Will the PS4 see a exclusive franchise comparable to Halo?

[devourerplease]

I don't know, I think Naughty Dog could give an in their prime Rare a run for their money. The question is, how many Rare members from when they were an actual great developer are still with Rare now? Probably not many.

 

Rare made Viva Pinata.  That game was beyond dope.

[Jurgen]

Rare made Viva Pinata.  That game was beyond dope.

I don't know anyone in their right mind though who would compare Viva Pinata to The Last of Us. Not saying people shouldn't play it buuut c'mon, it's pretty clear what most people would say if you asked them to choose between zombies or pinatas.

[devourerplease]

I don't know anyone in their right mind though who would compare Viva Pinata to The Last of Us. Not saying people shouldn't play it buuut c'mon, it's pretty clear what most people would say if you asked them to choose between zombies or pinatas.

 

Yeah, pinatas.

[Saltyie]

With a bit of reshaping and looking at your team's weakness and strengths, Rare could make a comeback. Rare also back in the prime days had something called "a diverse profile" which Naughty Dig hasn't got.  

Please do your research before you post your opinions, Naughty Dog has just as much a diverse profile as Rare does, only Naughty Dog's has been on a consistent level of excellence. Crash Bandicoot, Jak and Daxter, Jak X: Racing, Uncharted, The Last Of Us. Now I don't know about you, but that seems pretty damn diverse to me. I don't want to shit on rare, because Conker's Bad Fur day was one of my favourite games ever, but the only game I've enjoyed from them in the last ten years is Viva Piñata, and even though it was a great game, that is still a sad statement, considering this company made amazing games like Goldeneye 007. Honestly I've lost hope in Rare, being bought by MS and put to work on the likes of Kinect Sports and Banjo spin offs was one of the worst decisions ever, and I doubt they can ever recapture their prime. 

[Jurgen]

Yeah, pinatas.

ok you got me

[Condemned09]

I was never a fan of halo im not saying halo was a bad game but i dint see the joy of it. I rather play God of War or Killzone any day

[IrishNexus]

For me, when I think of Sony exclusive franchises similar to Xbox's Halo, I immediately think of Ratchet & Clank and Uncharted. Naughty Dog are a fantastic developer and perhaps when Uncharted 4: A Thief's End is released, they'll start working on another big franchise.

[SoliDeoGloriaIHS]

Don't we already have one?  It's called Uncharted.

[LilSeba55]

I don't like Halo and think it's overrated. And I'm far from a Sony fanboy. I played mostly Xbox in the last gen. So I don't care. Sony has plenty of great and popular exclusives.

[GenoStarrz]

They can have Halo.. we have NaughtyDog   

gg we win.

Opinion bro, I think Naughty Dog are god awful.

[Jello]

Opinion bro, I think Naughty Dog are god awful.

If they are God awful then why bother to plat uncharted 1 and 3? And you should try out the last of us unless that is also god awful.

[Grunking1212]

Killzone is probably closest to Halo. If Microsoft brought Banjo and kazooie rightfully back ( not Nuts and Bolts), and Conker back then maybe Sony would be in trouble. The way i see it Sony is better overall but not by lot. Hopefully Xbox can start making new IPs not timed exclusives like the new Tomb Raider.

[ExHaseo]

I doubt that Sony will ever have a wildly successful exclusive FPS like Halo.

 

Halo revolutionized the way FPS games were played at the turn of a console generation, and at this point, Sony won't ever be able to replicate a game that redefined the genre like it did. Before Halo, FPS games were much different. It was a genre that was almost entirely made up of WWII games, and there weren't things like shields, or any real limits on the number of weapons carried, and online multiplayer wasn't really a thing. Halo created and really popularized these things. These aren't things Sony will ever be able to do, because they were all things that could only be done once, and it's obvious now that people flock to what is familiar. That's why Call of Duty sells so much more than basically everything else every year, despite being essentially the same game with fairly minor tweaks every year.

 

Not that it really matters. Sony has always had more exclusives, and better received exclusives than any Xbox console. The fact that the 360 did so well last generation, is only because Sony screwed up by making an incredibly expensive console that was hard to develop for. They've rectified that, and throwing in how MS screwed themselves by trying to force the kinect on people, trying to implement always online, and just generally being douchebags to the public before the launch of the X1, it just ensured that Sony will take it's place as the indisputable king again.

Because let's remember, the only console that wasn't an absolute wash of the competition, was the PS3. The PS1 is the second best selling console of all time (unless the Wii can get another million units sold before it's taken off shelves), the PS2 is best selling console of all time, and despite the lead the 360 had on the PS3 from the early days, the PS3 has completely caught up to the 360. And of course, the PS4 is outselling the X1 by a ridiculous margin.

 

tl;dr, Sony won't ever have a Halo like franchise, but it doesn't really matter.

[soniq]

It was a genre that was almost entirely made up of WWII games, and there weren't things like shields, or any real limits on the number of weapons carried, and online multiplayer wasn't really a thing.

 

There were lots of different shooters on PC and even a few on consoles (Quake, Unreal Tournament, Time Splitters, Exhumed, ...) by the time Halo came out.

I think they just got lucky that it came at the right time and was an exclusive launch title after years of hype. Every PC gamer I knew back then wanted it and was pissed that MS bought it and made it a console game - so most bought Xboxes.

 

But to their credit, they didn't just port it over but made it more accessible (recharging shields/health) and it was the first console shooter where the controls really worked well.

[GRITTY_PITTY]

Uncharted is comparable in popularity.

[mosessaur]

Well PlayStation has one. It's Killzone. that's if we are talking in terms of original owned IP.

Killzone couldn't really attract attention as Halo did.

 

Now in terms of FPS at the moment there is nothing really special in having a title that completes with Halo on Sony consoles. Destiny is doing fine and Sony pushed/market the title really good.

However I do have expectation for Sony to have it's own Original IP for an FPS. When I don't know but it could happen.

 

Taking Dark Souls as an example. Sony is creating it's own similar IP Bloodborne. So I can expect anything from Sony actually. 

[Dr_Mayus]

Halo revolutionized the way FPS games were played at the turn of a console generation, and at this point, Sony won't ever be able to replicate a game that redefined the genre like it did. Before Halo, FPS games were much different. It was a genre that was almost entirely made up of

WWII games

Except for all the non WW2 games like Doom, Quake, System Shock, Deus Ex, Duke Nukem etc.

, and there weren't things like

shields

or body armour

, or any

real limits on the number of weapons carried,

yup who wants tons of awesome guns when you can have 2...and cover based shooting

  and

online multiplayer wasn't really a thing.

Except it was

Halo created and really popularized these things.

And that is why most shooters are boring and linear as opposed to Old School FPS games

 

[KratosTheMighty]

to be honest, I like that sony has exclusives that are varied, and not rely solely on shooters. 

[ZeroXOF]

Please do your research before you post your opinions, Naughty Dog has just as much a diverse profile as Rare does, only Naughty Dog's has been on a consistent level of excellence. Crash Bandicoot, Jak and Daxter, Jak X: Racing, Uncharted, The Last Of Us. Now I don't know about you, but that seems pretty damn diverse to me. I don't want to shit on rare, because Conker's Bad Fur dity was one of my favourite games ever, but the only game I've enjoyed from them in the last ten years is Viva Piñata, and even though it was a great game, that is still a sad statement, considering this company made amazing games like Goldeneye 007. Honestly I've lost hope in Rare, being bought by MS and put to work on the likes of Kinect Sports and Banjo spin offs was one of the worst decisions ever, and I doubt they can ever recapture their prime. 

 

What I said was part opinion and fact. If Rare do comeback and have sort out their problem, they could dominate, that was my opinion. The fact I brought up with Parker is that Naughty Dog  don't have a diverse profile or a lack of one compared to Rare. Naughty Dog has only delve into 6 genres while Rare has delve 18 genres, which is far more diverse than Naughty Dog is at the moment. Also being brought by MS is not the problem, the lack of getting freedom is. It seems that you have a problem with everything that is major on the Xbox, we have seen you call Halo a "space bro" shooter and now you said that MS buying Rare is the worst decision. If you don't like Xbox, that's' cool but don't  act like this on the internet. Also you said you said that Naughty Dog has been on a consistent level of excellence and which I agree to some extent, that is also opinion. 

 

So maybe you do the research? 

Edited October 23, 2014 by Bear

[ExHaseo]

 

There were lots of different shooters on PC and even a few on consoles (Quake, Unreal Tournament, Time Splitters, Exhumed, ...) by the time Halo came out.

I think they just got lucky that it came at the right time and was an exclusive launch title after years of hype. Every PC gamer I knew back then wanted it and was pissed that MS bought it and made it a console game - so most bought Xboxes.

 

But to their credit, they didn't just port it over but made it more accessible (recharging shields/health) and it was the first console shooter where the controls really worked well.

I didn't think that I had to specify that I meant consoles, when we're talking about consoles, on a forum created for a console, about a time when PC gaming and console gaming market were incredibly separated. But I just meant consoles.

And on consoles, there really weren't that many different kinds of shooters at the time, especially not popular ones. The WWII shooters far outnumbered every other kind. I was also talking about the specific time, which I thought would be obvious. Since in any genre if you go back far enough you'll find a lot of different kinds of games, enough to outweigh any possible current trend. I always forget that people here never understand what I'm trying to say.

 

 

Except for all the non WW2 games like Doom, Quake, System Shock, Deus Ex, Duke Nukem etc.

Which were PC games, not console games. I refer you to my above statement.

 

 

or body armour

Which still isn't an infinitely recharging shield

 

 

yup who wants tons of awesome guns when you can have 2...and cover based shooting

People who like challenges in their games. Having every weapon at all times generally made shooters boring once you get all of the weapons, because you were always perfectly equipped for every situation. Halo doing away with that gave the illusion of strategy, making the game more satisfying when you win against a horde of enemies with a limited arsenal. And you can easily argue that cover based shooting is incredibly boring. Sit behind wall doing literally nothing until the shoot stops, pop up and shoot until they start shooting back, go back to doing literally nothing again.

Let's also take into consideration that you can't have everyone running around with every weapon in a multiplayer game, it would be ridiculous unbalanced.

 

 

Except it was

No, it wasn't. Xbox Live essentially created online multiplayer, and yes, I'm perfectly aware the PC had online gaming far before, as well as the fact that the Dreamcast did as well, but very few people actually cared about playing online until Xbox live, and even fewer actually were playing online. And what did people buy an Xbox for? Halo. And what did they buy Xbox live for? To play Halo online. People gave so few fucks that the PS2 didn't even have any kind of online until the Xbox showed that it could be a thing. So, online gaming wasn't really a thing before Halo.

 

 

And that is why most shooters are boring and linear as opposed to Old School FPS games

That's just a matter of opinion, and that's obviously one that's in the minority considering how ridiculously well the boring and linear shooters sell. I mean, I find them boring too, but I also thought old FPS games were boring. 

[Memnoch]

I'm sorry, but are we debating if Sony needs a Halo game, or a long running franchise?

 

Gran Turismo, although not FPS, is a long runner, for example.

 

I actually don't think that these massive onrunning franchises are really all that they are made out to be. New franchises are often more worked apon, rather than making a few changes to the already exisiting formula.

 

Agreed they do showcase the system and become a household name, but I'm not certain they are a good thing per se.

 

Does Sony need one ? Not if they stay innovative and there are a good share of third party games and in house dev. An example would be TLOU which created loads of sales, and that had nothing to do with it being a franchise.

[soniq]

I didn't think that I had to specify that I meant consoles, when we're talking about consoles, on a forum created for a console, about a time when PC gaming and console gaming market were incredibly separated. But I just meant consoles.

And on consoles, there really weren't that many different kinds of shooters at the time, especially not popular ones. The WWII shooters far outnumbered every other kind. I was also talking about the specific time, which I thought would be obvious. Since in any genre if you go back far enough you'll find a lot of different kinds of games, enough to outweigh any possible current trend. I always forget that people here never understand what I'm trying to say.

 

Sorry, my mistake. I generally assume that when people talk about games from a certain era that they mean ALL games from that era, including all platforms that were available at that time.

 

I was curious though, about the WWII shooters, and checked this list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_first-person_shooters

Maybe it's not complete or accurate, but sorting it by date and going backwards, I only counted a hand full of PS2 shooters and most were in the scifi genre. Since Halo 1 (2001) was a launch title I can only take those as reference for console shooters at that time.

 

The first console shooters that were set during WWII were MoH: Frontline in May of 2002 and Return to Castle Wolfenstein in May of 2003.

[Saltyie]

What I said was part opinion and fact. If Rare do comeback and have sort out their problem, they could dominate, that was my opinion. The fact I brought up with Parker is that Naughty Dog  don't have a diverse profile or a lack of one compared to Rare. Naughty Dog has only delve into 6 genres while Rare has delve 18 genres, which is far more diverse than Naughty Dog is at the moment. Also being brought by MS is not the problem, the lack of getting freedom is. It seems that you have a problem with everything that is major on the Xbox, we have seen you call Halo a "space bro" shooter and now you said that MS buying Rare is the worst decision. If you don't like Xbox, that's' cool but don't that act like this on the internet. Also you said you said that Naughty Dog has been on a consistent level of excellence and which I agree to some extent, that is also opinion. 

 

So maybe you do the research? 

 I never argued that Rare didn't have a diverse profile, I argued that Naughty dog does.

 

I never had and never will have a problem with MS buying Rare, however I DO have a problem with any company buying such a great studio and putting them to work on kinect games, it's like if Sony put naughty dog to work on Playroom DLCs. Don't try to put words into my mouth, just because I dislike Halo doesn't make me hate Xbox, I actually said that halo is a space bro shooter to someone who joined onto the franchise at halo 3. People like you are the root source of these fanboy wars, am I not allowed to dislike a game without disliking the brand it's associated with? You voiced your opinion, I voiced mine, no need to bring petty arguments to a so far civil discussion.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Saltyie

[ZeroXOF]

 I never argued that Rare didn't have a diverse profile, I argued that Naughty dog does.

 

I never had and never will have a problem with MS buying Rare, however I DO have a problem with any company buying such a great studio and putting them to work on kinect games, it's like if Sony put naughty dog to work on Playroom DLCs. Don't try to put words into my mouth, just because I dislike Halo doesn't make me hate Xbox, I actually said that halo is a space bro shooter to someone who joined onto the franchise at halo 3. People like you are the root source of these fanboy wars, am I not allowed to dislike a game without disliking the brand it's associated with? You voiced your opinion, I voiced mine, no need to bring petty arguments to a so far civil discussion.

 

The fact that you resolve to calling me a fanboy makes me wonder who is really starting this arguement. Also that fact that you clearly nit picked with no reason means, you have no real answer or true comeback,   

[GenoStarrz]

If they are God awful then why bother to plat uncharted 1 and 3? And you should try out the last of us unless that is also god awful.

I played them in an old account but I lost it and had to rebuild. I never liked the "cinematic" feel to Uncharted or parkour since it's done poorly. The only thing it had going was the combat. As for The Last of Us, the story didn't intrigue me after watching The Road and Children of Men. Gameplay was decent and as least better than Uncharted.

 

As for plating, well you're in a website full of trophy addicts and completionist.