Jump to content

Can video games surprise anymore these days?


Emmi

Recommended Posts

I feel like with the end of the seventh gen consoles (PS3, 360, Wii) we have seen it all in the gaming industry as far as originality goes. It feels like ever since there has only been technical advancements (logically) but the innovation and with that never-before-seen style of games completely vanished. Excuse me for throwing in examples from R* but games like Red Dead Redemption (1) and L.A. Noire were (and still are) mindblowing, fresh and simply exciting back in the day and there was nothing remotely comparable to such experiences. Today I lack to find stuff like this in the AAA industry and it totally sucks. It feels like everyone (mostly the publishers) is playing it safe for all the wrong reasons, money.

 

What's your take on this and are there recent examples from AAA games which try new and innovative stuff on a competent level?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best game I've ever played is RDR2, but perhaps the only game to get close to that or even match it was released last year, Baldur's Gate 3.

 

Today I'm playing an AAA co-op shooter, Helldivers 2, that's a reminder of everything I love about games, just pure fun, which has resulted in the surprise package of the year so far.

 

So no, lol.

 

If we're gonna be serious I've seen enough of your threads and posts by now to know that you only play games from two or three different studios and those are the only games you like, allowing them to dictate your standards and expectations for everything else you play. I'm not going to tell you what to like or not like, but if you wanna enjoy a variety of games again you need to change that, because there's no lack of great games or surprises today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the past week or so I’ve been playing this game called Granblue Fantasy Relink and honestly it’s one of the best games I’ve played in a long time.

 

I guess as I’ve gotten older I’ve been trying to broaden my horizons. JRPGs never used to interest me 20 years ago, but the last couple of years I’ve been making a push towards then and yeah this one is a gem IMO.

 

There’ll always room for the R*’s, Naughty Dogs etc of the world, but I agree with Jason. It’s something I’ve noticed too about you and that you seem to be quite limited in what you seem to like playing.

 

It reminds me of well me about 5-10 years ago. Gaming can still surprise. You just need to seek it out is all.😉

Edited by Harwood Butch3r
  • Like 1
  • Realistic Steak! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said this before and I've had some resistance to it, but it doesn't make it not true. But yea, if you're struggling to find games to play then you need to branch out and try new stuff with an open mind or accept that your hobby has changed and it's not something you'll engage with as much.

 

There's no problem with the latter, but it doesn't mean there's no great games anymore, or games that can surprise people.

 

For me CRPG's became a genre I dove into headfirst with Divinity Original Sin 2, which became one of my favourite games of all time and one of the best I've ever played, from there I played other CRPG's like the Pathfinder games, Warhammer 40k: Rogue Trader, Disco Elysium and obviously Baldur's Gate 3. Multiple of those are among the best games I've ever played

 

Going back further I always struggled to get into isometric ARPG's, I didn't like the click to move or the isometric camera, but one day around the time of it's expansion I gave Diablo 3 a proper go and it clicked, I bought the expansion and stayed up to play through it at midnight when it came out. After that, I revisited another ARPG I couldn't get into, Marvel Heroes, and poured nearly 2000 hours into it. Since then I've put good time in other ARPG's like Path of Exile, Last Epoch and Diablo IV and look forward to PoE2 whenever that's out, Last Epoch 2.0 in a week and upcoming D4 seasons/expansions.

 

There's various other examples I could give, but yea, you get the point. Because I tried stuff I either flat out was never traditionally into or didn't give a proper chance I now have a wide variety of games I enjoy, and because of how the industry is nowadays like I said in my post above, that means there's always games I'm looking forward to on the horizon, and most of them end up being genuinely fun, sometimes even great.

 

But if I only played GTA/RDR type games, or Naughty Dog type experiences then... yea, I'd be bored pretty quick cause only two companies make those types of games and it's R* and Naughty Dog lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

smokeless6

That's a great post Jason and I agree. I often find myself burning out on my current game(s), and looking for another, and often with the overriding criteria, 'something different'.

 

This has led to a number of games that I would not have considered otherwise, perhaps. Subnautica was one of these games. Disco Elysium too. Even my top Steam game of all time, Europa Universalis IV, was the product of branching out (Crusader Kings) which led later to EU IV (and Hearts of Iron for that matter).

 

Fallout 76 was done on a punt. Borderlands 2. I didn't even know what it was, and was sure it wasn't for me, and I gave it a go anyway and found it was one of the best games ever made (in my view). XCom was another punt that turned out amazing.

 

I've had my share of misses too, not every punt hits. I think there is plenty of scope for new things in gaming, and we haven't even thought of what this might be. But in the current gamescape, if I might be coining a word, there is new stuff to discover if you branch out and try games you might not otherwise have considered.

Edited by smokeless6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean it's not like I don't try new stuff and other genres but more often than not I just can't play those 'experiences' for more than 5 hours maximum because they overwhelm me with the clusterf*ck of an UI, the thousands of different mechanics , the millions of blips on the mini-map or the endless textboxes you have to read to understand 1% of the games' mechanics.

 

I am currently playing through A Way Out with my nephew and we just finished It Takes Two a couple of days ago (which has been an absolute blast and wonderful experience). I also played Metroid Prime for the very first time last year with the remastered version for the Switch and I absolutely loved it even though I hate first-person games.

 

I try to play different stuff that is not coming from R* or Naughty Dog or Nintendo (trust me I do) but I admit it's difficult because they (especially R*) set the bar so damn high that I inevitably have to compare the other experiences to their stuff and immediately will feel letdown and disappointed by other games.

 

Now I can at least enjoy Tomb Raider 1-3 again. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea there's not a magic fix or a piece of advice I could give beyond try and keep an open mind when trying new stuff. You like what you like, but yea, if you're unable to get into anything else other than games from your favourite studios then it might just be a case of growing up and your mentality towards gaming changing.

 

Personally I don't really compare games to anything else while playing, I enjoy every game for what it is and what it does well, which is also why I'm generally more positive than negative to any game I play, even ones that are genuinely just not particularly good games. Like I could play a shooting game that's mostly bad, but has excellent shooting, and I'd have fun w/ the shooting. Or an RPG with meh RPG stuff but great exploration, and I'd enjoy the exploration. Of course most games I play have more about them than just one thing but ya get the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Margot Robbed Me

On the tech side, I'm still waiting for a ground based open world RPG game to use the same world generation that Microsoft Flight Simulator uses. If they can make the assets playable on the ground, then that's the one thing that will have me in awe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ballbreaker_

I believe there was more originality during the lifespan of these consoles you mentioned indeed, but you can still find originality now. It's just not as prolific as it once was and it's part of the larger cycle of the industry.

 

Now, for the dude who mentioned RDR2 and BG3, there's no way these games are fresh on any level LOL, at least not in the way the OP mentioned. Take RDR2 for instance. I love it, but almost everything original about it had already been done in RDR1 eight years prior. RDR2 greatest merit relies on being a bigger, more polished experience (actually that summarizes the merits of many modern AAA games).

Edited by Ballbreaker_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RDR2: the NPC interaction feature which has never been done before in a game of it's type or scale, nor has it since.

 

Baldur's Gate 3: open ended quest design that when fused with the Infinity engine's sandbox capabilities creates a CRPG that plays like an immersive sim, coupled with deep and complex companions whose relationships and potential romances with the player character are different to anything I've seen before. I mean, for f*ck sake, it's an AAA CRPG lmao. There hasn't been one of those since probably Dragon Age 1.

 

Both these games may be familiar in some or even many ways, but they also both absolutely bring fresh things to the table.

 

Cause if these two don't fit the fresh category then the only things that do are basically games that spawned genres, and there's not been that many of those in the past 30 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LongHairedFreakyGuy

Think this all depends on what specifically you mean by the term surprise. 

 

As others have said, I think the main issue these days is that with the rise of the Internet, people are forever wanting to just be part of a crowd, thus your mainstream titles that regurgitate the same sh*t every year are at the forefront, and yet as much as people complain that it's still the same old stale format every year, these titles continuously plague the top 10 lists. People buy the 20th title in a series and expect it to be completely different. Obviously there are some exceptions to this rule (Mario, Zelda, Spiderman, GTA etc...) 

 

A lot of people these days are too scared to venture in to the obscure titles, or genres that don't usually pique their interest, and this is a problem. We've gone from innovation been mainstream, to anything trying to be different defined as Indie, and I think that's the term that puts people off. 

 

As I said though, you've offered no context to what you mean by this subject, and as pointed out in the first reply, it just seems like yet another attempt at a nostalgia trip, which isn't always bad, I'm an old gamer myself who loves all my old games and living in the past, but there is still a ton load of content out there that can be classed as 'surprising'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JohnMcLoviin

Like others here have said, I think it varies from player to player.   

 

Something that would blow me away would be a game with almost 100% realistic destruction, with incredible graphic detail and a great physics engine. And maybe a well written story to go along with it.     Some games and engine demos have been close, but the hardware required for the stuff I'm imagining isn't available to the average player yet. 

 

However, if DICE ever makes a good BF again, I'd be even more surprised.  BF1 was their last good one imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Battlefield is, sadly, f*cked.

 

The latest Battlefield was just an endless amount of giant f*ck ups that they basically never took responsibility for. Operators were a mistake and everybody told them this in the tests, but they didn't listen and thus had to spend years of post-release support fixing that as much as they could, and it's still not great.

 

The maps and player count were an even bigger f*ck up, people will say 128 players can't work and maybe they're  right, but it never had a chance due to god awful map design that people clocked in the testing but again they never listened. So post-release they basically went "yea 128 players didn't work so we're reverting to 64" and then had to rejig all the maps to make it work.

 

Seriously, most of that games post-release support was fixing sh*t that players told them was sh*t from before the game released lol.

 

So I simply have no faith they'll make a good BF again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last great and to this date (imo) the best Battlefield is Bad Company 2. This game f*cking rules and I'd love for it to be remade someday.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem is that the average consumer needs to feel validated in their 70 bucks, resulting in an industry where shareholders dictate predictable, safe stories starring non-problematic characters spouting Marvel humor jokes with trendy gameplay mechanics that are only trendy because the average consumer mostly plays $70 open-world action games. In OP's previous thread about losing interest in modern games they mention God of War (2018), Ragnarok, Spider-Man, Spider-Man Miles Morales, Grounded, Need for Speed Unbound, Ratched & Clank Rift Apart, The Last of Us Part 1 Remake, Gran Turismo 7, Astro's Playroom and Hogwarts Legacy as games they started and didn't finish.

 

Anyone that feels burned out from only playing Sony AAA games or big-budget games should try and expand their playing habits into other genres, play indies or older games, play something that doesn't have to validate you every second with an achievement, or a in-game reward, or +karma moral barometer, or 10 more side quests, or any type of "content" so you can feel relieved about spending 70 bucks on the same video game with a different coat of paint. Otherwise, these type of "modern video games are bad" threads are the video game equivalent of complaining that all Hollywood is the same but admitting that you never watch non-Hollywood films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Battlefield 4, after a few months of patches, was the last great one IMO. Cool tech w/ the giant map changing destruction, good progression, good maps, good gameplay, good dlc. 

 

I remember going back to BC2 years after release and it was just an insane sniper fest, lol.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JohnMcLoviin
22 hours ago, Jason said:

I think Battlefield is, sadly, f*cked.

 

The latest Battlefield was just an endless amount of giant f*ck ups that they basically never took responsibility for. Operators were a mistake and everybody told them this in the tests, but they didn't listen and thus had to spend years of post-release support fixing that as much as they could, and it's still not great.

 

The maps and player count were an even bigger f*ck up, people will say 128 players can't work and maybe they're  right, but it never had a chance due to god awful map design that people clocked in the testing but again they never listened. So post-release they basically went "yea 128 players didn't work so we're reverting to 64" and then had to rejig all the maps to make it work.

 

Seriously, most of that games post-release support was fixing sh*t that players told them was sh*t from before the game released lol.

 

So I simply have no faith they'll make a good BF again.

I still have a teeny tiny bit of hope left for the series.  If they didn't learn from the mistakes you mentioned, and many more, then I don't think they'll ever learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the fact they took all the wrong lessons from it as well. Like 128 players, they blamed everything but their map design, which was AWFUL and not good for 64 or 128 players. Giant, open maps with no cover for infantry led to a game that was heavily built around vehicle warfare which was absolute hell. Instead of trying to fix that and balance the vehicle spawns they pretty much just went "yea, didn't work, we couldn't have forseen this" when, again, everyone was telling them what was wrong since the first public tests.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2024 at 6:00 AM, Emmi said:

I'd love for to be remade someday

Do you really want modern DICE to remake BC2? A studio that still doesn't understand why people loved the game so much? And after making both BFV and 2042? Yeah, I have no hope for that studio. Same actually can be said about the vast majority of AAA studios nowadays, including Rockstar, I have no hope for them.  Frankly, I just want a Videogame Crash 2 at this point, cause the whole industry is f*cked. There needs to be a focus back onto what players actually want, not what the publisher execs or gaming "journalists" want.

  • Like 2

DVf9mQs.png

Formerly known as The General

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An industry crash in 2024 would be absolutely horrendous lol. The main problem in the AAA industry - and it's certainly not the whole industry - is risk aversion and if the industry crashed then that'd only get worse.

 

We're already seeing a natural resistance against GaaS forming, publishers are abandoning attempting GaaS projects left, right and centre, except Ubisoft of course, they are proper f*cked. As a consequence of that we're seeing more and more publishers invest in single player experiences too.

 

But yea, whole industry? Nah. Something like Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't happen in 2007-2010 for example, the era people keep harping back on as the greatest, even though it had it's downsides too, like an over abundance of visually bland shooters, watered down RPG's and forced online features in every game lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jason said:

forced online features in every game lol

We have that now too, and with games being only playable if you have an internet connection so it's even worse now. 

 

3 hours ago, Jason said:

it's certainly not the whole industry - is risk aversion and if the industry crashed then that'd only get worse

The reason why they are so risk averse is cause the games cost too much f*cking money to make. They have bloated budgets and teams of devs. Like why the f*ck did Skull and Bones cost 200 million dollars to make? Why did Spider-Man 2 cost 300 million dollars to make while the first game was half the cost?(And actually was relatively groundbreaking for Insomniac instead of just a retread with a worse story). Hell Insomniac doesn't even know where the f*ck the money went in those leaked docs. They need to go back to reasonable sized budgets and stop adding feature bloat to the games.

 

3 hours ago, Jason said:

Something like Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't happen in 2007-2010 for example, the era people keep harping back on as the greatest, even though it had it's downsides too, like an over abundance of visually bland shooters, watered down RPG's

But we still had more games coming out at that time from the studios. Though for me, the best era was from the release of the PS2 to the end of the PS3, so a little over a decade. And to be honest, I rather have bland shooters than bland open world crafting games with sh*tty RPGlite mechanics. 

 

3 hours ago, Jason said:

publishers are abandoning attempting GaaS projects left

I'll believe it when it actually happens, cause these publishers are just going to stop for a year or two and then try and try again. The chance of making bank off of a GaaS game is too tempting, the tech is out of the bottle and aint never going back in. Remember the sh*tstorm with Battlefront 2? Yeah, it's even worse now than it was back then.(Not that game, but in general)

DVf9mQs.png

Formerly known as The General

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Moth said:

We have that now too, and with games being only playable if you have an internet connection so it's even worse now. 

 

We have no where near as much online multiplayer being tacked onto games as we used to. It's almost completely a thing of the past. Nowadays we do have online only games of course (which has always been a thing, but less so on console), but the forced addition of online into things like single player games in particular are much, much rarer.

 

16 minutes ago, Moth said:

The reason why they are so risk averse is cause the games cost too much f*cking money to make. They have bloated budgets and teams of devs. Like why the f*ck did Skull and Bones cost 200 million dollars to make? Why did Spider-Man 2 cost 300 million dollars to make while the first game was half the cost?(And actually was relatively groundbreaking for Insomniac instead of just a retread with a worse story). Hell Insomniac doesn't even know where the f*ck the money went in those leaked docs. They need to go back to reasonable sized budgets and stop adding feature bloat to the games.

 

Yes, but the expectation from the player for a now $70 game is for a big game that will be worth the purchase. Mid-priced AAA titles, say $40 or so, have not proven to successful very often for various reasons including just simply the stigma around that price point in terms of expectations, and if no one is buying them then no one is going to make them. Most smaller titles that do particularly well are indie or AA, which is what has replaced mid-budget AAA development, but few of the people wanting smaller games and smaller budgets actually play these games, lol.

 

20 minutes ago, Moth said:

But we still had more games coming out at that time from the studios.

 

Yea, but we'll never get that back ever again. It's not simply cause the games are bigger or more bloated, it's also tied to aspects of development that have simply increased due to modern fidelity standards, asset creation being the big one. It flat out simply takes longer to make assets than it used to and there's no real getting around this. AI assisted development could help, but it's no magic fix.

 

But on the flipside, the industry is bigger than ever and while individual studios may release less games, there are more games in general being released than ever before.

 

22 minutes ago, Moth said:

And to be honest, I rather have bland shooters than bland open world crafting games with sh*tty RPGlite mechanics. 

 

Replacing one bad thing with another doesn't improve anything lol. Everyone was sick and tired of yet another WW2 shooter back in the 360 era, every game being grey, etc. Every era has it's downsides.

 

26 minutes ago, Moth said:

I'll believe it when it actually happens, cause these publishers are just going to stop for a year or two and then try and try again. The chance of making bank off of a GaaS game is too tempting, the tech is out of the bottle and aint never going back in. Remember the sh*tstorm with Battlefront 2? Yeah, it's even worse now than it was back then.(Not that game, but in general)

 

The Battlefield 2 fiasco was tied directly to the fact it had pay to win lootboxes, and it was a pretty major turning point in loot boxes becoming less popular with publishers. They're still around, especially in sports games, but generally speaking they're much rarer in modern games and a big reason for that was Battlefront 2.

 

In any case, the industry like many things is circular so I'm sure in x years we'll back to publishers trying to make GaaS type games or whatever, trend chasing will never go away and has always existed, but yea, for now, it seems that single player and probably co-op experiences too will become more of a priority.

 

There's other positive things on the horizon too, that are a byproduct of various financial aspects, but Xbox porting games to PS, Sony bringing game day 1 to PC, these are things that 10 years ago would have been laughed at but these past 2 weeks we had Sony release a game day 1 on PC to huge success and Xbox confirm they're bringing 4 games to PS/Switch. That's a MASSIVELY good thing for players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jason said:

Nowadays we do have online only games of course (which has always been a thing, but less so on console), but the forced addition of online into things like single player games in particular are much, much rarer.

There are online only single player games out now, I'd say that's worse than a tacked on MP component. So when those servers go down, so does the game.

 

10 hours ago, Jason said:

Yes, but the expectation from the player for a now $70 game is for a big game that will be worth the purchase. Mid-priced AAA titles, say $40 or so, have not proven to successful very often for various reasons including just simply the stigma around that price point in terms of expectations,

Cause the industry has trained people into thinking 60-70 bucks is what a great game costs, though in reality, especially nowadays, it doesn't. If there was a game crash, they would have to build up the trust again from the bottom. Too many games and devs rely on past games and success even though the studios themselves are staff with people who usually have different ideals on what a good game is. Case in point, Naughty Dog under Druckmann is vastly different than the studio in the 2000s and earlier.(and is worse imo, especially with him saying "fun" isn't a word they use). The big budget games get big budget marketing that gets the eyes, and thus the sales unless they f*ck it up. That's why a reset needs to happen.

 

10 hours ago, Jason said:

Replacing one bad thing with another doesn't improve anything lol. Everyone was sick and tired of yet another WW2 shooter back in the 360 era, every game being grey, etc. Every era has it's downsides

It was actually more modern shooters than WW2 shooters, cause COD4 changed the genre due to it's massive impact. But the thing with the shooters, they were relatively cheaper to make than the massive open-world crafting rpglites that are out there nowadays, and thus needed to sell way less copies to make a profit.

 

10 hours ago, Jason said:

They're still around, especially in sports games, but generally speaking they're much rarer in modern games and a big reason for that was Battlefront 2.

Instead they went with "season passes", and thus using FOMO to keep people playing. Which at this point, feels even scummier. Since they want your time as much as possible, instead of just your money. 

 

10 hours ago, Jason said:

It flat out simply takes longer to make assets than it used to and there's no real getting around this.

Sure there is, stop trying to make everything as realistic as possible. I know I'd be fine with more cartoony or less detailed games. Never mind the fact that games going for realistic graphics usually age terribly anyways, cause they have to keep on one up themselves. Art direction is more important, and modern games lack it besides "realism".(And hell, they even make characters uglier than their irl models for a reason I rather not talk about here.)

 

10 hours ago, Jason said:

There's other positive things on the horizon too, that are a byproduct of various financial aspects, but Xbox porting games to PS, Sony bringing game day 1 to PC, these are things that 10 years ago would have been laughed at but these past 2 weeks we had Sony release a game day 1 on PC to huge success and Xbox confirm they're bringing 4 games to PS/Switch. That's a MASSIVELY good thing for players.

Games cost too much, so Sony and MS need to release their games on another platform to make their budgets back. And Sony really isn't doing day 1 with PC, yet.(besides Helldivers). When GoW or Spider-man 2 are released day 1, then we can talk.

 

Also, MS is desperate for making a profit at Xbox. They've really f*cked themselves since the end of the 360 and it's been bad ever since. And no, Gamepass isn't helping cause they are getting less money per game. If it was doing that good, they wouldn't be porting games to their competition. And in the end, it's just going to cause Sony to become the only real player in the high end console game(Nintendo doesn't really compete with Playstation at this point), and thus get a repeat of the arrogate Sony that was at the start of the PS3 gen and that isn't a good thing for gamers. They kinda are already there right now, but it will get worse if MS becomes 3rd party. 

 

And hell, Sega just annouced they are giving Crazy Taxi a AAA sized budget for some f*cking reason. If that doesn't prove that the industry is run by morons, I don't know what is. 

Edited by Moth

DVf9mQs.png

Formerly known as The General

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EmagmaLak

I was surprised at how bad the performance was for me on Baldur's Gate 3. I can either have the settings so low it looks like actual ass, or experience insane frame rate drops that make it unplayable. 

 

I done some digging and read posts from people saying its due to unpatched memory leaks, how true that is I don't know.

I just found it quite surprising that there wasn't more people experiencing it, and the fact that so far, nothing has really helped me fix it. 

 

From that 8 hours I have played so far, I must say I enjoyed the start of Divinity Original Sin 2 so much more. Controversial but true. 

 

 

 

SIG-2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, EmagmaLak said:

I was surprised at how bad the performance was for me on Baldur's Gate 3. I can either have the settings so low it looks like actual ass, or experience insane frame rate drops that make it unplayable. 

Eh, the performance was great for me up until Act 3 when reaching a certain area, there were pretty massive frame drops, which I think were CPU-bound on my end. And yeah, there was a memory leak. I had to do a restart every hour or so. Although I heard the November patch may have sorted out those issues, so that'll come in handy when I do return with my Dark Urge playthrough, been out the BG3 loop for sometime now when it comes to new updates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EmagmaLak
17 minutes ago, lndex said:

Eh, the performance was great for me up until Act 3 when reaching a certain area, there were pretty massive frame drops, which I think were CPU-bound on my end. And yeah, there was a memory leak. I had to do a restart every hour or so. Although I heard the November patch may have sorted out those issues, so that'll come in handy when I do return with my Dark Urge playthrough, been out the BG3 loop for sometime now when it comes to new updates.

 

I am only 8 hours in and it's been so rough performance wise. I tried so many fixes.

 

The latest fix I tried was on the LariLauncher, going to settings and unchecking "enable gameplay stats tracking" 

The feedback on that fix was good, I just haven't had the time to really dive in since applying that change. 

 

And yeah, I've heard act 3 is really rough on performance. I dread to think how it'll perform for me based on what I've seen so far.

Edited by EmagmaLak

SIG-2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Moth said:

There are online only single player games out now, I'd say that's worse than a tacked on MP component. So when those servers go down, so does the game.

 

Name one? AFAIK they're virtually all some form of multiplayer GaaS, be it PvP or co-op. I think the Hitman trilogy is the only one I can think of, and yes, that's bad, but it's the only one I can think of my self. I've not played a online only SP game my self in... well, ever.

 

10 hours ago, Moth said:

Cause the industry has trained people into thinking 60-70 bucks is what a great game costs, though in reality, especially nowadays, it doesn't. If there was a game crash, they would have to build up the trust again from the bottom. Too many games and devs rely on past games and success even though the studios themselves are staff with people who usually have different ideals on what a good game is. Case in point, Naughty Dog under Druckmann is vastly different than the studio in the 2000s and earlier.(and is worse imo, especially with him saying "fun" isn't a word they use). The big budget games get big budget marketing that gets the eyes, and thus the sales unless they f*ck it up. That's why a reset needs to happen.

 

There's been loads of million unit+ sellers that cost <$40 in recent years. This year we've already had games like Palworld and Helldivers 2 which have done so. In the past, there's a litany of indie/AA hits.

 

The problem is at AAA level $40 doesn't work when you take everything into account, cost of development, marketing, the platforms cut, any physical manufacturing cost etc.

 

And if there was a crash it wouldn't be a case of just AAA's going down so we can all go "f*ck yea! that's what they deserve!" cause ???, a video game crash in 2024 would impact everyone. The entire industry would suffer and if that's a good thing to you then you do you, but I'm sorry, but I think it's categorically incorrect to paint the entire industry with one brush. There's a lot of good games and good studios that are worth someone's time and money today.

 

Not to mention I think the idea that an industry crash, which again would impact everyone, would somehow have the effect of reducing what we both agree is a problem, risk aversion. When companies lose would be tens to hundreds of million over a year or two I'm not sure increasing the risks would be their first port of call, lol.

 

I certainly wouldn't want the entire industry to get f*cked over just so I can roll the dice, anywho.

 

10 hours ago, Moth said:

It was actually more modern shooters than WW2 shooters, cause COD4 changed the genre due to it's massive impact. But the thing with the shooters, they were relatively cheaper to make than the massive open-world crafting rpglites that are out there nowadays, and thus needed to sell way less copies to make a profit.

 

It was actually WW2 shooters and then modern shooters, if you want to be pedantic. In any case, as I said, the industry is circular so trends come and go. Fantasy comes into vogue, then sci-fi, then maybe modern day, then another time period, etc. Same thing happens with genres, FPS, open world, horror (remember the sci-fi horror spree a few years ago?) etc.

 

As for cost - those rose across the board. Open worlds are inherently more expensive to make, yes, but the technology to make them has improved tenfold. They weren't common in the 360/PS3 era and further back not necessarily just because they were expensive to make but because few studios had the technology to make them. Nowadays modern engines are all very capable of open world games and thus the genre is much more accessible to studios, resulting in open world games coming from studios all of sizes even down to indie teams with <10 people.

 

And again, budgets went up across the board and this also counts for FPS games. Every studio now needs to sell more copies to make a profit on any game, regardless of what that game is or it's scope and scale.

 

10 hours ago, Moth said:

Instead they went with "season passes", and thus using FOMO to keep people playing. Which at this point, feels even scummier. Since they want your time as much as possible, instead of just your money. 

 

Absolutely, I'm not saying modern day gaming is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Monetisation and post-launch support is for me the main issue in modern gaming, especially exactly what you just described. But the point I'm making is that it's not quite as widespread as people like to say, and there's still plenty of great games coming out with none of that stuff.

 

10 hours ago, Moth said:

Sure there is, stop trying to make everything as realistic as possible. I know I'd be fine with more cartoony or less detailed games. Never mind the fact that games going for realistic graphics usually age terribly anyways, cause they have to keep on one up themselves. Art direction is more important, and modern games lack it besides "realism".(And hell, they even make characters uglier than their irl models for a reason I rather not talk about here.)

 

I mean I see a lot of stylised games coming out and the studios making those don't seem to be magically immune the issues the industry is facing, lol. Even then, I'm not sure I personally would want the solution to be more cartoony games. We have the reverse of this problem in the indie/AA scene, where we see a lot of games with very similar cartoony art styles because it's cheaper to make.

 

Also, please to do tell what that reason is.

 

10 hours ago, Moth said:

Games cost too much, so Sony and MS need to release their games on another platform to make their budgets back. And Sony really isn't doing day 1 with PC, yet.(besides Helldivers). When GoW or Spider-man 2 are released day 1, then we can talk.

 

Games do cost a lot to make, yea. Too much? Maybe. But it should be said that the reason these companies are supporting other platforms is not because they're all turning a loss, it's because the industry has a growth issue. The console install base, overall, is not growing much if at all, which means the only way to ensure growth (which is ultimately how any business is run for better or for worse) is to tap into new markets, ie other platforms. When you couple this with the decreasing margins cause budgets increased then you have the reason why everyone, 1st and 3rd party, is becoming multi platform.

 

It's why MS are gonna put games on PS and Switch not just for their big games, but for their smaller titles that are exactly as you keep wishing for - games like Pentiment and Hi-Fi Rush. Sony on the other hand have only put out one PC day and date game, but the recent comments from the SIE chairman strongly imply they'll be increasing their efforts on this front in the future, the reasoning behind what I said above, no growth, decreasing margins, business etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.