Can we agree Naughty Dog is the best 1st party developer?

Thank you for stating the obvious.

Well what are you doing replying to me then?

I'm not allowed to offer an opinion backed up by the industry as a whole and answer a question asked in the OP?

Nintendo EAD is a label for many of Nintendo's developmental teams and groups, dumbass. There are 7 groups in Nintendo EAD, and Nintendo EAD has several hundreds more employees than Naughty Dog has. Stop humiliating yourself, and educate yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_Analysis_%26_Development

@Seabas989:

"So what? I played all four ND games back to back to back to back.

• UC1: a terrible game
• UC2: Outstanding but not perfect
• UC3: garbage
• TLOU: a great game

ND are the most inconsistent 1st party dev."

What do you have a 3 point scale? UC 1/3 are by no means terrible. Vampire fucking Rain is terrible. Come on dude, get real.

I believe charizard1605 listed what they have done in the last 5 years. Some great stuff. No, I still give it to Ninty.

???

1. You replied to me first.

2. Critics scores isn't gonna change my opinion on a game that I personally played. For example, critics loved GTAIV and MGS4 but I thought both games sucked. Critics also loved MW2 and I disliked that game.

3. Once again, thank you for stating the obvious. I really appreciate that you thought I didn't know we were arguing with opinions.

@Seabas989:

I did replay with an opinion to you first.

But you are right, some Nintendo games like Galaxy I thought are terrible and 2 scored a perfect 10/10, so scores arent everything, but at least we are playing the games to form our opinions.

no

Reads the link.

"The Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development (Japanese: 任天堂 情報開発本部 Hepburn: Nintendō Jōhō Kaihatsu Honbu^?, lit. Nintendo Information Development Division) (or Nintendo EAD) division, formerly Nintendo Research & Development 4 (or Nintendo R&D4), is the largest division inside Nintendo. It was preceded by the Creative Department (クリエイティブ課 Kurieitibu Ka^?), a team of designers with an art background responsible for many different tasks, to which Shigeru Miyamoto and Takashi Tezuka originally belonged.^[2][3] Both developers currently serve as managers of the EAD studios and are credited in each game developed by the division, with varying degrees of involvement. EAD is best known for its work on games in the Mario, The Legend of Zelda, F-Zero, Star Fox, Animal Crossing, and Pikmin franchises."

So they are basically a very big development group with seven sub groups. I don't see Retro Studios nor Monolith soft nor Camelot, etc. I think it's fair to compare them as developers since EAD aren't the actually publishing company that holds every developer.

But since you seem so irate I will play by your rules and say that Software Development Group 2 edges out Naughty Dog.

So thank you for the history lesson. :D

Hey Vampire Rain was fun. Splinter cell rip off and vampires. It's so bad it's good that type of game. I'd give it a 6/10.

On topic: I disagree. While I love ND. Nintendo has put out more high quality games.

ND is obviously one of the best and top ten devs for me though.

Why? Because UC2 and TLOU only?

At least read the quotes you quote, you illiterate moron. Nintendo EAD is a multi-studio division under Nintendo. Is it too much to ask of you to stop comparing one studio to half of Nintendo's studios? Jesus Christ, this is getting ridiculous.

Nintendo EAD is the best developer in my opinion, ND, Kojima is a close second

a single developer does sometimes have multiple groups working on different games. so EAD is a single group where people could be working on multiple different games at once (they're using the same building complex)? ok EAD wins if that's the case.

@SolidGame_basic: Can SW ever agree on anything?

Nope.

They're actually located into 2 different cities, Nintendo couldn't stuff all 7 of them in 1. 5 groups are in Kyoto, and 2 groups are in Tokyo.

TC didn't even mention Crash or Jak & Daxter : /

Anyways, no I can't agree.

Nintendo EAD is a weird ass thing to lump, there are like 5 actual teams in Kyoto, and then another 2 in Tokyo.

Personally I'd lean towards actually picking Retro Studios, because Metroid Prime 1 and 2 are frankly significantly more compelling games than Uncharted 2 and the Last of Us, and that's more indicative of modern day Naughty Dog. Jason Rubin and all those cats that did Jak and Daxter/Crash Bandicoot have long since moved the **** on. That and Retro's lows to me are never as low as playing a bad naughty dog game, because Uncharted 1 is a bad game, and Uncharted 3 is a weak follow up to 2.

Both studios suffer from the same issue though as neither is particularly creative. Retro has been working on someone else's IP, which ****...makes them a tribute band, and Naughty Dog makes things that are well straight up generic. Be it gameplay or story related stuff, but they both execute at a very high level on their best days. The Last of Us is great as a game, ditto for Uncharted 2, and well I already said my piece about Metroid Prime 1 and 2. Prime 3, and the 2 Donkey Kong games have been good games, with the DK games being pretty ruthless platformers for completionists. If that studio can't do anything new, that's the studio that should get a crack at Zelda. So yeah Retro, and I do it without that weirdo monkey love pikmaniac has for that studio, or that hate boner he has for Uncharted 2.

Naughty Dog, assuming that Ueda is leaving Team Ico by the end of The Last Guardian, is frankly sony's only good first party studio to me. Maybe Santa Monica, but it's been awhile since they've been anything other than God of War, and God of War has one good game to its name at this point. Sucker Punch sucks, Polyphony I could go either way on, SCEJ is like a good team up studio, kind of like Microsoft Game Studios. They are like a helper to a real creative team, and I want to like Media Molecule, but those LBP games don't play well.

None of Microsoft's internal studios do it for me. 343 and Coalition are a Tribute Band, and I mean that in an offensive way. Turn 10 is legit, but I don't value racers like that. Rare is cool when they get to do stuff, but they haven't done anything cool since 08. Lionhead sucks, because Fable sucks, and has always sucked. Twisted Pixel is mediocre and wildly outclassed in the space they work in, and I don't give a **** about Minecraft (respect it, but I don't play it).

@Seabas989: 91 Metascore for Uncharted 3. Game over. Your opinion is worthless in comparison.

not to mention 88 for uncharted 1, they are so desperate and butthurt that sony has the best first party dev they are trying to convince themselves u1 and u3 are bad just because they are not godly like u2 and tlou.

If a dev that produces 2 of the best games of the gen is not a top dev, don't know what is, 343? xDDDD

Damn it. I was just about to ask that.

Metascore is really just a bunch of opinions. It's not gospel.

ND is no doubt one of the best developers working right now, but two excellent games is really not enough to put them up with there with Nintendo.

Oh God, no, of course not, just no...specially when Nintendo EAD exist.

so we should go by your dumb opinion? xD

I didn't say that; not sure where you got that from. Plus I have nothing against UC. I dig the series.

I'm just saying that not everybody has to agree with the metascore. I'm sure there are games that you think are not good in spite of their metascore. For instance, I think Assassin's Creed is trash in spite of its good critical reception. If somebody brought up the metascore, I wouldn't really care.

Such a temper. This is gonna sound cliche but:

Now back to this "argument." TC sttates that Naughty Dog is the best 1st party developer currently. Charizard mentions EAD. I agree with him and read your link. EAD is a group of developers but from what I read, they still count becuase they are not the whole of Nintendo. Certainly the largest but they still count.

Now I played by your rules and think that "Software Development Group 2" edges out Naughty Dog (going by what is stated in Wikipedia which sometimes I don't trust as accurate). Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo what's the problem outside of you not liking my opinion?

And if you are going to respond with insults, then at least be creative about it.

i did't say everyone has to agree with metascores, but again it is the only, or rather the best way to objectively qualify a game, if we go by personal opinion there will never be a concensus, and what is more important, it is an easy way to shut up the people who are arguing that u1 and u3 are bad, so if you don't like meta critic feel free to offer a better way of giving a a game an objective qualification, it is not perfect, but is the best we have at the moment.

And is still only one game...

You are kind of implying that people need to agree with metascores. Why else would there even be a need to "shut up" people who think UC1 and UC3 are bad? It's fine to go against the consensus.

Why do I need to offer a way of giving a game an objective qualification? I'm fine with the fact that there's no truly objective measure. I'm fine with people thinking games that are widely thought of as being good are not good (tho I do sometimes poke fun at people's tastes). Now if somebody's making shit arguments, that's a different story.

No it isn't, because there is nothing objective about it. It's a series of subjective opinions put in one giant algorithm that ultimately gives you that multiple people believe this, but not "X game is this". Major difference. A general consensus is also a logical fallacy because "many people believe so, it must be so" is technically false, many people can still be wrong. Ergo not objective.

Reality is entertainment can't actually be qualified and reduced to a series of numbers. That line of thinking in it of itself is flawed.

EAD is 7 studios, it more or less is all of Nintendo. What's left? Retro, Intelligent Systems and Monolith? Not a whole lot after that man.

But yeah SDG2 should have been more than fine, unless that's the Zelda crew, in which case those mother fuckers are 2nd to last. Bench warming ass hoes.

Crash and Jak & Daxter are good but not genre-defining whereas Uncharted 2 and The Last of Us are genre-defining.

Well let me explain:

Uncharted 1 was indeed a bad game. The gunplay was lacking, the level design was inconsistent, and the final boss was easily one of the worst I've ever encountered. Furthermore, the jet ski levels were atrocious and I'm glad ND got rid of them. Plus the first half of the game was way too repetitive and clearly the game felt unoriginal.

However there were some things I liked about UC1. Outside of the production values, in some later parts of the game, UC1 did have decent atmosphere. Something that the later games didn't have. However, I've played games with better atmosphere before UC1 came out.

As for UC3, that game was bad for different reasons. Technically it's better then UC1. However there were levels in that game that either sucked and/or were unnecessary. Whether its the shipyard, the desert, the ship portion, the beginning of the game, and the final level, the overall game was lacking. Some of these parts I just mentioned were horribly designed. Lastly, I felt the A.I. was worse then UC2 (my personal GOTY of 2009).

To make it short, I didn't like UC1 and UC3, but for different reasons and I stand by that opinion because:

a. I played, beat and own all of ND's games on the PS3

b. TLOU, while had flaws, blew away UC3 by a mile. I don't see how fans of ND can praise TLOU and not destroy UC3. It's like comparing Metroid Prime 1 to Metroid Prime 3. MP3 clearly was not as good as MP1 and both MP1 and MP2 destroy MP3.

Therefore, I do not think ND are the best 1st party developers currently as I find there work last gen to be inconsistent (from excellence to shit and back again).

lol

agree. what about turn 10 & playground studios too?

Perhaps but as I said, TC's topic was "best 1st party developer." I get your point though and decided to pick one out of the group.

Anyways it's the 4th of July weekend so I'm gonna let loose. :P

Is he still your role model TC?

Not sure if this applies to Krelian or not because I don't know if he's one of the people that bitch about reviews, but I always find it funny that gamers constantly moan about game reviewers but then use metascores as some kind of trump card. Shit makes no sense.

That's where we get a bit wishy washy here, because the concept of genre has evolved or become a bit diluted.

Uncharted 2 as a TPS, I mean yeah it could be the class of the field of cover based shooters, except well The Last of Us exists now, and Vanquish has superior mechanics, Max Payne 3 has significantly better shooting. And if we broaden that to third person shooters: Resident Evil 4 and Max Payne 1 and 2 are sure as **** not taking a back seat.

The Last of Us as a shooter, okay, yeah it hangs in that higher group. The rest of its elements considering how prominent of a role they play between the survival horror styled scavenging to the stealth, both of those elements would get so thoroughly womped by better representatives of this genre, shit MGSV is this year and it'll be doing that action/stealth stuff way the **** better than The Last of Us if ground zeroes is any indication.

More or less what I'm trying to get at: genre-defining is a bit of BS, because pigeon holing games to a genre creates its own reductionist logic. The Last of Us when reduced to just one of the genres it emulates wouldn't hold strong, albeit I do like the shooting. It certainly couldn't match the mechanical depth of other entries, or the pacing/variety, but The Last of Us has many well executed parts that compliment each other and create a great whole. And not in a stupid "more than the sum of its parts" sort of way, because I hate that argument, but more so that it's the composition of The Last of us that is terrific, ditto for Uncharted 2. Genre defining isn't the thing for them, they just are terrific period.

Jak and Daxter not being genre defining would speak more to Platformers have stiffer competition given the grand history of the genre, and the better argument is why the Jak games don't hold up. Personally Jak 2 and 3 being shooters with ghetto GTA hubworlds make them a mind numbing slog, where the shooting stuff is straight up outclassed by another Playstation IP in Ratchet n Clank. Crash, whatever, I'm a Crash hater. Spyro 4 Life.

Hey as the resident Metroid Prime 3 basher who says Pootie Tang is more deserving of being an entry in the Metroid Prime trilogy than Metroid Prime 3, Metroid Prime 3 is still a good game. It looks weak in comparison to 1 and 2. Uncharted 3 actually is pretty weak because of some dull ass shooting and the general nature of those games.

You should watch that, it's about game length, but the point all remains the same. It's easier to reduce games down to a number and take out all the complicated variables and pieces. Some people get that epiphany that you know what these numbers are whatever, and others act like there is some great injustice happening when a game they think is going to be God's gift to man has to get a 9, or frankly the perfect 10 out of 10 that it deserves because Jesus commanded it.

You can't fix stupid. Even the white hot light of truth has had to accept that reality.

Really thouht-provoking points. Maybe genre-defining is not the best word. Perhaps it would just be better to say that Last of Us and UC2 are better games for their genre than Crash and Jak are.

I do agree that Jak 2 and 3 are mad stupid tho. I only actually like the first one, which was basic but had a lot of charm.

That being said, I actually like Crash much more than Spyro. Crash actually has some tension to its platforming whereas Spyro is just too watered down with collectathon gameplay. Not really a fan of Sony platformers in general.

Not the first time you would be wrong, certainly won't be your last.

@jg4xchamp It's been years since I played MP3. I did enjoy it back in 2007 as I though it was a great game. However, as a big fan of Retro Studios, even I'll admit that after Skytown, the game was forgettable. I remember disliking the Pirate Homeworld as dull and I hated the final showdown. But the first two planets to explore were memorable (especially the music). I just wish the game would have stuck to one planet then multiple planets.

Just to clarify, I'd rather play MP3 then UC3.

Haha. Dat texasgoldrush impact.

Word. Will watch later tonight.

I love MP3 but I agree with the general consensus that despite the improvements in the core action (by which I mean the shooting), the level design, which is what made MP1 so very good, took a huge hit. It went from absolutely brilliant to getting the job done.

Agreed. Ask anyone about explaining or remembering the Pirate Homeworld and the answer would usually be: ?????

I did enjoy the IR pointer controls for the most part. However, the game was easy.

i never said people have to agree with metacritic, what i am saying it is a good way to avoid dumb statements like the ones you did, for example, by meta critic you cannot say uncharted is a bad game, you can say you don't like it, but that's different, instead of saying it is a bad game because you didn't like it. And again, you can cry about meta critic all you want but unless you offer a better alternative i don't see the reason, it is a collective opinion thus a general concensus about a game, not once did i say you have to think the same but saying it is a bad uncharted 1 and 3 are bad games is simply moronic.