Naughty Dog and Their Imperfections

From its humble beginnings as Jam Software in 1984 to its current status as one of Sony’s best first-party studios, Naughty Dog has released dozens of games varying in quality. The Naughty Dog of today didn’t begin taking shape until the PlayStation 3 era. The Crash Bandicoot and Jak and Daxter franchises stand the test of time, but they don’t reflect the studio’s current values.

[lifeisgamesok]

Naughty Dog is the best studio

[roadkillers]

There's arguments to be made, especially with Nintendo... I had so much fun with the Uncharted series especially playing Uncharted 4 on Active Duty. Definitely want his job whether it is a treasure hunter or scuba diver.

I'm the minority here, but I remember very little from Last of Us single player besides the cutscene videos. The multiplayer on the other hand was incredibly fun and possibly the best behind CoD MW PS3.

Jak continued to get better as the series went on. Jak 3 was so much fun being my GTA alternative.Along with that, Crash was part of my adolescence.

Every PS game they've made has left a long appeal. Oh... Daxter was the only must have PSP game until GTALCS came out.

[LMosche]

Jak 2 and 3 are the worst platformers Ive ever played with barely any music and the little it has being repetitive and boring and like four generic weapons. Ratchet & Clank didn't spoil me, Jak was just garbage. Even the platforming was meh.

[AspiringProGenji]

“ Consumers can always expect them to churn out technical marvels with excellent writing, but they aren’t the end-all-be-all the industry has made them out to be.”

As opposed to what or who? Every studio will always have their weakness, but ND is one of those devs where the overall quality will make up for their weakness. I much enjoyed U3 despite its linearity. U4 was awesome despite a few chapters feeling it dragged the game a bit which slowed the pace.

A few imperfections shouldn’t affect the reputation they have built for themselves in the industry. I much prefer the Naughty Dog of today than the past

[Darkwatchman]

the Jak and Daxter games will always be good. Crash 2 and 3 will always be good. Uncharted 1 already feels dated with its antiquated shooting and rough design that lead to strong critical reception at time of release because it had strong writing and was such a technical next gen powerhouse in 2007. The Naughty Dog of today relies more on flawed core games propped up by their technical achievements than past games which were equally well designed and technically impressive games.

Uncharted 2 and The Last of Us are some of the best games of all time, but they are outliers. Uncharted 1, 3, and 4 will not stand the test of time 10-15 years from now in the same way the Jak and Daxter trilogy and Crash 2 and 3 have because of this pursuit for technical perfection being the core focus.

[AspiringProGenji]

So you left out Crash 1 and picked on U1 as if both games weren’t flawed and also the start of something great... Uncharted 3 may not stand the test of times because of U4 and Lost legacy, but it is still a fun game to play. U4 I am sure it will always be fun to play to and go through. It is a great game. Naughty Dog put a lot of detail and strive to deliver a quality experience with their games and that is something that should be applauded, not put against them. If they have the resources, time, and passion to deliver a technical marvel, then they damn well should. The technology is already here for them to achieve things they couldn’t before.

[lifeisgamesok]

I'll always remember Uncharted 4 and TLOU they are 2 of the greatest games I've ever experienced

I have a good feeling TLOU Part II will be the same

[RazzerRedux]

"Uncharted 2 and The Last of Us are undeniable classics, but that’s two out of five games under Naughty Dog’s modern portfolio. Their monolithic reputation doesn’t match their output. "

I've read these silly arguments before. Here is the logic: ND made two of the best games of all time, but since their other games are not considered to be among the best games of all time, ND is overrated.

That's just poorly thought out. It is like discounting Scorsese as a director because most of his movies aren't as renown as Goodfellas and Raging Bull. It is just silly. And your premise that NDs strengths are only writing and tech prowess is simply incorrect. There is some damn good gameplay in these games and you are wrong to discount them.

Finally, there have been 6 ND games since the first Uncharted. 5 Uncharted games (including Lost Legacy) and The Last of Us. Any game developer would kill to have that portfolio and does in fact back up NDs lofty reputation.

I think this article was written not to be right, but to be controversial and get clicks. Congrats on that.

[Silly gameAr]

Let me sum this article up

"stop thinking Naughty Dog are the best in the industry because I said so".

Saved everyone a bunch of reading.

[Darkwatchman]

This is the problem with N4G. People read headlines and skim the articles without taking the time to FULLY absorb its contents. I state within the article that Naughty Dog is a high quality team that you can always count on to deliver strong writing and technology and animation that pushes the hardware of its era. They are the kings of polish. Nobody in gaming provides such polished video games.

What the article is doing is examining the very deep flaws inherent to Uncharted 1, 3, and 4 that critical discourse tends to gloss over because the studio's pursuit of "technical prowess/perfection" and "cinematic" direction tends to make people forgive glaring design issues that other games would be judged more critically for. The article is actually a balanced and fair assessment of Naughty Dog's 3 most flawed games, which I admit also are all very good games in their own rights, but brings to light things the mainstream discourse tends to dismiss.

It's a studio whose reputation doesn't match their output. Uncharted 2 and The Last of Us deserve the reputations they have, but the rest of their modern games, Uncharted 1, 3, and 4 are flawed enough that the messiah-like status bestowed upon Naughty Dog seems a little inflated when you take a step back to think about their games more critically.

This kind of reductive comment belittles the amount of time and effort people put into articles like this. I welcome differing opinions that are reasonably well argued. Hell, I'm a FAN of hour long video essays of games whose overall conclusion I disagree with, but I enjoyed the content because it was an intelligently delivered critical dissection whose arguments I could understand even if I didn't agree with them.

[AspiringProGenji]

“ What the article is doing is examining the very deep flaws inherent to Uncharted 1, 3, and 4 that critical discourse tends to gloss over because the studio's pursuit of "technical prowess/perfection" and "cinematic" direction tends to make people forgive glaring design issues that other games would be judged more critically for.”

But it is okay to ignore W3’s flawed combat because of the story and the open world, or RDR2 issues because it’s Rockstar... It’s as if every game and dev have their issues and people don’t Care when the overall experience is great

[bluefox755]

There's rarely anything to "full absorb" posted on N4G, people don't usually read the articles because most of the articles are trash clickbait blogs, written by failed journalist hipsters trying to make it in games journalism instead.

[OB1Biker]

Imagine Uncharted 1, 3, and 4 being the most flawed games for a studio....
🙄
The discussion about other studios being great is fine. The argument to downplay one is flawed.

[Silly gameAr]

The article itself belittles the article. Sorry if my interpretation of this article offended you, and that you actually thought this was a well written, "intelligently delivered" article. To me it just read like "I'm going to find reasons for people to stop thinking Naughty Dog is top tier, and try to bring them down a level or two."

[RazzerRedux]

"The article is actually a balanced and fair assessment of Naughty Dog's 3 most flawed games, which I admit also are all very good games in their own rights, but brings to light things the mainstream discourse tends to dismiss."

So ND games, in your opinion, range from "very good" to among "the best ever". And so ND is overrated? NDs "flaws" are better than the vast majority of other devs strengths.

" I enjoyed the content because it was an intelligently delivered critical dissection"

This article isn't that though.

And this nonsense about "cults" when referring to ND fans who some regard them with "messiah" status is over the top hyperbole. You've described everyone who disagrees with you about ND as some kind of obsessed fanatic.

"This is the problem with N4G. "

No, this is the problem with articles on n4g posing as "journalism".

[Rimeskeem]

Journalism and it's imperfections.

According to this article someone who made mistakes 20+ years ago should always be remembered for it and can't possibly be redeemed.

[Darkwatchman]

...uh what? If you read the article, I argue it’s their older games. The crash games (not the first one) and the entire trilogy that remain good to this day all these years later but it’s their more recent games that aren’t more inconsistent so how does your comment about “making mistakes 20+ years ago” fit in to anything...they make more mistakes now than they ever did.
Uncharted 2 and The Last of Us at their 2 truly amazing modern games. The rest are all definitely also good, but deeply flawed in a way that doesn’t get discussed enough when Naughty Dog is brought up in discourse.

[Rimeskeem]

They aren't deeply flawed, just because they arent as good doesn't mean they are deeply flawed. No one talks about it because it's not something that can be talked about unless you are trying to make some dumb clickbait shit.

Stating the imperfections of a studio who has won hundreds of GOTY awards from countless sites is the epitome of attention seeking. Where is your article for Rockstar imperfections or other studios who have countless praise if though their newest game has obvious flaws in movement and mechanics?

This piece just seems like you have been trying to find flaws in a studio that has been gifted 100s of awarded.

[generic-user-name]

I'd ask what makes them "deeply" flawed rather than simply flawed?

[PhoenixUp]

It’s easier for me to go through the Crash Bandicoot and Jak & Daxter games than it is to replay Uncharted & The Last of Us. I love replaying those other entries, but sometimes it takes too long for me to get to my favorite parts in those titles than in the previous titles.

One thing I find hilarious is Naughty Dog’s tradition of always having a chase scene with the player character running away from the screen from a big instakill threat in almost all of their games under Sony.

[isarai]

I think you got it twisted a bit, Naughty Dog's reputation isnt built on being "flawless" or "timeless" it's that what they do deliver on, they deliver at a VERY high level, especially for their time.

[AmUnRa]

It is his opinion...and i strongly disagree with is opinion. ND has grown from a little studio to one of the best studios in the world. And they are still growing in everything what has to do with making games. ND is far from a hit and mis studio, thats utter bullshit.

[dmonee]

I think this article is trying to say, “It’s time for an original uncharted remake for PS5!” The author never says that but!, that game was not as good as the next 3 games in that series and it would be interesting to see how that game was really supposed to turn out 🤔

[DethWish]

Huh, UC4 is actually my favorite. I enjoyed the story much more than the previous entries. I also loved exploring the bigger environments and having the rope made exploration way more fun. The best thing with it , though, is that it removed all those damn near-unkillable ”monsters”.

[AK91]

One of my fav game devs while I haven’t loved every game they’ve ever made I’ve been a diehard fan since the PS1 days.