Sony pulls fabricated 'interview' with Naughty Dog head Neil Druckmann
engadget.comLast week, Sony published a seemingly innocuous bit of fluff, touting its long-term «creative entertainment vision» in broad terms, along with some interviews of key employees. Neil Druckmann, studio head of Sony's Naughty Dog, was one of those — and his interview made waves in the game world. According to the interview, Druckmann said AI could «create nuanced dialogues and characters» and also said that the new game Naughty Dog was developing (but hasn't officially announced) «could redefine mainstream perceptions of gaming.» Some mighty strong and potentially controversial statements from the head of a studio beloved for its The Last of Us and Uncharted franchises.
Problem is, Druckmann was wildly misquoted by his own employers. A few days after Sony published its interview, Druckmann took to X and said «this is not quite what I said.» He then went full Ellie-in-revenge-mode on Sony, posting a section of the original interview transcript. (He was actually pretty polite if we're being honest — even the powerful can only bite the hand that feeds so hard.) Regardless, things here do not add up.
In editing my rambling answers in my recent interview with SONY, some of my words, context, and intent were unfortunately lost. Well, here's the full long rambling answer for the final question about our future game… pic.twitter.com/tVuxX3LYJF
— Neil Druckmann (@Neil_Druckmann) May 25, 2024
Gaming reporter Stephen Totilo shared his own comparison of what Druckmann said and what Sony published, bolding the words in Sony's answer that Druckmann never said — and those words were the majority of the quote. Sony basically put words in his mouth and published them, kicking off a classic gamer freakout.
To be fair, if I was Druckmann, I'd be pretty pissed too. Look at this butchery!
If you're curious (about what he said; and how I spend a Friday night when my wife and kids are away), here's a comparison of the original answer and the edited one.
Many changes
No surprise, this was
