Do games need to be "AAA"?

[the-pi-guy]

I might be completely wrong.

But it feels like the industry is like a gold rush. Like yes you can be very well off if you pack your bags and move to the state of AAA and you might get lucky. But I think most people are probably better off not doing that.

There's so much talk about how risky and volatile the gaming industry is, and it's taken as a given. Like you're an idiot if you question that games need to cost billions of dollars and need to take several years to make, etc.

I don't know what the right answer is, but I personally think it's dumb not to question everything, especially when what you're doing so frequently fails.  

[kitler53]

yeah but on the other side you got digital foundry raising hell if the frame rate is 59 or if a shadow is a tad blurry and forum trolls declaring it "unplayable".  


I've heard the sentiment often enough (from Sony or whoever) that AA doesn't cost significantly less to make but sells significantly worse.  

[the-pi-guy]

I've heard the sentiment often enough (from Sony or whoever) that AA doesn't cost significantly less to make but sells significantly worse.  

I don't think it helps that Sony intentionally pushed them as side titles.  

No one bought Uncharted TLL expecting a full tier Uncharted game.

[kitler53]

right.  no one bought uncharted TLL.  

[the-pi-guy]

Sorry I'm ranting about this again.
It feels weird to me when a lot of the best selling games aren't always the ones that are pushing graphics or being obscenely huge games.
Nintendo sells a ton of games, despite being like a generation behind.

It just feels like there are a ton of trends in gaming that the industry just takes for granted and doesn't question.

Of course our next game needs to cost 40% more.
Of course the industry is moving away from handhelds to phones.
Of course the industry is moving away from consoles to phones.

[Legend]

I think the industry is at least questioning it. Didn't think about it till recently but Hellblade 2 is only $50.

AC Mirage and Alan Wake 2 were $50 as well so the industry is definitely trying something.

[the-pi-guy]

Sorry for bumping my thread.

I saw this reddit thread.

The amount of content in Spider-Man 2 still confuses me because: (Spider-Man 1 has more content)

All the top comments are very jaded. Insomniac didn't care about the sequel, they're too spread out on things.

I think there's a gap between what players think they want and what they actually want.

But I also think there's a gap between what devs think players want, and what players actually want.

It doesn't seem to be the case that these big budgets line up with better player reception. It certainly doesn't seem to be a 1:1 investment.

[kitler53]

having not played spiderman 2 maybe my views are off but...

....those guys largely sound dumb to me.    firstly time-to-beat is not the end-all of content.   if all this guy wants is a long time to beat i'm certain could have put a lot of bloat into the game and the game would be worse for it.   hell,.. right off the bat didn't insomiac increase the speed of web slining?   i'm sure that cuts hours off the time-to-beat but i'm certainly not going to ask for slower movement speed only so the game takes longer to beat.

secondly,.. i kind of find it offensive to say spiderman 1 vs 2 should be judged on lack of dlc.   the dlc wasn't free.   why the fudge are you adding hours to the time to beat spiderman 1 based on the need to buy more content.   what a fuking stupid argument.

lastly,.. i've seen the trailers to spiderman 2.   i saw some really amazing looking set pieces.  spiderman 1 had nothing even close to it.   obviously that content is more expensive to make and at least for me that content is more fun.  

in summary: gamers are whiny little babies and frankly i hate them.  i can't imagine a more ungrateful group of people.   nothing is ever good enough for them.

[Legend]

But I also think there's a gap between what devs think players want, and what players actually want.

That seems to be the biggest problem with video games these days, and the massive scale of AAA doesn't help. Without a Cory Barlog or Hideo Kojima equivalent near the top that can push a specific vision, games tend to get too defocused.

[the-pi-guy]

having not played spiderman 2 maybe my views are off but...

....those guys largely sound dumb to me.  

They are dumb. A lot of the claims are pretty obviously wrong.

But if you're spending a ton of money, and most people are too uninformed to see the difference, I think it's worth asking whether the time and money invested makes sense. Or worse, if a lot of people are convinced that the older, cheaper one is actually better.

This doesn't mean no games should cost that much, but maybe they should be more cognizant of where money is being spent and what kind of balance is being struck.



Semi-related, but it's weird to me how kind of old games are still recommended today, because there hasn't been enough time for a sequel to be made.
GTA V is still one of the best selling games every month, despite being 11 years old.
There aren't a lot of games like Skyrim today on modern platforms. (for better or for worse)