Support NeoGAF

[Dr_Salt]

So I was watching a video about this cool game I had no idea existed called Phantom Dust that was released in the original Xbox era. I was amazed at how original it was with it's collectible card game combat, destructible environment, flashy neo post apocalypse thematic and OST but was even more amazed when I found it was actually an xbox studios game. Here is the video, it's a pretty good watch:




Anyways I kept on thinking about all the original games we got during the PS2-GC-XBOX era and how developers seemed to keep experimenting with all kinds of crazy ideas with varied range of success.

I get game development is not the same as it was at that time and now it has become a monster which huge profits but also huge development costs. I believe this is probably the main reason why we don't get these kinds of bold ideas anymore, basically if your game fails you lose millions of dollars which makes developers and publishers very averse to risk. I also believe this is the reason it seems all we get are AAA coop shooters trying to emulate the L4D formula, F2P mobas and battle royale games, hero or military shooters and remakes of past beloved games. Seriously most of the biggest games announced for 2022-2023 seem to be shooters, sequels or derivatives of games we have had before like Callisto Protocol and remakes. Don't get me wrong I am hyped for RE4R, Callisto Protocol, Stalker 3, Starfield and SF6 but it just seems these are games I have played before with nothing truly new and innovative.

I know people will probably just say innovation is being kept alive by indie devs but man I just wish the modern AAA gaming industry would take some risks from time to time.

 

[Abriael_GN]

No. But some forum posts are.

 

[MarkMe2525]

In a sense yes. Similar to blockbuster movie production, a publisher is only going to invest AAA money if they can hedge their bets to produce a profit. This means homogenized products that are tried and true. If you are looking for innovation, you typically are going to have to look at lower budget products. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule.

 

[Bonfires Down]

Well Phantom Dust flopped pretty hard. Then they re-released it a few years ago and it flopped even harder. You think anyone's gonna greenlight something like that with a $100 million budget?

 

[Syphon Filter]

yes, for about a decade now.

 

[Arkangelus0]

It is bankrupt, the fact people called games like soulborne a genre, when in fact are Just games who copy the mechancics and core gameplay of other, its the proof, Monster Hunter was not a genre, and the last decade everyone copy that

 

[KàIRóS]

Yeah and the worst part is that they are basically forced to not risk it too much when it comes to game design, they cost so much money to make that they prefer to go with tried and true formulas instead of innovative ideas, there's too much to lose if they fuck up the core gameplay.

 

[ReBurn]

AAA gaming has been formulaic since the PS360 days. With the cost involved in making AAA games developers just don't take creative risks any more. They have to hit. So each major genre in AAA has a basic script driven by focus groups and there's not much variation.

 

[BennyBlanco]

games were cheaper and faster to make back then. now every big budget game is focus tested to shit and takes 5 years+ to make.

 

[bitbydeath]

It is bankrupt, the fact people called games like soulborne a genre, when in fact are Just games who copy the mechancics and core gameplay of other, its the proof, Monster Hunter was not a genre, and the last decade everyone copy that

RPG’s are much worse genre-wise, since nobody can even decide what it really means to be one.

 

[pqueue]

what a dumb question.

as if all indie or AA is creatively rich.....

hell, so many of them are pretentious, derivative 8-bit garbage the very concept is laughable.

 

[Thief1987]

AAA games became too big. Very high financial risks doesn't leave much space for creativity. Still we have some exceptions here and there, like Death Stranding for example, you can argue that it's not a fun or good game, but in its concept it's pretty unique.

 

[Dr_Salt]

what a dumb question.

as if all indie or AA is creatively rich.....

hell, so many of them are pretentious, derivative 8-bit garbage the very concept is laughable.

When did I say all Indie games were creatively rich?

Even so there has been more creativity in AA and indie games in the last 3 years compared to the last 15 years or so of AAA gaming.

 

[LazyParrot]

Rising development costs are naturally going to discourage developers and publishers from taking risks. The bigger the investment, the greater the pressure to emulate past successes.

Not much to be done about that.

 

[killatopak]

No. I find the devs themselves are very creative.

More like they are creatively restricted. The more money is invested, the more restricted they are. One caveat though are first party publishers but they are still subject to that kind of thing to a varying degree.

 

[nush]

Then they re-released it a few years ago and it flopped even harder

How can a game they give away for free flop?

Cult Classic Phantom Dust Free on Xbox One and Windows 10 - Xbox Wire

At Team Xbox we put gamers at the center of everything we do and we are driven to build the best platform on which to create and play games. We’ve heard the feedback and passion from fans about this Xbox classic, and for this re-release on modern devices, we’ve decided to give it away for […]

news.xbox.com

 

[levyjl1988]

Yes, because they replaced talented creative game designers with business people and psychologist so they can exploit gamers with microtransactions, loot boxes, and paid-to-win gaming. Modern-day gaming fucking sucks. Video games are no longer fun, they are pretty much addictive casinos.

 

[JerryinSoCal]

No they aren't, look at how many indie games are basically the same pixel art stuff we played when we had no choice but now people act as if they are super creative and original, 80% of them are just the same thing.

 

[LectureMaster]

Masterpiece just takes time. Is BOTW not groundbreaking?

 

[Yoboman]

Masterpiece just takes time. Is BOTW not groundbreaking?

No it's not

 

[pqueue]

Even so there has been more creativity in AA and indie games in the last 3 years compared to the last 15 years or so of AAA gaming.

that is your OPINION, sure.

but the vast tsunami of garbage indie games is not outweighed by the relatively few top tier indies.

 

[Laptop1991]

Yes, they just make what sells now, as the focus is on money nowadays, that's why mtx were brought in everywhere in the last decade, they make as much if not more from the stores than the actual game, so why bother making the games more creative, it's copy and paste AAA games with stores, you just have to look at AC or COD or FIFA etc, and GTA Online is the reason why.

 

[ShirAhava]

I haven't been impressed by this industry from a creative standpoint since the late 2000s/very early 2010s

 

[Keihart]

i would agree to a point, but luckly there is still space for devs like Kojipro on the triple A space and Square hasn't given up on experimenting with each new FF and even campcom is experimenting now and then.
it's just that the double A space is not the same since the PS2 era, during the PS3 era the space got crushed and indies took over that space i think.

Maybe the indie space is gonna keep growing with the new tools closing the gap between indie and double AA production values.

 

[Gamerguy84]

Gaming used to be a blank canvas. It does feel like the ideas have been taken. Consider all the genres and how many games we have for each.

I'm excited for VR more than anything.

 

[Kev Kev]

VR has so many possibilities. maybe some of these devs should start looking at how they can get creative with VR.

 

[kungfuian]

If you look at Ubi, EA, and some of the big publishers as a snap shot of the industry then an argument could be made that AAA game makers play it very SAFE now a days. But if you think about it objectively the industry has always been this way. Most games, going back to say the NES (indis all the way up to the biggest productions), have borrowed from each other and been heavily reliant on using the formulas that have been shown to work. Then we have moments in the industry that push the medium forward, a few games each year, and then everybody copies/catches up. Rinse and repeat. It has always been this way.

Way I see it, with the current state of the industry, it's not really an either or type of scenario and more of a win win. The total number and variety of games to chose from is way better/more than a decade ago. If you want massive epic scale productions you can find them, even if they can be a bit Samey due to the required ROI (I would argue there is quite a bit of variety actually). And if you want creativity grab a steam account and go to town.
Plus the samey argument only applies to those unwilling to innovate. Each year we get amazing new games in the AAA, AA, and indi spaces that shake things up just enough to push the medium forward and prevent it from becoming stagnant. Elden Ring, and Zelda before it, are prime examples the AAA open world genre evolving. Or take something like Returnal or Hollow Knight, an indi and AA game that punch way above their weight and deliver familiar but unique and extremely high quality experiences.

I think the problem is more one of perception (media bias toward heavily marketed samey games) and maybe a narrowing of ones own personal game tastes (willingness to explore new gaming experiences which seems to shrink over time).

 

[MightySquirrel]

In a way yes.

The developers especially in many larger studios are limited by the vision of their overlord shareholders. What I mean by that is the lead designer often is in unfortunate situation where he has to periodically report on progress to some inept shareholder who have this stupid notion that he somehow has a better idea about what would better fit in this game and tells a professional to change one thing or another even though its very detrimental to the game to say the least.

Very few are lucky to have total freedom.

 

[K' Dash]

No. But some forum posts are.

you can pretend we've not been playing the same shit over and over again since 2007, but it would be just that... pretending.

there are few and apart the real original ideas, and I'm not talking about writing, I'm about game mechanics.

people seem fine playing the same Post Apocalyptic Daddy Issues Walking Simulator with different amounts of gore every couple years.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

No doubt its repetitive stuff. As one guy said above (I agree), the last innovative games was the 2000s kind of era.

But playin devil's advocate, if all the repetitive games are raking in sales nd profits, it must mean they are doing something right. The masses love mainstream repetitive shit. And the masses will always be worth the most dollars if a company can get them.

What might have happened is a lot of us long time gamers who want innovative polished games are now the small pie slice.

Kind of like Apple. When they realized going after the PC crowd is worth 10x more than satisfying their hardcore rebel loyalists, Apple ditched them for Macs with Intel parts and can run Windows and MS Office.

 

[Northeastmonk]

A lot of games can’t be outdone overnight. A lot of classic themes were created years ago. Time has shown technology advancing and creativity is just eye candy. Technology and creativity don’t always grow together. Which is why we get Ryse or Shadow Fall. You aren’t making a game to set records, you’re showing off the processing power. Make the guns and explosions look better. There’s only so much of that, that is actually meaningful. We aren’t going nuts over a game because it has amazing graphics because 1/3rd of the game has bad textures or something else as an example.

I think early video games use to be fascinating because you had objects on screen that defined the experience. Developers created the best experience with limited technology and they molded the experience around that. Now a days it’s easier to take that for granted. Games also cost more and developers probably have analyst that look for sales numbers rather than take risks. It’s also been said that games are hard to make, but aren’t they causing themselves more issues by having so many hands in the project? I think it’s a double edged sword.

I don’t think this is with every developer. Capcom has made some amazing stuff this Gen. Stuff like Resident Evil did a great job in my opinion. They went outside the norm and made something good. I enjoyed RE7/8 more than I did Revelations 1/2.

I don’t necessarily look at indie developers because it’s always a case by case basis. A AAA developer could have us all changing our minds tomorrow or in a couple weeks (aka Konami). A lot of the amazing stuff are games that you can play already. I have a mixed opinion because this industry always changes. It can’t make up its mind. Single Player is a much more attractive system seller than online games to the general public. Yet the industry has their foot in their mouths when they bad mouth it. I bet most people who walk into a game store are buying single player games and the rest switch to PC for multiplayer.

Phantom Dust wasn’t that popular even on Xbox. I think it had more hype to it because it was Xbox being Classic Xbox again. Why not make a video about Chronicles of Riddick on Xbox? That was a bigger hit and better game.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

you can pretend we've not been playing the same shit over and over again since 2007, but it would be just that... pretending.

there are few and apart the real original ideas, and I'm not talking about writing, I'm about game mechanics.

people seem fine playing the same Post Apocalyptic Daddy Issues Walking Simulator with different amounts of gore every couple years.

Its not pretent. Its just people who cant appreciate things. I have had countless hours of fun playing games since then.

It must be a pretty miserable place to be where you can't enjoy something unless it does something new.

I don't need to a game to reinvent the wheel. I just need to have fun playing it.

 

[MightySquirrel]

If you look at Ubi, EA, and some of the big publishers as a snap shot of the industry then an argument could be made that AAA game makers play it very SAFE now a days. But if you think about it objectively the industry has always been this way. Most games, going back to say the NES (indis all the way up to the biggest productions), have borrowed from each other and been heavily reliant on using the formulas that have been shown to work. Then we have moments in the industry that push the medium forward, a few games each year, and then everybody copies/catches up. Rinse and repeat. It has always been this way.

Way I see it, with the current state of the industry, it's not really an either or type of scenario and more of a win win. The total number and variety of games to chose from is way better/more than a decade ago. If you want massive epic scale productions you can find them, even if they can be a bit Samey due to the required ROI (I would argue there is quite a bit of variety actually). And if you want creativity grab a steam account and go to town.
Plus the samey argument only applies to those unwilling to innovate. Each year we get amazing new games in the AAA, AA, and indi spaces that shake things up just enough to push the medium forward and prevent it from becoming stagnant. Elden Ring, and Zelda before it, are prime examples the AAA open world genre evolving. Or take something like Returnal or Hollow Knight, an indi and AA game that punch way above their weight and deliver familiar but unique and extremely high quality experiences.

I think the problem is more one of perception (media bias toward heavily marketed samey games) and maybe a narrowing of ones own personal game tastes (willingness to explore new gaming experiences which seems to shrink over time).

When I see posts claiming how much better games were in the 90's I just cringe and totally disregard those posts. The selection of top quality games from AA and AAA studios are larger then ever and some random AA game can be leagues better then very best game from the 90's. We really live in a golden age right now. I understand the hate towards gambling aspects in mobile games that are getting it's way into consoles, but at least for now for the most part it's avoidable. The way I see it F2P games are simply that FREE - just don't pay for season pass or useless skins. Now AAA games have indeed gone too mainstream in many aspects like hundred of markers on screen at the same time, stupid health regen in nearly every tripe A game, but theres also so many more games that are better than what was available back then.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

As long as wokeism is around with it's recepy for "quality" content that "subvert expectations" (always in the same formulaic manner) ... well yes, gaming will be creatively bankrupt.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

When I see posts claiming how much better games were in the 90's I just cringe and totally disregard those posts. The selection of top quality games from AA and AAA studios are larger then ever and some random AA game can be leagues better then very best game from the 90's. We really live in a golden age right now. I understand the hate towards gambling aspects in mobile games that are getting it's way into consoles, but at least for now for the most part it's avoidable. The way I see it F2P games are simply that FREE - just don't pay for season pass or useless skins. Now AAA games have indeed gone too mainstream in many aspects like hundred of markers on screen at the same time, stupid health regen in nearly every tripe A game, but theres also so many more games that are better than what was available back then.

I'd say anyone loving the 90s has a lot to do with that decade being the one where 3D games came about, FMV became the norm, CD quality audio and lots of modern day franchises were invented.

So part of that wow factor back then was one part tech and one part new games. I dont think anyone truly thinks the visuals, sound and god awful loading times were better in the 90s when everyone's console and PC were using double speed CD-roms.

A lot of the top selling games are based off franchises that came in the 90s (some even the 80s like Mario and Zelda). And the rest are probably 2000s era games.

 

[KXVXII9X]

I don't think it is any different than most indies tbh. I think the bad AAA games are more in the spotlight than bad indies. There are a lot of trend chasing, cheap, uninspired indies.

I think the industry as a whole is a bit more risk averse right now. Gaming, imo, hasn't evolved much gameplay wise since the PS3 outside of visuals. There also seems to be a much bigger focus on monetization than game design.

With that said, there are still games from both AAA/AA/and indie that I'm looking forward to.

 

[MightySquirrel]

I'd say anyone loving the 90s has a lot to do with that decade being the one where 3D games came about, FMV became the norm, CD quality audio and lots of modern day franchises were invented.

So part of that wow factor back then was one part tech and one part new games. I dont think anyone truly thinks the visuals, sound and god awful loading times were better in the 90s when everyone's console and PC were using double speed CD-roms.

A lot of the top selling games are based off franchises that came in the 90s (some even the 80s like Mario and Zelda). And the rest are probably 2000s era games.

True. I remember playing San Andreas as a child and thought nothing will top this anytime soon, but after trying it some years back couldn't believe its the same game I adored so much. Hardware advanced so fast.

If devs had total freedom i can't imagine what mind blowing gameplay systems we would be experiencing right now. Example Planeside 2 at launch when you could base hop and harrass smaller teams when they had to move from base to base and still be effective 2 v 12 or so denying map control, but no they had to introduce lattice system forcing everyone in same areas essentially kiling all the fun for veterans. A clear upper ups decision to make the game more accecible to rookies.

 

[MightySquirrel]

No. I find the devs themselves are very creative.

More like they are creatively restricted. The more money is invested, the more restricted they are. One caveat though are first party publishers but they are still subject to that kind of thing to a varying degree.

Should've read all the comments before typing.

 

[MarkMe2525]

what a dumb question.

as if all indie or AA is creatively rich.....

hell, so many of them are pretentious, derivative 8-bit garbage the very concept is laughable.

I don't think anyone made the claim that all indie or AA are creatively rich. How did you come to your ill informed take after reading the OP? Very weird reaction.

 

[Kataploom]

No but most experiments regarding gameplay mechanics are in AA and indies, when you put 100M into a single product you can't take risks, that's my problem with current industry

 

[Captain Toad]

No. But feel free to take up a different hobby.

 

[bender]

Creatively bankrupt seems overly harsh so I'll go with wholly uninteresting.

 

[Roni]

No. But some forum posts are.

I'd rather read some discussions like this rather than the same old thread types.

 

[Meicyn]

aaa games bad indie games good like button to the right

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

You said it yourself. Is about cost.

But then:

"I just wish the modern AAA gaming industry would take some some risk from time to time"

Death Stranding says Hello.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

Masterpiece just takes time. Is BOTW not groundbreaking?

it is innovative, it is one of the best Reboots in the industry.

Nintendo did a great reboot to the Zelda saga.

BOTW I liked it a lot and I raise my estimate a lot with Nintendo Thanks to BOTW and its Nintendo Switch console.

Although Gravity Rush still belongs to my heart.

 

[Ozzie666]

The expense is so high, they have to play it safe. It takes a lot of capital to make something different and create new big things. Very companies can take that risk without it crippling their business upon any failures. Microsoft is probably one of the few that could afford to take these chances.

10-15 years ago this same conversation was happening, but it was about sequels.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Yes, of course it is. The Early 2000s had “safe bet” games, but since game development costs didn’t balloon to absurd costs, more risks could be taken. Development tools were cheaper, games could release sooner, and there wasn’t a “massive” mindless audience to worry about.

That changed over the course of 20 years. Now we have mindless drones who open-mouth seal clap when they get given the same tired shit and think its a “groundbreaking masterpiece” (TLOU2, Horizon, Forza Horizon 5). Games made for the lowest common denominator, which so happen to be the majority of people who own consoles these days. Ever since gaming as become “Mainstream” and devs chase after the “best of the best of the best graphics (of the week)”, they play it more and more safe to appease those mindless drones.

 

[Danjin44]

First complain about where are AAA games
Then complain about why AAA games are cross gen
Then complain about why AAA development take so long
Then complain about why AAA are not creative enough

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

that is your OPINION, sure.

but the vast tsunami of garbage indie games is not outweighed by the relatively few top tier indies.

Pretty negative way of looking at things. I wouldn't say one LOTR doesn't "outweigh" millions of crappy fantasy books, or one great film doesn't "outweigh" thousands of shitty b-tier flicks. I don't have to read/watch them. I'm glad the few diamonds in the rough exist at all. For every masterpiece there need to be hundreds or thousands of failed tries by others.