Oh, so they're like Ubisoft stuff but subjectively better? Well that makes it all so much different. I'll make an assumption here that you haven't played any Ubisoft games since before Origins came out. If that's true, please know I have played them as well as every game you mentioned. If that's the case I suggest we do what I initially suggested and just not have this conversation.
I have not touched an
AssCreed since
II & Brotherhood for a good reason. The last Ubisoft game I have bought, played, and enjoyed was
Rayman Legends back in 2013. I did have it for free when I had PS+ a few years later. The games I mentioned on the list are subjectively and objectively better than a majority of the Ubisoft Sandbox Generic Open World Formula of
FC/AssCreed. Once again, both
Spider-Man games and both of the
Norse GoW games play nothing like an Ubisoft game. Other than some map markers, but that is something not exclusive nor invented by Ubisoft.
Like I said before, those play better than anything Ubisoft has to offer on hand. Glad yo know you played them. If you didn't like them, it's understandable to an extent, but I ain't spoiled. There are games better than ones I mentioned, but they are good or great regardless of our different opinions.
Out of every single game you mentioned there the only one, THE ONLY ONE, that is innovative and different was RE7--and I'm being generous considering they just copied Amnesia. Everything else is remakes or the exact same game for the third decade in a row.
They were mainly copying
FEAR (same writer as
RE7) and
Clock Tower. Besides, Capcom always experimented with
RE in first person (
Gun Survivor and
Dead Aim says high) and the original
RE1 was supposed to be first person during its initial draft. They couldn't due to hardware limitations.
RE2-4R play nothing like their original counterparts, and do more than enough to improve the formula or add something different. The closes is
RE4R, which makes sense, but it still does something different enough and better than its OG counterpart.
Platinum does the same spectacle fighter they've always done. The only innovation they ever tried was Revengeneneceene, W101, and Infinite Space, a game three people have ever heard of (One of them is me and I adore that game).
Vanquish is a 3rd person stylish shooter that says high. Plenty of people have heard of
Revengance, with it gaining even more and new ground during the late 2010s/early 2020s.
W101 is multiplatform since 2021.
Infinite Space is the only odd game out on the list. Also,
Bayonetta Origin plays nothing like Platinum's usual action game fare, nor like the trilogy.
Bayo3 its the franchise itself combined with
Scalebound, and allows you summon giant demons outside of QTEs and Action Commands. Freaking awesome!
You must be able to see how much nonsense it is to claim AAA do nothing new or try and then naming companies that have done 15 Yakuza games, 10 Monster Hunters, 11 Mega Man, DMC (the only innovative and good one wasn't even made by them!), whose only difference is slightly less terrible graphics?
Not a big Yakuza fan, but they know how to have fun and experiment with their franchise. Not to mention how wacky the franchise still is. Also,
Judgement and
Yakuza Gaiden take over the brawling aspects now.
Like A Dragon/Y7 is a traditional turn based RPG going forward with it and the sequels. Not to mention the various spin-offs. You forgot about that. I could not get into the
Yakuza franchise, but I respect it for its style of gameplay and tone, and for doing what worked for the franchise.
Monster Hunter was always niche, and only started selling like hot cakes in the West until
World and
Rise. That was from changing up the combat, and making the mechanics more user friendly. This is one of the cases where streamlining is a good thing and used correctly. Before
MM11, there had not been another traditional MM since 2010. Even with
MM11, Capcom changed up the formula to make it unique from other games beforehand. Which is what Capcom almost always excel at. The only thing
DmC (2013) innovated was the style announcer, dynamic music (
MGR was already on that shit), slow-mo ending battles (taken from
Bayonetta's camera shutter ending battles) and OG Vergil borrowing some of DmC!Vergil's moves.
DMC5 is basically
DMC3 with some aspects of
DmC (2013) done way much better than the latter, and exceeding the mechanics of the former (an already highly polished and innovative game). Capcom is releasing
Exoprimal and has another new game coming out called,
Path of the Goddess, so they definitely still try new things with games, or within older IPs. Not to mention
Dragon's Dogma II is finally happening. None of these games in the paragraph I would call generic, aside from
DmC's art style when in the "real world".
Look I have many problems with the AAA industry, but I am not going to throw everything under the bus. If a AAA game is good and I'm not interested, than there is nothing wrong with that. As long as the publisher or developer is trying and treats its audience right, then they done good in my eyes.
And, of course, the fighting games which are either tech nightmares like VF, Tekken
They're still high quality and great games, so they count regardless of your input. Besides, the last
VF, before
VF5R was the og
VF5 in the late 2000s.
VF5R was re-done in the Yakuza Engine and was basically Free-2-Play for a long while. Still runs and plays great, got new people invested in the franchise, and is giving Sega the actual courage to make a new entry in the franchise.
VF had been dead in the water for a long time before this point. Namco has the
Tales of Series and each game is usually different from the last in some type of way.
I didn't challenge the fact Nintendo was AAA, but the notion they "try." They're the Apple of the gaming world with everything that entails.
Nah, Nintendo still puts a better output than whatever Apple does, so there is not much equivalent between the two as far as I'm concerned, but I can see where you're coming from. Nintendo is AAA at the end of the day any way, but thank you for clarifying.
