AAA Games Have Stopped Innovating

Yahtzee Croshaw

New member
Aug 8, 2007
11,049
0
0
AAA Games Have Stopped Innovating

I look at Halo 5 and wonder how far triple-A games have really come in the three years that have passed since Halo 4. It's not that far - and we've discarded innovation on the way.

Read Full Article
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Oct 5, 2011
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
I suppose there are hidden gems of innovation here and there, like the nemesis system in Shadow of Mordor, but they're kind of the exception to the rule aren't they...
 

Gul

New member
Oct 27, 2015
19
0
0
I'm not really sure if you need all that much innovating in the first place. Movie industry has gone on just fine without innovating itself every five years or so. All you'd need to do would be to create good games with nice story and gameplay in them.

Which AAA has completely failed to do as well, of course, but that's beside the point.
 

flying_whimsy

New member
Dec 2, 2009
1,077
0
0
Man, that was kind of depressing to read. No wonder it hasn't felt like anything really exciting has come out with the new generation of games. Granted, it's not like there was anything to really expect except for possibly more interactive environments.

I hate to say it, but the last game that came out that I thought 'wow, look at how the technology has evolved' was minecraft with its dynamic terrain generation and whatnot. And then microsoft ate it.

I haven't seen anything that's made me want to run out and buy a new console or heavily upgrade my pc (except for fallout 4, but that's because I love bethesda's buggy messes).
 

remnant_phoenix

New member
Apr 4, 2011
1,439
0
0
erttheking said:
I suppose there are hidden gems of innovation here and there, like the nemesis system in Shadow of Mordor, but they're kind of the exception to the rule aren't they...
Exactly.

Shadow of Mordor's PS4/XBone version didn't really LOOK next-gen, but that's because they focused on using the extra memory to introduce something truly innovative to gameplay. This is what we need: companies that are less focused on graphics than deep/innovative gameplay and an audience that is willing play the less pretty game because it has deep/innovative gameplay.
 

BloodRed Pixel

New member
Jul 16, 2009
630
0
0
Didn't the Kinect fail mostly becaus of the orwellian surveillance 'konnected' to it?

other than that, right on spot!

But you did not mention THE No.1 place where gaming innovated over the past years

iOS

and this because Apple provided an insanley cheap entry ticket for devs and a complete ecosystem for distrubution.

hate me all you want, the myriads of innovation that was introduced on that plattform is only conquered by the introduction of computer gaming at all ...and the home computers aera.
 

DocImpossible452

New member
Feb 19, 2014
19
0
0
I agree, but it feels ridiculously similar to how we view indie films. AAA films are huge budget things that largely don't innovate, but attention to detail, good writing, casting, and scoring can make them stand out. Meanwhile indies are done on a budget but are more likely to innovate and do something interesting, occasionally exploding into a must see phenomenon. Which I guess keeping the similarities going says that all of us older game nerds looking for innovation are the equivalent to the indie film nerds going to film festivals and being overly critical of things.

Nintendo still experiments some, but again that's sort of an exception to the rule. I wish critics would quit hounding them to send Mario to the smartphone...platformers and controllers with no buttons aren't the best pairing I think.

Can't argue against this article, nope. Not really even anecdotally.
 

Paul Cunningham

New member
Nov 25, 2012
2
0
0
Its about right. I just see a 'dead zone' from 2012 because that was the last big year for the PS3 and 360. Assassin's Creed had an overhaul with 3, for better and worse; Halo 4 took the 360's bloom effects to the limit, and Dishonored felt like a new spin on the stealthy approach. Modern Shooters had peaked with Black ops 2 and could only add thruster packs from then on, and Far Cry 3 showed just how much fun open world shooters could be.

From 2012 to 2015, any new games have just disappointed. 2013 was barren from the anticipation of new consoles, and anything that has been released since has been inferior to their prequels on current consoles, buggy at launch, filled with less content just to show off graphically, and just not as fun.

I cannot be the only one that waited for the next new game and thought 'this may be the one to make me get a new console' only to find the buggy unpolished messes they became. I was sold on the 360 with Halo 3 and GTA IV, and they arrived at around the 2-3 year mark of new hardware. No such case here
 

Jorpho

New member
Nov 6, 2008
130
0
0
Nope, not seeing any need to replace my Gamecube and PS2, both with stacks of fantastic games that I'll never get around to playing.

whose rails led directly into the vagina of a diseased apatosaurus.
Pretty sure reptilian anatomy doesn't work that way. Or does that just make the analogy even more profound?
 

RandV80

New member
Oct 1, 2009
1,507
0
0
DocImpossible452 said:
I agree, but it feels ridiculously similar to how we view indie films. AAA films are huge budget things that largely don't innovate, but attention to detail, good writing, casting, and scoring can make them stand out. Meanwhile indies are done on a budget but are more likely to innovate and do something interesting, occasionally exploding into a must see phenomenon. Which I guess keeping the similarities going says that all of us older game nerds looking for innovation are the equivalent to the indie film nerds going to film festivals and being overly critical of things.

Nintendo still experiments some, but again that's sort of an exception to the rule. I wish critics would quit hounding them to send Mario to the smartphone...platformers and controllers with no buttons aren't the best pairing I think.

Can't argue against this article, nope. Not really even anecdotally.
I feel that comparing AAA games to blockbuster movies in this regard is a bit of a cop out. Yes the comparisons drawn are valid, but these are two different entertainment mediums so we're comparing apples & oranges. Video games have way more room to innovate and try new things due to their interactive nature, in ways that a blockbuster movie couldn't hope to replicate.

Also the film industry isn't just blockbusters and indies, they never lost those middle ground productions. While it's the Star Wars & Avengers that everyone gets excited about theaters still need to fill their time slots 365 days a year so there's still plenty of middle ground professional movies made. Unlike the video game industry the second tier movie productions never died off.
 

Kenjitsuka

New member
Sep 10, 2009
3,051
0
0
"the train that it turned out had chocolate biscuits instead of wheels and whose rails led directly into the vagina of a diseased apatosaurus."

Ahahaha!!! Seriously, thanks for the laugh (as per usual)! :D
 

Kaamos

New member
Oct 2, 2012
20
0
0
erttheking said:
I suppose there are hidden gems of innovation here and there, like the nemesis system in Shadow of Mordor, but they're kind of the exception to the rule aren't they...
Yeah, it's just too bad the rest of the game was so bland. I'd love to see the nemesis system put into a game that has more to do than just killing orcs in a lifeless open world map.
 

oldtaku

New member
Jan 7, 2011
639
0
0
They realized people don't actually want innovation. Oh they say they do, but they'll still preferentially buy the same old shit with a higher number and more explosions. It's just too risky to innovate in AAA given the budgets. That's why I play mostly indie games, where they can and do, then the occasional AAA as comfort food.

Some people have mentioned Mordor as a rare counterexample. I'd include the building and crafting in Fallout 4. Of course that's obviously all borrowed from elsewhere, but it's certainly a huge change for that AAA series.

And I think that's the model now... Let the Indies innovate then steal it when it's safe. And I'm okay with that. AAA is the big dumb stupid fun thing.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
I don't know why Yahtzee insists that new consoles must mean different games. It's never been like that. NES -> SNES just meant better graphics and longer games. PS1 -> PS2? Better graphics and longer games. The N64 let them actually standardize 4 player games (no niche multitap required), the next gen let them standardize online multiplayer on consoles (no PC required), and other than that it's been the same old same old every new gen, with the exception of the motion controls which ruined more things than they helped.

Do you know why there hasn't been any innovation? Because Microsoft fractured the market. It's not a coincidence that Yahtzee thinks the PS2 era was gaming's golden age - it's because it was a time when there was the LEAST platform competition. Making a game? Put it on the PS1 or PS2. Got a 4 player multiplayer game? Put it on Nintendo's console. Done. Now make your game and your audience will be there. Take risks! Go wild!

The Xbox 360 destroyed this security. Now you couldn't just make a game for one platform or you wouldn't make your money back. So now we gotta make everything safely. No risks. Appeal to the most people possible.

I've long said for years video gaming can't support 3 consoles, but people always cry "Competition is good for consumers!" No. Not always.
 

Alek The Great

New member
May 24, 2011
56
0
0
I don't disagree that it feels like things have slowed down, but I certainly wouldn't say that nothing's moved forward in the past 3 years.

We had the Tomb Raider reboot and AC IV come out both of which I felt had progressed in some way, the former modernizing a franchise (it had its flaws but I thought Lara was a well done female protagonist which is still rare) and the latter introducing piratey goodness and great naval combat. Yes, AC has regressed somewhat since then, but it took 4 AC games from AC II for them to switch up the formula; AAA is a slow moving beast which is unfortunate.

Then we had Wolfenstein: The New Order which was a very pleasant surprise. I also enjoyed D4, but that's probably because I'm one of the crazy few that still enjoy playing Kinect games and I much preferred playing that ridiculousness without a controller.

Shadow of Mordor was mentioned and then there was Murdered: Soul Suspect (really awkward title) which had a lot of issues but also some interesting ideas.

Then we had Alien: Isolation which feels like a legitimate horror game for once! Arkham Knight tried to innovate - and failed miserably, but still tried nonetheless.

Sunset Overdrive felt like a refreshing change of pace from all the games that have been taking themselves way too seriously. They may have gone a bit too far off the opposite end with that one and some of the humour fell flat, but it had solid and interesting gameplay that felt like a nice fusion of THPS and Ratchet & Clank.

Watch_Dogs for all its hype and disappointment also had some interesting ideas that had they been more fleshed out and substantial would have made that game much more interesting. I played it a year later after all the hype had died out and I had almost no expectations which also let me appreciate the new things they'd tried to do. I imagine letting a player control an open world indirectly whilst also being able to interact with it as a player character was not the easiest to implement (and, of course, it was an Ubisoft game so it had to have towers/outposts/click-here-to-reveal-map-thingamajigs and countless pointless collectables).

Then there was Fantasia - I know, another Kinect game, but quite possibly my favourite music rhythm game in the last few years. Sure, it's a niche game, but one that also introduced a new type of music rhythm game.

I'd even argue that Halo 5 is probably the one that has changed up gameplay the most for that franchise. It doesn't exactly introduce anything that hasn't been done yet, but the gameplay was really enjoyable (except for those warden fights when playing solo). It also suffers from a story that barely progresses for the duration of 15 missions and a lot of characters are barely fleshed out let alone have an actual arc. So maybe it's a regression on some fronts, but oh well, can't win em all!

Lastly, I'm not trying to claim that all the games I listed were actually any good, just that they all tried to innovate in some way (whether they succeeded or not doesn't matter) and were all developed by fairly large, generally AAA teams (except maybe D4 and Fantasia). I haven't mentioned any Sony exclusives as I haven't really played any lately and thus can't say much about them. Is this 2 pages yet?
 

ShakerSilver

Professional Procrastinator
Nov 13, 2009
885
0
0
What AAA gaming done for the last couple generations?
Let's see:
>"HD" ports with little to no actual improvement, sometimes worse graphics that their PC ports
>increased platform parity
>the season pass and other various bullshit DLC galleries
>rushed, buggy releases becoming the norm
>day-one patches
>significant cutting back on features and striving to make things "accessible"

If there was ever an instance of "innovating downwards", than the AAA industry nailed it with their business practices over the years.
 

voltair27

New member
Apr 9, 2012
113
0
0
Alek The Great said:
Yeah, this pretty much. There's been a lot of interesting ideas, some of which have been pretty great, so it's not exactly fair to say that AAA isn't innovating.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Well, I'm sure the texture artists would argue that they're putting in a lot more work these days, even if it doesn't show unless you look at the three-year-old product right next to the recent one. And the environments are bigger, thanks to the extra memory, as Rocksteady argued with the most recent version of Arkham.

But otherwise...? I mean, one could even make an argument that some of the "improvements" are a step back. An awful lot of Mad Max's reviewers seemed to feel that the gigantic sandbox didn't bring all that much to the table but a bunch of busy-work that wasn't much fun. We still seem to be edging towards an always-on reality despite promises to the contrary, and screaming across headsets at strangers rather than playing games that you would actually enjoy with a friend next to you on the couch. Successful Kickstarters like Yooka-Laylee, Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night, and Mighty Number 9 are in one way hopeful, and in another way seem to imply that there isn't any room in AAA for games that are just fun any more. A franchise game is a careful mixture of awesomeness and utter disposability; after all, they don't want you to still be playing it when they ask you for $60+ next year.

So, I guess, what's news, then? Big monolithic companies don't want to take risks, or if they do, they're the kinds of risks that sound great on paper and thunderingly stupid when announced to us consumers (Hellooooo, Activision-King). There are small seeds of hope in things like Ubisoft's cultivation of smaller projects like Grow Home and Valiant Hearts... But then again, they don't exactly seem in a hurry to start throwing the seven- and eight-figure budgets after anything developed in the skunkworks, either.