Why are they doing this to the Ratchet & Clank series?

#11OldDirtyCR(Topic Creator)Posted 11/29/2012 7:57:57 PM
adam_kps2 posted...
I'm happy that we get more R&C. It's a spin-off, it is a low price and it is fun.

I'd rather get this filler R&C whilst waiting for the next big adventure than nothing.


If it's a completely separate team and it doesn't affect the development of a "real" full length R&C game, then I'm cool with it. I doubt that's the case, as companies have finite resources. And if this game flops it may have negative affects on the series as a whole. If a series starts to have bad sales multiple times in a row it's not good.
#12monkeypantsPosted 11/30/2012 5:40:14 AM(edited)
They went in "new directions" because each recent iteration of the core R&C series sold worse than the one before it. Which is a crying shame to me as I consider "A Crack in Time" best in series. You can be sure if sales had kept up, we'd be getting more of the same series we love, without towers, without 4 players, at 60fps.

It's conceivable they would have done a $20 PSN title even if the core series was doing well, as it's a cheap way to recycle assets.

Did I complain about 30fps R&C in this thread yet? Oh yeah, 30fps R&c SUCKS.
#13PhewfusPosted 11/30/2012 1:34:20 PM
They went in "new directions" because each recent iteration of the core R&C series sold worse than the one before it. Which is a crying shame to me as I consider "A Crack in Time" best in series. You can be sure if sales had kept up, we'd be getting more of the same series we love, without towers, without 4 players, at 60fps.

It's conceivable they would have done a $20 PSN title even if the core series was doing well, as it's a cheap way to recycle assets.

Did I complain about 30fps R&C in this thread yet? Oh yeah, 30fps R&c SUCKS.


A Crack in Time didn't sell badly. It was the fastest selling game in the franchise at the time of its release and it made back its profit. The games were always slow burners when it came to sales, even back on the PS2; also the fact it was overshadowed by high profile games like Uncharted 2. They were never system sellers.

The series seems to be going the same way it did to at the end of the PS2 era with Deadlocked, and there were plenty of upset fans lamenting the death of the franchise when that game was released.

History seems to repeat itself.
#14mjc0961Posted 12/1/2012 5:35:43 PM(edited)
Ebak_the_cat posted...
They like to try something new. No matter how much something is tried and tested...if you don't change something about the mechanics, you usually invite critics to say "It hasn't changed...and thats bad"


Yep. Don't change, and it's "NO CHANGE THIS SUCKS STAGNATION BLAH BLAH BLAH."

Change and it's "THEY CHANGED IT AND IT SUCKS I WANTED THE OLD STYLE BLAH BLAH BLAH."

This is part of why I respect Nintendo for basically saying "suck it haters" all the time. So many people whine about how Mario or Pokemon or Zelda or whatever never change. But does Nintendo listen to them? HEEEEEEELL NO! They make the game THEY want to make, because they only ones they can truly please are themselves.

So whatever. I'd love a more traditional R&C adventure again, but I'm enjoying FFA for what it is too. If they hadn't tried something new, this thread would still exist but it would just be whining about stagnation instead.

vgman94 posted...
I can't see how people don't get bored of "tried and true" formulas being released with tweaks over and over. I mean improving a formula for a time is great, but after a while, it exhausts it's life span. Those minor tweaks are simply not enough. I like A4O, but it's not because I dislike the old set up. In fact I enjoyed ACIT more than A4O, but the point is the new direction clearly has potential for building something bigger. IMO, future sequels to A4O should have bigger, more expansive levels with quests that require to split and regroup the team and add more puzzle elements that required more thought. The levels themselves should have been more free-roam inspired with some linear requirements, and the weapons need more thought put into them, or to bring back some old weapons that haven't been used, like the Agents of Doom. I feel A4O, while not as great as other titles in the series, was still great fun with it's co-op and has potential to be even better than the old style if it's formula is developed correctly and I feel that that's a better direction than driving the series - using the same old formula - into a ridiculously stagnant cycle of repetition. No offense intended.


See, this is the s*** I was talking about.
---
"Jak and Daxter does not have a sequel so that doesn't prove anything." - DesperateMonkey
#15danh957Posted 12/1/2012 5:47:53 PM
insomniac games are currently in the process of making another game currently, AT least we got another ratchet and clank game, we cant expect to see full R&C game for a few years.
#16PhewfusPosted 12/2/2012 3:33:19 PM
Yep. Don't change, and it's "NO CHANGE THIS SUCKS STAGNATION BLAH BLAH BLAH."

Change and it's "THEY CHANGED IT AND IT SUCKS I WANTED THE OLD STYLE BLAH BLAH BLAH."

This is part of why I respect Nintendo for basically saying "suck it haters" all the time. So many people whine about how Mario or Pokemon or Zelda or whatever never change. But does Nintendo listen to them? HEEEEEEELL NO! They make the game THEY want to make, because they only ones they can truly please are themselves.

So whatever. I'd love a more traditional R&C adventure again, but I'm enjoying FFA for what it is too. If they hadn't tried something new, this thread would still exist but it would just be whining about stagnation instead.


I agree. Its one of the reasons that when the Future games were released, I found it annoying when reviews would say things like "tired formula or same old, same old or if you never liked R&C, avoid."

WHO CARES?! If the game is fun, engaging and well made, why whine about getting a product you're familiar with? Its like telling people to avoid Mario if they never liked Mario, or that GTA is a tired formula. It makes no sense yet people always single this game series out for it. Then when Insomniac decides to make a game that doesn't follow the exact platform/adventure formula of the previous games, people whine that it isn't the same.
#17Tails288Posted 12/2/2012 5:07:39 PM
mjc0961 posted...
Ebak_the_cat posted...
They like to try something new. No matter how much something is tried and tested...if you don't change something about the mechanics, you usually invite critics to say "It hasn't changed...and thats bad"


Yep. Don't change, and it's "NO CHANGE THIS SUCKS STAGNATION BLAH BLAH BLAH."

Change and it's "THEY CHANGED IT AND IT SUCKS I WANTED THE OLD STYLE BLAH BLAH BLAH."

This is part of why I respect Nintendo for basically saying "suck it haters" all the time. So many people whine about how Mario or Pokemon or Zelda or whatever never change. But does Nintendo listen to them? HEEEEEEELL NO! They make the game THEY want to make, because they only ones they can truly please are themselves.

So whatever. I'd love a more traditional R&C adventure again, but I'm enjoying FFA for what it is too. If they hadn't tried something new, this thread would still exist but it would just be whining about stagnation instead.

vgman94 posted...
I can't see how people don't get bored of "tried and true" formulas being released with tweaks over and over. I mean improving a formula for a time is great, but after a while, it exhausts it's life span. Those minor tweaks are simply not enough. I like A4O, but it's not because I dislike the old set up. In fact I enjoyed ACIT more than A4O, but the point is the new direction clearly has potential for building something bigger. IMO, future sequels to A4O should have bigger, more expansive levels with quests that require to split and regroup the team and add more puzzle elements that required more thought. The levels themselves should have been more free-roam inspired with some linear requirements, and the weapons need more thought put into them, or to bring back some old weapons that haven't been used, like the Agents of Doom. I feel A4O, while not as great as other titles in the series, was still great fun with it's co-op and has potential to be even better than the old style if it's formula is developed correctly and I feel that that's a better direction than driving the series - using the same old formula - into a ridiculously stagnant cycle of repetition. No offense intended.


See, this is the s*** I was talking about.


Way to accept others' opinions.
---
Reviving PATRATS. Members: 4
Official Emboar of the B/W Boards!
#18CooperThiefPosted 12/2/2012 7:06:25 PM
Well. it's not like you're paying $60 for it. It's supposed to be a smaller game, like QfB.
I do hope, however, that Insomniac starts focusing on the classic Ratchet formula. I don't really care if it's been used a lot; it's fun and I like it. Just have a new storyline, a couple of new gameplay elements, and I'm good.
---
"I suppose a powerful force like 'The Murray' could take down fifty foes"-Murray, Sly 2
#19monkeypantsPosted 12/3/2012 8:32:01 PM
Phewfus posted...
They went in "new directions" because each recent iteration of the core R&C series sold worse than the one before it. Which is a crying shame to me as I consider "A Crack in Time" best in series. You can be sure if sales had kept up, we'd be getting more of the same series we love, without towers, without 4 players, at 60fps.

It's conceivable they would have done a $20 PSN title even if the core series was doing well, as it's a cheap way to recycle assets.

Did I complain about 30fps R&C in this thread yet? Oh yeah, 30fps R&c SUCKS.


A Crack in Time didn't sell badly. It was the fastest selling game in the franchise at the time of its release and it made back its profit. The games were always slow burners when it came to sales, even back on the PS2; also the fact it was overshadowed by high profile games like Uncharted 2. They were never system sellers.

The series seems to be going the same way it did to at the end of the PS2 era with Deadlocked, and there were plenty of upset fans lamenting the death of the franchise when that game was released.

History seems to repeat itself.


Looked up your numbers, and you are indeed correct. CIT even slighly outsold TOD when comparing first years. Each subsequent year, however, seems to have gone in favor of TOD, by a wide margin. TOD actually sold 23% better its second year, while CIT dropped 21%. TOD appears to have a significant edge in the "slow burn" department you referenced. TOD may have had a bit of an "unfair" advantage in this department, however, as it was the early days of Ps3 and game selection was limited.

But Even if CIT keeps pace with its most recent full year, 2011 (unlikely), it'll still have sold quite a bit less than TOD by the same time in the cycle. I still see your point, though, and am not as sure now of their motivations as I was before.

TOD Sales: http://www.vgchartz.com/game/7256/ratchet-amp-clank-future-tools-of-destruction/Global/

CIT Sales: http://www.vgchartz.com/game/32975/ratchet-amp-clank-future-a-crack-in-time/Global/