It's not only the talent.
Think about it. The talented programmers designers etc. don't run the developer 100%. They can share ideas, program code or design breathtaking art. It isn't always apparent that the company leaders and producers have a final say on what gets invested in and what hits the chopping block.
Think of it this way. Let's assume some small company started up an under funded space company to fly to Mars. It wouldn't matter how good the talent was if the owners of the company weren't interested in fully funding a project to Pluto.
Hopefully you understand, having good talent is only part of the equation. Developers like Naughty Dog have a system in place that allows more development freedom. This allows them to become compulsive and put pride into their products. When you have another company like value it's run differently. The employees have a strict set of responsibilities or limitations that don't give them much freedom. I assume the environment isn't as friendly, encouraging or funded to go that extra mile.
The portal game was created by a talented group of collage students and it was given support before that talent became part of a big studio. This allowed them full creative freedom when they created the Alpha demo.
This is why, I believe talent is only part of the equation. If you put a talented person into an environment that restricts them they can't fully express their talent. In any case Value has higher ups that decide what platforms they develop for, the budget involved and how it's going to be produced.
Who knows. maybe these people that are Ex-employees couldn't grasp the PS3 architecture and had to be let go. If value wasn't interested in developing for the PS3 the lack PS3 skills wouldn't be an issue because they hired them for the other native skill sets.
View