Quoting: LinasAm I just crazy and overthinking it?

You're not crazy. We like what we like, and not all of us like that "mainstream" style of video game.

To be honest, it was this sort of thing being pushed so heavily that most other game-types got muscled out in the early 2000s, that caused me to almost lose interest in video games entirely. Luckily that changed, though!

This is the main reason I left current "AAA" gaming too..... Most "AAA" video game publishers are publicly traded companies and have shareholders to please........ "AAA" games are really damn expensive to make and market........

So they end up making very safe products that appeal to the broadest consumer base possible..... To keep their investments safe and their shareholders happy....... Hardly any big publisher is willing to take any risks these days......

The "AAA" market has been stale for at least 10 years now....... Since they every "AAA" game needs to sell many millions of units to be considered a success......

And if you take a risk you risk shrinking that broad consumer base and the shareholders just arnt willing to take that risk......

Quoting: StoneColdSpiderthey end up making very safe products that appeal to the broadest consumer base possible

'Tis the problem right here. They don't want to accept the saying that goes "each to his own". Everyone likes something and not everyone likes everything and that's fine. But they won't accept that, in a sense.

Quoting: Linasthe most formulaic overpriced asset flip

Also another oil added to the fire is the fact that many games share the same engine.
Consider, Linas - games "back then" were made basically from scratch - they had to be as there was no basis for them, no Unreal Engine, Unity and the likes (and I think they are actually good and it's a good thing they exist).
Over time the companies that made the games you mention in your OP developed their own engines - engine,as we know is arguably the hardest thing to do in develompnent and so it's only natural you develop something that becomes universal so you can use it in new and new projects (games) as well. I think this inevitably leads to the feeling of "sameness" of these games - so it's a two edged sword. Sure there are other factors as well but I thought this one to be rational and realistic.


Cheers

Don't forget that many games imitate the Arkham fighting system.


I've probably written the same thing too many times, but the situation is mainly unchanged: In my opinion the expected level of graphical resolution is crippling for innovation and in many cases contrary to good game design. Each game has to have higher resolution textures, models and more and more graphical effects which increases the required workforce and therefore cost to get anything that appears to be viable to the investors. So a basic shell of a game without any mechanics and story is already really expensive. In that situation it is very understandable that most people don't take risks i.e. stray from the mainstream path.

But the existence of indie games opens up room for innovation/fun ideas. Games like Baba is You, Nuclear Blaze (btw the itch.io version can be made native), VVVVVV, etc. offer something different than AAA games.

Yes, very much. AAA games are all of the same handful of genres (Action/ARPG, Shooter, open-world) and they are very formulaic. For an enthusiast of those genres, the variations are surely diverse and some games find ways to iterate and improve elements, but it is still a small subset of the many genres we have and it doesn't push the boundaries of those few genres. Those games are probably outstanding examples, and so people can certainly find things that are distinctive and exceptional within them, but they are still very much related and share many elements. To be clear, nothing wrong with these genres, not every game needs to be something never seen... but the problem is we never see anything else from the big studios.

They seem to have a checklist of what makes a game: collectibles, crafting, multiplayer, skill trees, loot, cutscenes, and a few types of combat system. There are so many assumptions about what a game is - you need a 3D world, you need a character the player controls, you need a main story, you need physics, you need netcode. I have read articles about multiplayer that took for granted that you needed bullet physics, engines often just assume 3D, and people often talk about story and character as if all games had those elements (many types don't: abstract puzzles, strategy, management, arcade, etc). Often the toolbox AAAs pull from have good tools, and the best games use them well (in others they feel just "tacked on"), but it isn't necessarily the best selection, and certainly not comprehensive.

To be sure, part of it is for practical reasons: those games have to work well with controllers for the console market, which excludes a few types of game. AAAs make many open-world and multiplayer because those types of games really need that big budget only they have. But big publishers are also extremely risk-averse (they make only things that have been proven before), inflexible (they have trouble changing what they make), and are constrained by deadlines, marketing (it is harder to market something no one knows and understands), the need to appeal to a huge public (niche titles are out of question), and the emphasis on quantifiable results (increasing resolution or fps is easy to measure, cool style is not). The market consolidation and increasing cost of making games has exacerbated those issues to a ridiculous degree, to the point where they overshadow most things. And the AAA releases are so, so big they often eclipse anything else: even though we have the biggest, most vibrant, inclusive, indie scene and gamedev community, many people won't even hear of it.

And then there is just the fact that those large companies and the rich people that own and manage them are -without exception - awful, evil, self-centered, and they ruin everything they touch.

It is just so sad to see resources poured into those games, while so many indies struggle to make ends meet. To see talented people exploited making dull games by employers that aren't interested in their cool ideas. To see large budgets burned on meaningless "improvements" to graphics, when it could do so many cool things.

Quoting: eldakingYes, very much. AAA games are all of the same handful of genres (Action/ARPG, Shooter, open-world) and they are very formulaic. For an enthusiast of those genres, the variations are surely diverse and some games find ways to iterate and improve elements, but it is still a small subset of the many genres we have and it doesn't push the boundaries of those few genres. Those games are probably outstanding examples, and so people can certainly find things that are distinctive and exceptional within them, but they are still very much related and share many elements. To be clear, nothing wrong with these genres, not every game needs to be something never seen... but the problem is we never see anything else from the big studios.

They seem to have a checklist of what makes a game: collectibles, crafting, multiplayer, skill trees, loot, cutscenes, and a few types of combat system. There are so many assumptions about what a game is - you need a 3D world, you need a character the player controls, you need a main story, you need physics, you need netcode. I have read articles about multiplayer that took for granted that you needed bullet physics, engines often just assume 3D, and people often talk about story and character as if all games had those elements (many types don't: abstract puzzles, strategy, management, arcade, etc). Often the toolbox AAAs pull from have good tools, and the best games use them well (in others they feel just "tacked on"), but it isn't necessarily the best selection, and certainly not comprehensive.

To be sure, part of it is for practical reasons: those games have to work well with controllers for the console market, which excludes a few types of game. AAAs make many open-world and multiplayer because those types of games really need that big budget only they have. But big publishers are also extremely risk-averse (they make only things that have been proven before), inflexible (they have trouble changing what they make), and are constrained by deadlines, marketing (it is harder to market something no one knows and understands), the need to appeal to a huge public (niche titles are out of question), and the emphasis on quantifiable results (increasing resolution or fps is easy to measure, cool style is not). The market consolidation and increasing cost of making games has exacerbated those issues to a ridiculous degree, to the point where they overshadow most things. And the AAA releases are so, so big they often eclipse anything else: even though we have the biggest, most vibrant, inclusive, indie scene and gamedev community, many people won't even hear of it.

And then there is just the fact that those large companies and the rich people that own and manage them are -without exception - awful, evil, self-centered, and they ruin everything they touch.

It is just so sad to see resources poured into those games, while so many indies struggle to make ends meet. To see talented people exploited making dull games by employers that aren't interested in their cool ideas. To see large budgets burned on meaningless "improvements" to graphics, when it could do so many cool things.

s
Accurate post.
I particularly like your style. Clear, concise and to the point. I think I can agree with it all.
With that said I think it's also fair to say:
- Mainstream games have a right to exist
- the players do have alternatives in the Indie scene
- Everything is not as bad considering last 30-40 years of games history. I dare to say there is progress. Just try it for yourself: Go and play a game from 30 years ago. Then play AAA game from today. Imagine you've never played any game before. Which one will you like and enjoy more? Be honest. I rest my case

(disclaimer: what you said remains true and my post is not countering yours, just adding)

Last edited by FSFmember on 24 May 2023 at 9:41 pm UTC

Quoting: LinasTomb Raider remakes, Shadow of Mordor, Jedi: Fallen Order, Assassin's Creed, heck even NFS Heat, all the same kind of open-worldy map, same kind of pointless collectibles, same character moveset, etc. Especially Jedi: Fallen Order in my opinion is the most formulaic overpriced asset flip, basically Tomb Raider with lightsabers, just done worse

In addition to everyone's comments above, which are great!!, We also have to acknowledge trends, fads, Themes ,etc....

Remember 10+ years ago, when everything was "Zombies!!"?? And more recently, open world survival craft? Arena shooters! and then before that the RTS craze? Also... Steampunk

Add to that "Landmark" games of those genres that really lifted player expectations when looking at later games, especially when looking at certain features (open world, combat, achievements, story).

Some of these things might stay on for years or forever, and others might fade away after a while.

Quoting: FSFmemberEverything is not as bad considering last 30-40 years of games history. I dare to say there is progress. Just try it for yourself: Go and play a game from 30 years ago. Then play AAA game from today. Imagine you've never played any game before. Which one will you like and enjoy more? Be honest. I rest my case

100% agree, I'd add the additional evidence of the success of some remakes and "-likes" that throwback to that era but with modern technology.

I don't think you even need to go back that far, maybe 20 years? I feel like at least with a lot of the AAA games, there's a strong line in the sand of the late 90's/early 2000's where a lot of the features/mechanics were established that modern games pull from. Think, Deus Ex, GTA 3, Halo, KOTOR, Morrowind, etc... I think a lot of us could play and enjoy them still. But, if I go further back a few years, System Shock, Daggerfall, Dune... The mechanics and controls are soo different... It's rough... You're right.


Last edited by denyasis on 24 May 2023 at 11:49 pm UTC

Quoting: FSFmemberAccurate post.
I particularly like your style. Clear, concise and to the point. I think I can agree with it all.
With that said I think it's also fair to say:
- Mainstream games have a right to exist
- the players do have alternatives in the Indie scene
- Everything is not as bad considering last 30-40 years of games history. I dare to say there is progress. Just try it for yourself: Go and play a game from 30 years ago. Then play AAA game from today. Imagine you've never played any game before. Which one will you like and enjoy more? Be honest. I rest my case

(disclaimer: what you said remains true and my post is not countering yours, just adding)

Thanks. I very much tried to make your first point - there are people that like those games, they aren't "bad"... and particularly because I was talking genres, there is definitely space for games in those genres. The problem is how going outside of it is prohibitive.

And yes, the indie scene is great. The problem is solely with the AAA industry, and the solution is already here. Heck, often we noticed the issues precisely because we played some indies and suddenly realized we didn't have to put up with the AAA annoyances.

As for progress... yes, there was definitely progress. In the games I play, usually more strategy and management, the interface in particular evolved a lot and playing old games can be quite painful. We have new styles that are really cool, new ideas explored, many good games. But also, progress is expected when people are working on things for decades... what is noteworthy are the few instances of regression - when games now include antifeatures like ads or gambling, when games are harder to share with friends for bullshit reasons, when games can't be played without an internet connection... the result of years of work should not be negative.

Quoting: eldakingBut also, progress is expected when people are working on things for decades... what is noteworthy are the few instances of regression - when games now include antifeatures like ads or gambling, when games are harder to share with friends for bullshit reasons, when games can't be played without an internet connection... the result of years of work should not be negative.

This topic alone would warrant it's own website I'm afraid. I'm just trying to focus more on the positive lately, it's either that or mental asylum.

Last edited by FSFmember on 26 May 2023 at 10:31 am UTC

I would add on to the original argument that everything is the same isn't necessarily confined to games. People are set in their ways and tend to like the same thing. Movies and literature are a great example. Almost all of them follow the "Hero's Journey" plotline.

And that's ok. People (us too!) like many of the uplifting aspects of those stories. The good guy over coming the odds and defeating evils. In fact, most of our big video games do the same thing, even down to some of the same plot points we see im film and tv and books.

We all love being the heros!! (Some times, lol)