Topic: Bar Possibly Set Too High?

I already know people is going to leave angry comments about this saying Naughty Dog are the best and that they can get no wrong, but here me out. A lot of people are expecting this game to beat their expectations of the first game, which was already universally loved and consider a masterpiece to practically almost EVERY Playstation fan. Same could be said for Rockstar Games/Red Dead Redemption 2 and CD Project Red/ Cyberpunk 2077(although I'll admit, just like Death Stranding, nobody knows what this game is going to be about). I'm not saying they're incapable of meeting those expectations because I'm well aware of how talented these studios are, but if history has taught me anything about high-caliber games: When you want or expect too much out of them, 8 times out of 10 you will MOST LIKELY come off disappointed.

I am generally a 'glass half full' kinda guy and tend to be excited for most big games that get announced, but where these studios you have picked out are concerned, I think they have earned the trust of gamers due to their consistency. Naughty Dog, in my opinion, have never made a bad game, similarly, you would have to go back a number of years to find a poorly received game from Rockstar.

While CD Project Red might not have as storied a history as some, they have still been consistent over a long period of time and have earned the trust of gamers not just as a result of the quality of their games but also the respect they have shown to their fans.

Personally, I like to be excited and generally speaking, I feel that the amount of good games far outnumber the bad ones.

The bar was set too high when they released Knack, that's what you get for not saving great games until the end of the generation. Could've been a 10/10 gen 5 game if they picked the release date carefully. Like McDonalds and the Szechuan sauce. There's a time and place for everything. But guess what? If you give out free burgers, nobody's coming back for the sauce. Such is life.

I think it's an honest concern. After all, once you hit the top, the only way is down.

The key is keeping your expectations at a reasonable level. I'm never going to say "X studio can do no wrong", because that's just unrealistic. Eventually every studio will have a stinker or underperforming title in their catalogue. Such is life, nobody is bulletproof. But even if the bar is raised too high, it's also important to recognize a title's quality away from expectation and see how it stacks up by itself.

Obviously, I'm assuming this thread was made with Last of Us Part II in mind. If you ask me, it doesn't need to be some holy grail of gaming. It just has to do right by the original title by being a great follow up and a strong title in it's own right. I actually don't like it when people feel that every game has to be innovative and change the industry, because I feel a lot of games that just get their jobs done get passed over too much.

And of course, I'm not going to say it's wrong to get excited for any big games. Absolutely not. All I'm saying is to be reasonable about what to expect and know what you want from a game. That way, you won't get carried away by hype and lessen any sting from disappointment.

There really isnt enough time in the world to worry about this as the best new games I played last year were Static, Yakuza Zero and HZD. All new franchises to me.

The bar has been seemingly further pushed by GoW, Moss and Monster Hunter World this year.

The 'bar' is only in the heads of the gamer. I know many found Uncharted 3 to be not as good as 2, but from a technical sense, 3 was an improvement over the the 2nd. However, 2 was a bigger leap than 1 was in a lot of ways and therefore it had a bigger impact. The difference between the Last of Us 1 and 2 could be a big leap too - most notably because of the hardware difference. How they utilise it, maybe by making the game more wide linear as opposed to these more 'narrow' little sections for example could well make a big leap in terms of game-play which may really help push the game above expectation.

Point is, its the expectation that governs the 'bar' and it really depends on whether or not a game has a big enough 'leap' over its predecessor in terms of structure etc. Its the same with games like CoD. CoD4 re-invented the MP as well as having a fantastic campaign that mixed up the mission structure. Subsequent improvements felt more and more like 'tweaks' rather than 'leaps' or 'innovation' and therefore the games became more 'stale' - even though these 'tweaks' and new additions improved the overall balance and game-play.

The Last of Us 2 has a high 'bar' to exceed but it also has a number of things that can help it too - Hardware and the fact that it only has 1 'game' to beat. People aren't 'bored' of Joel and Ellie, not so much 'risk' of repeating themselves with story or having to be forced in certain path's because of the predecessors and lore they created around these characters etc.