We're slowly getting there. Most gamers are fed up with the AAA market altogether and I feel that there will be a noticeable shift towards the indie market, which still communicates and listens to its fanbases and works with ambition at lest somewhat beyond "let's make as much money with as low effort as possible" and at some point the AAA market will struggle to maintain profits on hype alone because of the broken trust to their customers. The best we can do for now is to vote with our wallet by not buying games that are major offenders in this regard. Because all shareholders care for is short-term profit, this is of course not going to fix their approach because once their favorite cow stops giving milk, they simply leave to find another. This whole business model is the root of the problem and for as long as it exists, shareholders that only care for short-term profits will always be able to drive companies into bad decisions.
Triple-A Ain't What it Used to Be
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Welcome to America, baby.
I really don't associate "AAA" with quality, any more, if I ever did. AAA means one thing: budget. Unreal rather than Unity. Two hundred people on the team rather than forty. Recognizable music on the soundtrack rather than generic rock music by the in-house composer. Bloom, lens flare, and particle effects all turned up to 11.
There have been some great AAA games, and I tend to think that AAA games are more likely to pass a minimum quality standard in terms of things like stability and game mechanics, if only because some of that money probably (hopefully!) went into things like beta testing and a final check-through before the gold master disk.
Of course, now, with people paying to be alpha testers and games being thrown at the Internet without ever being turned into something as quaint and antiquated as a gold master disk...
Look, I think at this point most of us do recognize that AAA is likely a thrashing, dying behemoth, angering would-be customers with ill-considered pay-gates in full-priced commercial games and ill-advised attempts to court an imaginary "middle ground" gaming demographic at the cost of the identity that gained its fandom in the first place. I can't pull a AAA studio out of my back pocket that will "do it right". Big companies like EA and Activision have frequently all but made it their slogan that they won't be swayed by things like the detestation of their customers. I almost never pre-order games, and only rarely buy AAA-games at all barring one of those Humble Bundles or deep-discount Steam sales that have recently become the subject of controversy. What else should I, can I do, other than stand back and watch the behemoth thrash and bleed?
"Movie set in a desert" I heard that's a real thing. Somewhere in the desert in Southern California, there's a set of an old movie set in Babylon, or something. It cost to much to dismantle, so they left it to rot after filming wrapped up. Or just to screw with future archaeologists.
Yahtzee, I know hating on the pillocks who gladly line up to buy anything the glowing box tells them to buy is the new thing, but please don't do the Jim Sterling thing of getting mad at "The Community" because of things that no individual can do anything about.
I can't stop this 'community'. I can't stop them from buying tasteless shit. It would be immoral of me to do that even if I had the power.
People are going to buy what they feel everyone else is buying, it's what they do to feel a sense of 'belonging', even if no one is watching or anyone cares. This has been a marketing trick that is so effective that it's akin to an artform.
The best 'the community' or any individual CAN do is ignore it. Speaking out about it only agitates the hordes and make them feel more right and more emboldened. After all, it ISN'T right to tell people that they shouldn't be having fun when they are the only gatekeepers to determining if that is true or not.
I really don't think anyone WANTS to see a world where someone going out to buy a tasteless game results in madmen with crowbars beating them to death just before they enter the local gamestop. As this would be the only feasible way to prevent these games from being sold, and even that wouldn't stop digital copies.
I can't stop this 'community'. I can't stop them from buying tasteless shit. It would be immoral of me to do that even if I had the power.
People are going to buy what they feel everyone else is buying, it's what they do to feel a sense of 'belonging', even if no one is watching or anyone cares. This has been a marketing trick that is so effective that it's akin to an artform.
The best 'the community' or any individual CAN do is ignore it. Speaking out about it only agitates the hordes and make them feel more right and more emboldened. After all, it ISN'T right to tell people that they shouldn't be having fun when they are the only gatekeepers to determining if that is true or not.
I really don't think anyone WANTS to see a world where someone going out to buy a tasteless game results in madmen with crowbars beating them to death just before they enter the local gamestop. As this would be the only feasible way to prevent these games from being sold, and even that wouldn't stop digital copies.
I have disagree pretty strongly here with Mr. Croshaw. First of all let me start with this statement:
"I mean, 'triple-A' used to mean good."
AAA never meant good. AAA means and meant expensive, high end development. AAA means there was a big budget and a big team who worked on it.
Next statement:
"Somewhere along the line 'triple-A' stopped being a label that is applied to a game after its good quality has been determined"
AAA has never been a label that meant quality. AAA only denotes it is from a large publisher and developer.
Next statement:
"Poster campaigns and billboards and trailers, a bit of veiled threat to the media now and then. But it's like a movie set in a desert. A dazzling exterior painted on canvas, and underneath, nothing."
Ben here is talking about advertising like it is a new thing. I remember reading gaming mags as a kid growing up in the 90's, there were ads for the next big game all over them. If the marketing budget was big enough, like Final Fantasy VII then there were TV spots. Marketing is not something new and is something a publisher is 100% entitled to. We as consumers are smart enough to see past marketing and look at things like pedigree of developer, genre, previews, etc., to figure out if want to actually buy a game.
Next statement:
"New games psychotically play up the shiny spectacle for the sake of trailers and being intriguing at the single-glance level, while the actual gameplay being offered is being systematically reduced. Gameplay times are shorter. Content is lesser. Sandboxes are smaller. Levels are more linear and set piece-driven"
Now here is a real issue with AAA development. As the graphics get prettier it gets more expensive to make a game, thus the games get smaller. This is a very real phenomena and the only solutions are to A, find ways to reduce the cost of making a game, or B, make games that don't look like a Pixar movie.
It seems like Ben Croshaw thinks that AAA developers are taking the extra 12 hours of content that their games are missing and putting that money straight into their pockets, which shows a gross misunderstanding of modern games development. Why does Ben think all the mid-level games publishers have disappeared? Who do we have left at that level, Paradox? THQ is gone. You either have indie guys or you have the ever smaller pool of big, AAA guys.
Last statement:
"Titanfall is two hours of content, sold at full price and dusted in the usual generic blinding pixie dust of current-gen"
Titanfall definitely has more than two hours of content. The campaign is not the main content of a MP only game like Titanfall. I have put in tons of hours into Left 4 Dead, both 1 and 2, much more than just playing through the campaigns would net me. It is not about the story or the campaign progression, it is about the shooting mechanics, the competition with others, and the in-game progression systems, which by themselves take more than 2 hours to go through.
There are definitely problems with the current AAA industry, but they are not driven solely by greedy publishers nor by apathetic gamers. In many ways gamers are more plugged in and more discerning than ever. The only solution is going to be some advances in the way that games are made, which allow really graphically advanced games to be made with fewer people and for less money, or to see an expansion of indie and mid-level developers again.
"I mean, 'triple-A' used to mean good."
AAA never meant good. AAA means and meant expensive, high end development. AAA means there was a big budget and a big team who worked on it.
Next statement:
"Somewhere along the line 'triple-A' stopped being a label that is applied to a game after its good quality has been determined"
AAA has never been a label that meant quality. AAA only denotes it is from a large publisher and developer.
Next statement:
"Poster campaigns and billboards and trailers, a bit of veiled threat to the media now and then. But it's like a movie set in a desert. A dazzling exterior painted on canvas, and underneath, nothing."
Ben here is talking about advertising like it is a new thing. I remember reading gaming mags as a kid growing up in the 90's, there were ads for the next big game all over them. If the marketing budget was big enough, like Final Fantasy VII then there were TV spots. Marketing is not something new and is something a publisher is 100% entitled to. We as consumers are smart enough to see past marketing and look at things like pedigree of developer, genre, previews, etc., to figure out if want to actually buy a game.
Next statement:
"New games psychotically play up the shiny spectacle for the sake of trailers and being intriguing at the single-glance level, while the actual gameplay being offered is being systematically reduced. Gameplay times are shorter. Content is lesser. Sandboxes are smaller. Levels are more linear and set piece-driven"
Now here is a real issue with AAA development. As the graphics get prettier it gets more expensive to make a game, thus the games get smaller. This is a very real phenomena and the only solutions are to A, find ways to reduce the cost of making a game, or B, make games that don't look like a Pixar movie.
It seems like Ben Croshaw thinks that AAA developers are taking the extra 12 hours of content that their games are missing and putting that money straight into their pockets, which shows a gross misunderstanding of modern games development. Why does Ben think all the mid-level games publishers have disappeared? Who do we have left at that level, Paradox? THQ is gone. You either have indie guys or you have the ever smaller pool of big, AAA guys.
Last statement:
"Titanfall is two hours of content, sold at full price and dusted in the usual generic blinding pixie dust of current-gen"
Titanfall definitely has more than two hours of content. The campaign is not the main content of a MP only game like Titanfall. I have put in tons of hours into Left 4 Dead, both 1 and 2, much more than just playing through the campaigns would net me. It is not about the story or the campaign progression, it is about the shooting mechanics, the competition with others, and the in-game progression systems, which by themselves take more than 2 hours to go through.
There are definitely problems with the current AAA industry, but they are not driven solely by greedy publishers nor by apathetic gamers. In many ways gamers are more plugged in and more discerning than ever. The only solution is going to be some advances in the way that games are made, which allow really graphically advanced games to be made with fewer people and for less money, or to see an expansion of indie and mid-level developers again.
"Hurr dur durp back in my day games used to be good". That is pretty much what I'm getting from this piece. I disagree completely by the way, every year I play a lot of incredibly good games, and it just keeps on getting better each year.
And Titanfall is only two hours of content? Are you serious? That has to be the most idiotic statement I've ever seen. If you only play each map exactly once and then never touch the game again then sure it's two hours, but this is a multiplayer game. I've already put 50+ hours into it and I've gotten more bang for my buck then I get from almost every singleplayer game.
And Titanfall is only two hours of content? Are you serious? That has to be the most idiotic statement I've ever seen. If you only play each map exactly once and then never touch the game again then sure it's two hours, but this is a multiplayer game. I've already put 50+ hours into it and I've gotten more bang for my buck then I get from almost every singleplayer game.
I think it comes down to what its always come down to; people don't like to admit that they've been ripped off.
That's why you had tons of people buying defective consoles last generation; then buying backup consoles for when it inevitably broke.
As for me, I think there's maybe one game a year (if I'm lucky) that makes me thankful I do game. And thankfully we do still have R*s and Bethesdas who cram a shiton of content into every game, and thankfully they are incredibly successful.
That's why you had tons of people buying defective consoles last generation; then buying backup consoles for when it inevitably broke.
As for me, I think there's maybe one game a year (if I'm lucky) that makes me thankful I do game. And thankfully we do still have R*s and Bethesdas who cram a shiton of content into every game, and thankfully they are incredibly successful.
You're comparing current AAA to current AAA. You gotta look at stuff before the PS360 era.Kolyarut said:
Compare Skyrim to Morrowind, and suddenly you start seeing it. Compare Deus Ex HR to Deus Ex.
Counterstrike, multiplayer only, was $20. As an original Half Life mod - free.Lightspeaker said:
The Orange Box was $60, and contained TF2, Half Life 2 and both Half Life 2 episodes, and PORTAL. One of the biggest values in gaming history.
The thing you're missing with the above examples though? New maps are FREE. And you can download any map you want that someone made and someone's server is running.
Titanfall has no dedicated servers. It has no mods. It charges for each and every additional map and new weapon they will add. And it's $60. AND you have to use Origin.
It's so blatantly a rip off and anyone suggesting otherwise is simply ignoring history.
Just because you played it for 50 hours doesn't mean it has 50 hours of content. It has 2, and you keep replaying the 2.ShinyCharizard said:
I like to think that we the gamers are smart enough to not fall for the over-hyped bull crap and use our own judgment on what's a good game and what isn't.
I'd say game "journalism" is arguably worse than the AAA industry. Sites like Kotaku exist to produce manufactured outrage for clicks when they're not hyping up the next big game, which most gaming "news" sites do anyway.
And in a weird way, I'm really not that bummed by the AAA industry, because I believe it led directly to the resurgence of indies. So instead of bitching about how terrible AAA is over and over and over and over, I'll be enjoying games like Outlast, Shovel Knight, Mighty No. 9, Mercenary Kings, etc.
And in a weird way, I'm really not that bummed by the AAA industry, because I believe it led directly to the resurgence of indies. So instead of bitching about how terrible AAA is over and over and over and over, I'll be enjoying games like Outlast, Shovel Knight, Mighty No. 9, Mercenary Kings, etc.
I bought titanfall with full knowledge of what I was getting into, and it played out as I expected
I was just bored and wanted something new
I can get excited over AAA games but I'm now at the Point where the usual "garble garble Revenge!" (Looking at you watchdogs) Doesnt excite me...
I was just bored and wanted something new
I can get excited over AAA games but I'm now at the Point where the usual "garble garble Revenge!" (Looking at you watchdogs) Doesnt excite me...
That still doesn't help. Skyrim is vastly bigger than Morrowind, and relies far less on copy/paste content (I still love Morrowind anyway). Technically Arena and Daggerfall are bigger but given that those are procedurally generated they're not really comparable.Thanatos2k said:
I didn't play the first Deus Ex (or, rather, didn't get past the tutorial - the first one feels like a child's drawing compared to the newer one at this point), so can't compare new to old there, but I'm sitting at 32 hours played there, for one playthrough of what I'd consider more a stealth/shooter than a sandbox anyway, and it was fantastic from beginning to end, so it's hard to feel particularly short-changed.
Bethesda slap together an enitre world of "content" and say "look! we made an arr-pee-gee!" without any cohesivness, just a bunch of random barley connected "things to do"GonzoGamer said:
"hey if you keep bringing me x's ill pay you!"
"why?"
"I dont know! its a thing you can do!"
"ill be your companion if you have x karma!"
"oh cool! anything speicific we can do together?"
"no! I'm just a thing that follows you around!"
"talk to me!"
"why? will you say anything interesting?"
"say internesting things? no I'll just give you a thing to do!"
"you don't even KNOW ME!"
"not the point man..."
(note this is mostly from oblivion and fallout 3...some skyrim)
exactly! It doesn't mean it will DEFINETLY be good or bad..you can however look at certain games and make the sound assumption " yeah, no thanks"Thunderous Cacophony said:
I don't think this has helped that the only biggish releases have been the new theif game and titanfall which in their own ways are examples of what's wrong right now...not to mention watch dogs is on the horizon already known more for its hype...
While I agree with what's being said, I do think Titanfall is a poor example. Titanfall is one of the few good games to come out of the AAA blob lately, but I'll agree that it is pricey for a multiplayer-only game when you compare it to other multiplayer-only games. Although the its main competitor seems to be CoD, so it's at least competitively priced in that regard.
And while it's a good game, it's still a great example of the hype-train problem we've got going on in the entertainment industry. It seems to me that this is going on in the film industry as well, with the only difference being that the films fans spend a year or two gushing over in advance don't usually suck as much as games when you compare the quality of the product with the quality we're promised.
And while it's a good game, it's still a great example of the hype-train problem we've got going on in the entertainment industry. It seems to me that this is going on in the film industry as well, with the only difference being that the films fans spend a year or two gushing over in advance don't usually suck as much as games when you compare the quality of the product with the quality we're promised.