and within reason.
I think Insomniac understands that maybe their in house engine isn't very well suited for porting to Vita, and as such are evaluating how they can help ease that process before they commit to announcing a Vita version. If they can do it well enough, I'm confident they'll try to make it happen.
What if they could of given us a better Ratchet game if they put in the money that went into your beloved FUSE into this game? Not many people besides you liked it.
for some reason, i didn't clue in that you guys were talking about this new game being short (didn't see the op update). that's a bit disappointing. oh well, we still don't know how long it will actually be, just that it will be shorter than the regular games. at least it is priced lower.
The money that went to Fuse came from EA, and there's a pretty small chance any of that would have went into a title from another publisher
PlanetSmasher
Banned
The thing is, they are fighting against expectations. The entire series up to this point has been known for having a pretty similar play time and scope, even though the individual games might have had some unique elements. Now, they have to explain WHY this new game - which they're treating like the next main installment - is half the size, scale and depth of the last major installment in the series. They have to convince people that the tradeoff is worth it. Most consumers really don't care about what happens behind the scenes - they care about what they get on the disc at the end of the day. And as such, Insomniac has to find a way to convince them that a smaller game is just as good as ACiT was. That's a hard sell, especially with new console launches stealing all the public's attention.
And how is Insomniac going to deal with the stigma that low-budget games hold? If it were a handheld game things might be a little different, but for a console game, the price is too high for a downloadable game and too low for a retail game. They're literally exactly in the middle, and Ratchet isn't the kind of game that's going to be able to weather the "low budget = low quality" stigma on its own.
I'm sorry, but the fact of the matter is that seeing a smaller game and a lower price gives me ANY NUMBER of reasons to panic or to doubt the game will be as good as ACiT. It gives me absolutely no reason to assume it will live up to the series' best. It's not unrealistic to look at the series' history, see this game chafing against that history, and start to worry as a result. Hell, for all we know, this game could be in development by a skeleton team while the majority of Insomniac's muscle is getting put behind Sunset Overdrive. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't want a B-tier Ratchet game. Period. We already had that with A4O and FFA and look where that got us.
Your logic is getting increasingly warped - it's amazing how everyone has insta-expectations for a product that, by your logic, they shouldn't have even been anticipating for a couple more years anyway. Certainly most people probably weren't even expecting an R&C this year so I guess we're all going to have to adjust our expectations accordingly. It's happening.
It should be abundantly clear by now that, as long as Insomniac remains the primary caretaker for the R&C IP, they're going to continue to experiment with the formula to see what works and what doesn't. None of these games "have to" be made at any particular point and we're all just along for whatever part of the ride we're interested in. Stop trying to speak for every potential R&C customer. Just tap out for this portion of the ride and we'll check in with you again around 2015.
MidnightCowboy
Member
It's been too long since a proper Ratchet title. Few series are consistently as fun.
Welcome to any established franchise ever. I still remember the complaints about Insomniac changing the controls and adding inertia-based animation to Going Commando, and that was after just the first game! There were plenty of big fights about that at the time.
The other side of that is fatigue in relation to the overly familiar format, which the R&C series certainly gets plenty of criticism about.
There's no way to keep this franchise (or any franchise) going without threading a gauntlet of melodramatic criticism on both sides.
PlanetSmasher
Banned
The problem I see with it is that this comes after four straight years of B-tier games. If this was coming out right after ACiT and was literally a downloadable epilogue to that game like they're calling it, it would make sense to be a shorter game. But it's been four years since ACiT came out, and A4O and FFA both severely damaged the franchise's reputation and sales potential in the interim. Now, they have to fight against both what people expect a Ratchet game to be and they have to deal with the severely negative reaction people had to the last two games.
I don't want people to think I hate Insomniac or anything, here. I am just thinking this was an unwise decision for them to make so soon after the dismal reception the two B-games got, since they really need to restore confidence in the franchise first. Instead, they're fighting a very hard battle on both sides, and the one main thing they have going for them is that if this one fails, they potentially stand to lose less money than they would if it was a bigger game.
I hate to point out that you're a Junior member, but you're really "acting" that part right now. This will bey final response to you, so please read it and take it to heart.
1) You have no idea what the scope of this title is comparatively to ACiT. We simply know that it is smaller. Please stop misleading people with your nonsense.
2) This is all in your head. You're literally making assumptions at every opportunity to be negative about this title. You need to relax a bit.
3) You don't know how IGs development teams and studios are staffed. Making assumptions about where the muscle is, who is an "a or b team" or how long a ge has been in development is asinine. I've been to the studio multiple times, talked to people in all departments, and I think it's fair to say my assumptions are closer to the truth than your own.
4) FFA and A4O were good games. They weren't traditional Ratchet games, and unfortunately they were hammered for not being so, but they were good solid products none the less. That said, that doesn't give anyone any ground to say because of two non-traditional R&C titles that a traditional title will be bad, short, rushed, or low budget based on those merits. Completely inaccurate and unfair.
5) Why are you making the connection that short game = bad game? If it's short, then that's it. That doesn't mean it's bad, especially if the price is lower. I have played a lot of phenomenal games that were short and lower priced. Like wise, I've played long games that weren't great. Price and length aren't a measure of quality, they are simply a measure of price and length. Nothing more.
Pristine_Condition
Member
Am looking forward to playing this. Wish I still had a PS3 of my own.
SniperHunter
Banned
just saw the trailer
wow looks really awesome! I really like the art direction here, probably the best looking insomniac game I have ever seen
will buy
wow looks really awesome! I really like the art direction here, probably the best looking insomniac game I have ever seen
will buy
Willy Wanka
my god this avatar owns
Very happy that this is a PS3 game. It looks awesome in the trailer and has a great price point too. Will buy day one.
SniperHunter
Banned
i wish it were ps4 exclusive! ps3 exclusives need to die at this point
Willy Wanka
my god this avatar owns
Haha, I get why you and other people might say that but I think it's great that Sony are committing so much support to a machine that I already own. From my own selfish perspective, it's really good news for my wallet!
darkjedi187
Member
New R&C. I'm all for it.
You're wasting your time, 8byte. Despite my many attempts to explain the difference between quality and length, PlanetSmasher simply will not comprehend.
HYDE
Banned
j you are 100% correct. I have voiced my thoughts on QFB many times...it is as awesome as the original 3 and is in my mind R&C Future 2. Will Nexus connect the gap between the original 3 and the Future trilogy?
What's the likelyhood of us getting a Future trilogy with Quest For Booty finally being accepted as R&C Future 2??
I can't decide(for the first time) whether I want the disc or digital version of a game.
I can't get QFB on disc so I might as well just add ITN to the HDD as well, right???
Ken Masters
Banned
PS3? why not just release it on PS4 at 1080p?