Nier Automata shows that "AAA" games can be made inexpensively

Started by Legend, Feb 16, 2018, 06:18 AM

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Legend

This game is absolutely wonderful at stretching its dollars. For starters, it seemingly was already very successful with "just" one million in sales.




So how did it do this? Well the most obvious way is by having lower quality assets.

Look at those bad ground textures! Also the robot is fairly simple. The building ruins all look roughly the same and are just concrete blocks without innards. Lots of it looks PS3 quality. Obviously not everyone would agree, but personally it didn't bother me one bit. The visual style worked and gameplay made it feel like better graphics weren't necessary. Also 2B is high quality and lots of areas look artistically nice: it's not an ugly game.





This is a really interesting thing I didn't know until I played (so minor minor mechanic spoiler) but the game is 2D at times. The camera moves out to this fixed position and everything can only move along the 2D plane. Personally I found this to be incredibly smart. Since the game is primarily 3D, these moments are only used when it makes sense. It never feels like you're limited by 2D geometry and always feels like a 3D game, even though during these parts the devs can give it the budget of a 2D game. (one area feels 2D but we can ignore that)




Nier Automata is unique and some AAA games really do need their monster budgets to be what they are, but it's still something other publishers should pay attention to. Hopefully we'll be seeing more games that scratch the AAA itch without having the AAA cost.


DerNebel

It's also one of the best games of 2017, just saying. ;)

Xevross

Yeah it is very impressive what they managed to pull off with a small budget. I wish more devs went for the approach of not optimising graphics too much, and getting games out faster and cheaper. Its annoying that graphics has been made such a selling point by publishers now.

Its just a shame that I don't like the game very much. The 2D sections are one of the parts I didn't like. Whenever the screen went to 2D I though, "oh ffs here we go again."

Legend

Yeah it is very impressive what they managed to pull off with a small budget. I wish more devs went for the approach of not optimising graphics too much, and getting games out faster and cheaper. Its annoying that graphics has been made such a selling point by publishers now.

Its just a shame that I don't like the game very much. The 2D sections are one of the parts I didn't like. Whenever the screen went to 2D I though, "oh ffs here we go again."
Spoiler for Hidden:
I didn't really like the 2D forest castle because it felt like a 2D game, but the rest didn't impact me at all.


What were your general impressions of the game?

Xevross

Spoiler for Hidden:
I didn't really like the 2D forest castle because it felt like a 2D game, but the rest didn't impact me at all.


What were your general impressions of the game?
Its got a lot of promise, and the story is interesting (even though its really creepy in some areas). But I didn't particularly enjoy playing it - the boss fights were more annoying than fun, and quite repetitive, and the 2D stuff in particular wasn't great. The quest system was really hard to use and just plain bad, I had no idea where anything was. I was hoping that getting more endings would make me like it more but when I realised you have to play through the game again I thought "fudge this" and put it down.

Its kind of a 6 or 7/10 for me.

the-pi-guy

I think AAA studios should scale back some of their games.

Nier Automata looks fine as a game.  It's not going to blow anyone away, but it's not outright ugly either.  
I think developers shouldn't take a risk to make a really beautiful game.  If they want to and can afford it, great.  Otherwise, they can definitely make a great game without breaking the bank.  

Legend

Its got a lot of promise, and the story is interesting (even though its really creepy in some areas). But I didn't particularly enjoy playing it - the boss fights were more annoying than fun, and quite repetitive, and the 2D stuff in particular wasn't great. The quest system was really hard to use and just plain bad, I had no idea where anything was. I was hoping that getting more endings would make me like it more but when I realised you have to play through the game again I thought "fudge this" and put it down.

Its kind of a 6 or 7/10 for me.
Wait you only reached the first ending?

Spoiler for Hidden:
The second playthrough definitely is repetitive but it&#39;s less repetitive than I was expecting. Most side quests carried their progression over and you really only had to repeat the main quests.<br><br>Then once you finish the second playthrough, it switches over to a new campaign taking place after the first two playthroughs.


I guess I play games differently than you because I liked the quest system. It had a poor menu but on the map it was very intuitive and allowed me to quickly jump around to get stuff done. Only had issues with it at the very beginning since there wasn't any explanation.

8.5/10 for me but I can totally understand rating it lower.

Xevross

Wait you only reached the first ending?

Spoiler for Hidden:
The second playthrough definitely is repetitive but it's less repetitive than I was expecting. Most side quests carried their progression over and you really only had to repeat the main quests.

Then once you finish the second playthrough, it switches over to a new campaign taking place after the first two playthroughs.


I guess I play games differently than you because I liked the quest system. It had a poor menu but on the map it was very intuitive and allowed me to quickly jump around to get stuff done. Only had issues with it at the very beginning since there wasn't any explanation.

8.5/10 for me but I can totally understand rating it lower.

Yeah I heard it gets much better after B, which is why I kind of want to go back and play it more.

ethomaz

Feb 18, 2018, 07:16 AM Last Edit: Feb 18, 2018, 07:25 AM by ethomaz
Nier is not AAA.

What define AAA is budget... in Ubisoft definition is over $100 million and only 4 publishers released AAA games in 2017:



The most expensive Japan games didn't hit AAA budget... Nier is a cheaper Japan game.

Legend

Nier is not AAA.

What define AAA is budget... in Ubisoft definition is over $100 million and only 4 publishers released AAA games in 2017:



The most expensive Japan games didn't hit AAA budget... Nier is a cheaper Japan game.
Well most casual gamers don't understand AAA the same way publishers do, but that's why I put it in quotes in the title.

Nier is much closer to the mid budget games that used to be pretty common in the west. The thing though is that the industry has moved away from these titles as if they aren't in demand. Nier shows there can still be demand, and specifically shows that from the player's perspective a lower budget title may be deemed on par with games that cost three times as much to produce.

the-pi-guy

Well AAA is an informal term meaning different things to different companies.  The meaning also changes over time.  

ethomaz

Feb 18, 2018, 01:25 PM Last Edit: Feb 18, 2018, 01:31 PM by ethomaz
Well AAA is an informal term meaning different things to different companies.  The meaning also changes over time. 
Is it really different?

Since I play games AAA means big budget indifferent of the quality or success of the game.

What changed of course is the development costs... so an AAA game 10 years ago could be $50 million but today it is $100m.

The best example successful AAA game in every generation is GTA... it has insane budget but sell insanely proportional (or way over that). GTA V budget was around $265 million but you know how it sales turned.

Edit - Fixed GTAV budget... $250m to $265m.

the-pi-guy

$265m is development and marketing. Which I'd bet a pretty solid percentage is marketing.  

I'm pretty sure Sony would say it has some AAA games, but by that definition Uncharted 4, Horizon aren't even close to AAA.  

Dr. Pezus

Pretty strange to only call 100m plus aaa

ethomaz

Feb 18, 2018, 04:05 PM Last Edit: Feb 18, 2018, 04:11 PM by ethomaz
$265m is development and marketing. Which I'd bet a pretty solid percentage is marketing.  

I'm pretty sure Sony would say it has some AAA games, but by that definition Uncharted 4, Horizon aren't even close to AAA.  
AAA budget is dev + marketing costs.

GTAV dev cost was probably way over $100m... it was the first attempt on MP too.

Yes. Sony has some AAA investment but Ubisoft slide only lists 3rd parties.

Pretty strange to only call 100m plus aaa
Why? AAA is highest expensive dev + marketing cost... it is a risk investment.

At the end of generation this AAA will be way over $100m I guess because dev + marketing cost increase every year.