RoomWithaMoose

@LogicStrikesAgain Like I've said, I don't really agree with the assertion PS5 has been lacking in cinematic, single-player games. So I really can't touch on that specific point much.

I do, however, see where Max is coming from, and felt he was within his rights to reframe the criteria with which he accredits a game the 'cinematic single-player' type he covets.

@themightyant Well, if someone is a particular fan of the kinds of games a console manufacturer is known for, and that manufacturer fails to deliver those types of games, are they not entitled to be disappointed?

Maybe conceptualize it less as a critique of the PS5, and more so one of PlayStation Studios. These critics are fans of PlayStation THE DEVELOPER, not necessarily PlayStation THE CONSOLE.

Imagine if Nintendo just stopped making local multiplayer games for the Switch 2 — a genre they are well known and renowned for. Even if the S2 continued getting local multiplayer games from indies and 3rd-parties, is it not fair for fans of Nintendo's multiplayer games to call out the company for failing to produce the kinds of games they set a precedent for themselves to produce?

@Carnage VR is niche, but people aren't talking about how the Meta Quest is dead or the Steam Frame DOA. Of the current niche headsets in an increasingly shrinking market with notable mass appeal, PSVR2 stands as perhaps the most irrelevant and certainly the least supported.

And that's what people are talking about.

@LogicStrikesAgain You can argue it's a personal taste thing, sure.

But, you acknowledging a "drought" does reinforce his point that they were unfocused as an objective reality that happened. Still, like I said: your list is fair. However, that doesn't mean he's barred from recontextualizing his point in a way that invalidates said list.

"Returnal, Astro Bot, Wolverine, Intergalatic. That is the list with completely new experiences from PS Studios" That says it all. 'Okay, there have been single player games — sure. But 5 years into this generation, we've only gotten 4 wholly original, cinematic single-player games from a development house made famous because of them.' That's what he's saying with that comment, and I think that's likewise fair. Maybe clarified at an inopportune moment, but fair, and, very likely, present in his mind while writing his first comment.

As stated, I don't agree with the critique about Sony's output of cinematic single-player games this gen. As someone that's likewise critical of their contemporary output, I do think they've given fans of Uncharted, The Last of Us, Norse of War,etc. plenty to chew on this generation. My problem lies in only satiating those fans while chasing the stupid GaaS dragon. However, as I similarly think the PS5 library is derogatorily derivative of the PS4 library, it seems like a perfectly reasonable criticism to question why all we've seen from Naughty Dog are The Last of Us remakes, and why Insomniac spent 5 years making Spider-Man two more times.

@LogicStrikesAgain Isn't the poor allocation of developmental resources exactly what he was talking about?

I was more focused on mighty's rebuttal than the crux of the disagreement between you and Max. But, to jump into that, while I think it's entirely fair for you to say he moved the goalposts to dismiss your list, that doesn't mean his justification therein isn't valid.

Yeah, Sony is putting out cinematic single-player games. But it's not to the pace or originality that Max desires. So, I'd say your list is correct, but it makes sense it didn't sway him whatsoever. And within the context of this singular argument, yeah, it's moving the goalposts to invalidate your list like that. But, based on my knowledge of this community and precedent, his addendum of prerequisites seemed well-established elsewhere.

@ButterySmooth30FPS Based on how the game looks from videos and trailers, I'm disappointed.

@scottdevine48 Live-service 1v1vE 'battle royale' Looney Tunes game where 2 players have to Spy v. Spy each other in a massive map filled with a bunch of interactive NPCs, set-pieces, items, traps, vehicles,etc. Matches could take upwards of an hour, and would be filled with classic 'rabbit season, duck season'-esque antics as the 2 players try to outwit each other and gain the upper hand.

Lola can be hot in it, too — I don't care.

Can we get Arkham Origins on PlayStation, daddy Warner? No? Okay, then...

Hey, mommy Netflix...?

@themightyant You know, the thing that always bothers me about this 'I can't keep up with games' defense is that this attribute is not exclusive to the PlayStation. Gaming, in general, is incredibly difficult to keep up with these days. Even on my Xbox One (not Series), I have a backlog of 50-70 games and a wishlist of 90 games. I haven't even beat Metroid Prime 4 yet 'cause I've been pulled away for other things on the S2 — never even 100% Bananza.

Yes, there's more than enough s*** to play on the PS5. It is a good console. All contemporary consoles are good consoles. But Max up there is talking about a specific issue he specifically has with Sony's — SPECIFICALLY — support. And while I don't completely agree with it (I'd say their output of cinematic single-player games has been fine this generation. Slow, but fine, My issue is that we're only really getting that and live-service), I don't see how your point is any sort of effective rebuttal to his point.

Mmm, guys having the mode locked behind either beating the game OR entering a cheat code doesn't fundamentally undermine those 'false marketing' criticisms.

I never cared, but really feels like their point is going right over your head if you think this completely invalidates their outrage.

@LogicStrikesAgain At this point, I'm just waxing poetic about diction taken in a literal sense.

@naruball You know what: Fair.

@LogicStrikesAgain You can still buy an Atari VCS from GameStop. Looks like Atari proper just had a big sale on it and are sold out; I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was the last of their stock and it is wholly and entirely dead in their eyes from this point forward. But still, that means people were just buying it, and it even just got Yeet Fighter (YEET FIGHTER!!! Whatever that is...). None of this is super relevant, but I haven't actually looked into the status of the console in a while now and thought that was all interesting.

Anyhoo...uhh, I dunno. Not really much else to say about VR2. If you think Microsoft Flight Simulator's year-late VR update — that definitely isn't going to be cancelled between all the turmoil at Xbox, VR2's continued sluggish sales, and MSFS's presumably ho-hum PS5 launch — some other flight sim that Steam doesn't like, the legitimately cool-looking Automa, and 71 other nebulous titles I'd assume "low-effort low-quality misleading marketing games" might apply to means the peripheral cannot be claimed as dead, more power to ya.

Going back to the semantics of "dead," this idea that 'dead' means 'out of production, no game releases, not on sale' really brings me back to my old Nintendo fanboy days of rebutting people saying it had no 3rd-party support. Sure, in a literal sense, both are incorrect. But, frankly, no one means it in a literal sense. The Wii U had 3rd-party games, but neither the quantity nor quality to be significant. The PSVR2 isn't quite dead and buried, but it might as well be. The same way someone might say nothing in a movie's plot made sense when what they really mean is that the plot had too much nonsense and contrivances.

To criticize the use of 'dead' here is really to impose a standard of consistently literal language that I'd honestly assume 0% of the population adheres to or wants to adhere to. 'Bad' meant 'good' for a time. '67' means more than its numerical value...I guess (?). Language isn't definite, is malleable, and casually has metaphorical double-meaning every other spoken sentence. To get so hung up on the definitional meaning behind words when the speaker's intent is fairly obvious can be seen as its own failure of language.

EDIT: I just wanna say, sometimes I impress myself with my ability to talk ad infinitum about f***in' nothing. Ya know, if anyone is interested in how figurative language works, do I have a two-paragraph essay for you!

@LogicStrikesAgain That is absolutely semantics. Yes, there's some support. But no one is calling it dead in the sense that there's absolutely no reason to buy the thing nor any prospect of future releases. It's dead because its best times are long behind it and there's zero chance of a resurgence. It can only dwindle deeper and deeper into irrelevance at this point, and its already lukewarm — charitably speaking — release schedule will likely soon dry up to nothing.

That PushSquare doesn't see the need in updating a release schedule for it, and fans have to go to reddit for a release schedule, really says it all. Hell, even from that clearly dedicated user you linked to:

"Not all of these show up readily if you are browsing for new PSVR2 games on the PlayStation Store (Almost like Sony doesn't care). [...] Couple of these I don't intend to cover with any first impressions write-up because they look like low-effort low-quality misleading marketing games (Almost like support sucks), but others I had missed because they have had no marketing or reviews that I am aware of (Almost like no one else cares, either).

I have an Atari VCS. It still gets the occasional game. I still buy the occasional game and enjoy it. Regardless, the console is ABSOLUTELY dead, and Atari clearly shifted their entire business away from supporting it — even though they still support it more than Sony does VR2.

@naruball I think you might be taking "dead" a little too literally. The PSVR2 is dead because it clearly has no future, and Sony can't even be bothered to imply otherwise.

@LogicStrikesAgain Because no one cares about it, it doesn't sell, Sony doesn't care about it, support is miniscule, and it has no massive upcoming games.

The Wii U was dead before the Switch came out, and it still had a massive release like Breath of the Wild. Sometimes the Genesis gets a random-as-f*** new game; the console is still very much dead. The PS2 was still getting games WELL into the PS3's lifespan — still fairly dead at that point. And these are actual standalone consoles. The PSVR2 is the PS5's Kinect. It got 3rd-party support well past its publisher's patience for it, but no one besides jilted adopters even notices them.

EDIT (For emphasis): https://www.pushsquare.com/guides/new-psvr2-games-release-dates-in-2026

@Nakatomi_Uk While I agree an Xbox-less hardware market is significantly less competitive than ideal, Nintendo is absolutely — and always has been — competition, and PC/phone gaming remains a source of competition.

One could argue we're already in an Xbox-less hardware market, given how insignificant the Series line is at this point. Competition remains. The recent Switch 2, and perhaps the upcoming Steam Machine, will provide enough market division to keep the PS5/6 from completely dominating the entirety of gaming.

@DennisReynolds I mean, if the PCXBOX is a functional PC, its support would be everlasting.

I would argue it has far greater longevity than a hypothetical new Xbox console would in the best of times.

I reckon this only comes to fruition if the AI bubble doesn't burst before the remnants of Xbox come to market.

If Halo, Gears, Forza, Fable, uh...Blade, aaand whatever else they're cooking up don't pull in profits; GamePass becomes/always has been a financial drain; and the next Xbox or x-adjacent hardware loses steam leading up to or after launch, all while tech bros continue preaching how amazing AI is and that its high-fidelity walking simulators with no level design, narrative, or meaning are the future of games, I think this is inevitable. Best case scenario, GamePass has always been profitable, Microsoft's upcoming games are hits, and AI bursts by the end of the year. In which case, I'm sure Microsoft will backtrack and emphasize how they always believed in gaming and man-made software.

Honestly though, guys, Microsoft has too massive a footprint in the gaming industry for Xbox's failure to not be a devastating tragedy. Bethesda, id, Double Fine, Ninja Theory, goddamned Activision-Blizzard. I don't want to see an industry where these names are closed down or reduced to weird AI slopware. Frankly, I'd be more upset about Double Fine closing down than the entire collective of Bluepoint dissidents.

@ButterySmooth30FPS "Fine" is relative.

You mean I don't have to obsessively watch sales and keep mental notes of the lowest prices games hit for the eventual day I have the disposable income to buy something I'm only marginally interested in?

But what of the metagame, Sony?! What am I suppose to do with those synapses now? Actually learn something useful? Pah! Who has time for that?

@DennisReynolds I just feel like there's enough of that particular brand of content already. Which makes the prospect of Godzilla tired. And, due to their innate nature, there's not much evolution or adaption the character can undergo that would revitalize their stories.

I get how the human stories are the crux of the IP's narrative weight. But that just kinda makes Godzilla ancillary and replaceable. Like Superman just showing up in a story to provide a Deux Ex Machina when he has no narrative, thematic, or character-driven reason to be there. Superman's cool, but if that's all he can do, why even write him into anything?

All my arguments ignore how contemporary fiction is built around IP, brand-recognition, and entertainment first, with artistic intent often lost somewhere between conception and production. So it's all really moot. Godzilla's compelling because they're an icon. And I guess that's fine, just a tad boring.

Though, I suppose the point I really want to make isn't that I think Godzilla is boring. It's that I can't fathom anything particularly engaging being done with them. Godzilla is just a big monster whose metaphorical strengths have already been tapped dry and literal mechanics (of being a big monster) have been permutated every which way possible. All Superman — the character — needs to be interesting is a good writer. For Godzilla, I don't think any writer can make the character interesting per se.

Completely random point — to this completely random news — but I never felt Godzilla was particularly compelling as a character. Like, the big lizard's f***in' cool, and its original allegorical nature was provoking. But there's really not much more to do with 'em, I reckon, despite how they continued making movies for 50+ years. I imagine that's why the movies went through a phase of cheesy, fan-service nonsense for decades.

The recent Minus One was fantastic, but that's more because it focused on the human characters. Godzilla really wasn't more than a plot device. Shin I guess did something with its final form being anthropomorphic. But I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean, nor if it's legitimately interesting (I also haven't seen the full movie, so what do I know). Godzilla x Kong is quite possibly the ultimate fate of such a character. Degraded to a Fast & Furious style action hero that stands for nothing (something-something-nature-something).

@Weez Isn't the whole series millennial-coded?

@UltimateOtaku91 I'm pretty sure Microsoft has received neverending s*** talk for their studio closures.

Not sure exactly how you can try to paint this as a double standard. Sure, Xbox fanboys probably did/are doing exactly what you're accusing, but who the f*** cares about what fanboys think in the first place?

I would argue it's very precarious to offer any defense or deflection of Bluepoint's closure without echoing the exact type of fanboyism you're calling out.

@DestructionAllstars You're out of touch if you think Sony's attempt to capitalize on the live-service trend has been a smashing success, and any egregious failures like this or Concord were worth it for Helldivers 2's concurrent player numbers.

@Divergent95 Xbox went multiplat because they were failing. They aren't failing because they went multiplat. If you think The Outer Worlds 2's sales would've been better as an Xbox exclusive, you're dead wrong.

@Artois2 Terrible take.

@Ashkorsair Because they made great remakes. You're right to say we don't know if they could've made some amazing original thing. You're wrong to dismiss their past accomplishments.

A team with presumably little, of any, experience working on GaaS working on GaaS. That's mismanagement. Even if GaaS of War was 100% from BP — doubtful — competent management would've shot it down and gotten then to focus of their strengths. That didn't happen; instead, they twiddled for years and were abruptly closed down.

@Ashkorsair Are you talking about the live-service God of War game that was almost certainly the result of Sony imposing upon its studios to delve into GaaS?

@Ashkorsair Consider that maybe the reason they haven't done anything lately is because of bungled mismanagement on Sony's part.

Everyone saw they were a talented team, and absolutely had potential to deliver something original and amazing. Now, they'll never get that chance.

A live-service push would've been fine... If they didn't work on a dozen simultaneously and focused seemingly every team they had on making one. The Bungie buy, in particular, was a terrible, terrible move, and I'm sure has put way more pressure on PlayStation Studios to bring in greater profits. Who could've guessed buying a struggling dev for billions was a bad move...

But, of course, Bungie itself can't be on the chopping block — it costed too much to fail!. So, until we get a Sony-owned Fortnite, expect a slow closure-spree with every below-expectations live-service game. I legitimately think Mm will be closed down shortly after Marathon misses expectations. As Sammy and others have alluded to, Bend isn't going to last much longer. If you're not the holy trinity of PS Studios (ND, Insom, SP), daddy's favorite boy (GG), or the iceberg that'll take the whole damn ship down with it (Bun), you're liable to be closed at this point.

@PuppetMaster I agree.

Don't be surprised when Mm closes down if Marathon fails to resonate.

@LifeGirl Not necessarily. Every industry is rife with high quality experiences that just never found an audience.

Highguard was in a unique position where all eyes were on it; it could've knocked it out of the park and captured a vast player-pool. But, also, 95% of people aware of the game seemed exclusively interested in seeing it tank. What should've been a blessing was really more of a curse.

"All in all, we’re still happy Sony took a chance on this. There’s been a growing plea from fans for the platform holder to publish smaller, less expensive experiences"

Absolutely agree. But, at the same time, wish what we got was better. Specifically, I wish it were less generic. I'll definitely still buy it sometime down the line — it would be quite hypocritical of me not to, considering I am one of those fans who plea, often assert the meaninglessness of Metascores, and think a 7/10 is a perfectly respectable score. But I can't say there's anything particularly selling me on this game besides 'God of War' and 'small PlayStation project.'

If they actually make the originals available on the PS5, sure. Why not. It would give these remakes a neat reason to exist.

If these are meant to replace the originals, absolutely not. Just make it the exact same as the originals, but prettified.

@ButterySmooth30FPS I guess... I haven't thoroughly read through this comments section, so I'll have to take your word for it.

However, given that Sammy's own article addresses diminishing returns and reduces the PS4 to PS5 transition as "evolutionary rather than revolutionary," only citing faster load times and better frames as reason, is that take really so far off? I don't think anyone expects the PS6 to provide some jaw-dropping technological leap, and a lot of people just don't see the point otherwise and don't value the marginal improvements it might provide.

@ButterySmooth30FPS If someone doesn't want to replace their PS5, it behooves them to hope the industry does the same. A PS6 means the PS5 is outdated, and will likely lose support and never be the target platform of any game (i.e., less games and worse performance). I wouldn't dismiss those trying to get their money's worth on a purchase as weird, parasocial loons. If anything, I'd say this comes from a place of practicality; 'I bought a thing, and I don't want to be put in a position where I feel the need to replace it when I know it still has plenty of life in it.'

To me, this is more the philosophical debate between those who'd rather use a phone until it brakes versus those who buy them yearly to be on the cutting edge. And sure, that comparison does emphasize the, 'don't buy it if you don't want it' argument. But still, to those who don't want it, why would they care for it to release any earlier than they'd think to buy it? And, more importantly, these are different industries. It's more akin to a situation where a new phone release means it's direct predecessor is going to lose update support sooner rather than later. Where, for the sake of self preservation, anyone with the intention of holding onto the old phone would likely bemoan the new phone as cause for their phone losing value. Which sounds reasonable to me.

@get2sammyb People don't want to spend $400-800 for marginally better hardware that would make their current hardware out-of-date. Especially when that current hardware never felt particularly pushed to its limits. ESPECIALLY-especially when the 9th-generation standard is perfectly acceptable to the majority of players, and gamer/developer sentiments are increasingly moving away from uber-expensive cutting-edge graphics.

This is a gaming scene where the Switch and Steam Deck are perfectly suitable places to game. PCs, despite already being significantly more powerful than a PS5, really aren't outputting insanely impressive visual spectacles. I don't really know what's confusing about this.

I get the whole, 'you don't have to buy it off you don't want to.' But if they don't want to buy it, why would they want it to come out anyway? Why wouldn't they rather the PS5 continues being the PlayStation standard until they get their fill, and then they can get a more noticable computational boost at a better price at the end of the decade? I reckon that's perfectly sensible.

@8thDoctor I feel like they actually undermine Kratos' implied state of mind and don't really reflect his views towards women (read above).

They do show he cares little about sex, presumably doesn't associate it with love, and perhaps explicitly only has sex with women whose existence and agency he's indifferent towards. But anything one can parse from that is, I'd argue, better communicated through the numerous innocents he kills or lets die out of indifference. Aside from just how much he luv'ed his wife. But I think that's plainly obvious regardless.

They do fit the gratuitous tone of the trilogy, though. I agree about that.

@Burnish1619 A gedner-swap would probably make them feel more authentically Greek.

@nessisonett I think they could've done something interesting with them, but ultimately did nothing.

You can say in the first game, the scene effectively introduces his depression and listlessness. Except it's the cutscene of him apathetically laying in bed with two topless women that does that, and giving the player the choice to go back to bed after Kratos already got up ready to kill things doesn't seem like something he would actually do. In 3, he was just coerced into it — if I remember correctly. I don't really feel like it says anything... Maybe that his rage towards Zeus is specific and pointed, and he doesn't really care about killing all gods. Which is kinda clear at that point, I reckon. In 2, even though it's the stupidest, literally-could-be-out-of-a-pron-parody scene, I'd say it does contribute to the general sense of detachment Kratos has as the God of War and, ergo, feels thematically appropriate. But the game doesn't try examining that detachment, the scene's timing actually undermines his general pragmaticism, and it's still really damn silly.

Maybe the remake can do more with them, but any examination of Kratos' misogyny might crowd an otherwise pretty focused revenge story. I also think Kratos' sluttiness is more tied to his pragmaticism rather than sexism, especially considering the numerous allied and adversarial women in the trilogy + PSP games he seemed to respect. Well, if you ignore that the scenes are obviously there for marketing/edgy-dev purposes and don't mesh very well at all with the character.

@Titntin "They add nothing except cringe."

Exactly! They're only there to be edgy. There's nothing interesting or artistic about them. At best, they provide humorous tonal whiplash.

@Bingoboyop Not really, unless we're talking pron games.

GoW3 has two titted-out women narrating Kratos' 'ferocity' before being inspired by it to indulge in each other.

Maybe The Last of Us Part II's scene was more graphic, in the sense it was actually rendered. But GoW's have heaping graphic implication, and are 100x more gratuitous.

Honestly, MAYBE with the exception of GoW2, they felt pretty out of place and antithetical to Kratos' character. I say keep them in, as a remake should retain a maximum amount of original content. But the games and narratives therein wouldn't lose much with their removal.

@PuppetMaster I mean... If that's not a false equivalence, I don't know what is.

I don't think It Takes Two and Arc Raiders represent equatable multiplayer experiences.

@djlard Back in my day, everyone generally hoped every game had multiplayer, regardless of how nonsensical and impractical it would be.

@PuppetMaster I dunno, man, I think the existence of this article, as well as half the comments within, cement the co-op misunderstanding as thoroughly fair on the consumers' part and at least partially the fault of the way the game has been presented. It is likewise partially the fault of consumers for assuming, but that miscommunication starts with how they marketed the game.

Personally, I don't really care. I've been mislead by "1-# players" since at least as far back as San Andreas — maybe even Wind Waker... And don't even get me started on the beginning of the 360 generation. But I think it perfectly reasonable that, given what we were shown of the game, potential buyers were expecting full-blown co-op, and it's entirely understandable that they are disappointed to the point of wanting a refund upon finding out the game doesn't really offer that. Maybe calling it "false advertising" is dramatic, but questioning the intelligence of confused fans is similarly dramatic.

@Grumblevolcano "Exclusive" is a tab misleading, in that case. Unless it's a different demo.