"This is an industry, right, it's not a hobby, and as an industry it's set up in a way that you can't breathe," said Colantonio. "You can't take a rest, you have to keep going and going and going. I think in the movie industry at least, which I don't know much about, but I have this idea of the movie industry, this fantasy, where movie directors, they do a movie and then they take a break. They're like, well, I don't know what I'm going to do next, let me breathe for awhile, let me not do anything for three years. And then they have the passion, it comes back—'Oh my god, I would like to talk about this thing.' And I wish games was sort of this way. Instead they're set up like a car factory, where, you know, after Model 3 we have to start thinking about Model 4. What a way to kill creativity and the juice of a creative person."
Fuck AAA 'entertainment' then. Can't remember last time I actually enjoyed a big Hollywood movie either.I mean sure, but it's not like this is exclusive to games.
Entertainment companies will usually only spend big money on products they think are safe and bankable.
You also won't see movie studios throwing Marvel budgets at arthouse passion projects.
Well, I can't blame him. I'd also want to take 3 years off every time I finish a stressful job and slowly let my "passion" for working return. Such a shame I need to eat and pay the bills and I'm not my own boss like Colantonio was at Arkane.
Pretentious generalizing blanket statement.
The bigger the budget, the safer, broader, market "researchey" a game has to become. AAA is in an awful place right now.
Disagreed, AAA games lately are the best games, indie games are all boring me, totally stuck in the past. Glad both exist, though.
You've been market researched.
You are basically saying you only care about graphics and not give too many fucks about gameplay.Disagreed, AAA games lately are the best games, indie games are all boring me, totally stuck in the past. Glad both exist, though.
That's just a different way of saying the games are made to appeal to the majority of people. Considering the plethora of non-AAA games available, especially thanks to Steam, I'm not sure why it bothers you so much there's an occasional game made to actually please most people.
You are basically saying you only care about graphics and not give too many fucks about gameplay.
Since AAA titles generally offer very little of interest of the latter (with exceptions, of course) - just ask yourself the question if you would still enjoy a game if everything was the same, only the graphics were from 2003.
And since the only way in which indie games are "stuck" is that they don't offer AAA graphics.
Gameplay-wise, you won't find more new mechanics (or interesting re-interpretations of old ones) than in indie games.
Of course, you also won't find more crap than in indie games, but that just comes from the sheer mass of them...
What I don't understand is people who are obviously only in it for the graphics don't just watch series and movies.
Does it lack the rewarding feeling of having "stuff" happen when you press X, no matter how mundane the challenge or how repetitive the experience? Like, you never really feel inside of a movie, but you do in a game?
AAA to me often just seems to be a gamified movie experience, which IMO totally misses the point of gaming to begin with.
I'm serious here. I really don't understand. Please help.
For someone who plays games for the new experiences, to think about mechanics and their implementations and for the challenge (mostly), while not giving much about graphics beyond valuing consistency, it is just very baffling.
Some silly notion "for the love of the game". But clearer minds know, each indie developer is trying to be the next Minecraft.Any video game that get sold for purchase is a product, regardless if it has AAA budget or not.
Kind of silly to make a distinction for AAA games in particular.
Technically yes, but there is a difference between a product that was developed only as a product to cash in, and a product that came to be from a labor of passion and vision and had financial sustainability as more of a secondary goal (if that high...).Any video game that get sold for purchase is a product, regardless if it has AAA budget or not.
Kind of silly to make a distinction for AAA games in particular.
Nah, that's rubbish.Some silly notion "for the love of the game". But clearer minds know, each indie developer is trying to be the next Minecraft.
I mean sure, but it's not like this is exclusive to games.
Entertainment companies will usually only spend big money on products they think are safe and bankable.
You also won't see movie studios throwing Marvel budgets at arthouse passion projects.
Any video game that get sold for purchase is a product, regardless if it has AAA budget or not.
Kind of silly to make a distinction for AAA games in particular.
You are basically saying you only care about graphics and not give too many fucks about gameplay.
Since AAA titles generally offer very little of interest of the latter (with exceptions, of course) - just ask yourself the question if you would still enjoy a game if everything was the same, only the graphics were from 2003.
And since the only way in which indie games are "stuck" is that they don't offer AAA graphics.
Gameplay-wise, you won't find more new mechanics (or interesting re-interpretations of old ones) than in indie games.
Of course, you also won't find more crap than in indie games, but that just comes from the sheer mass of them...
What I don't understand is people who are obviously only in it for the graphics don't just watch series and movies.
Does it lack the rewarding feeling of having "stuff" happen when you press X, no matter how mundane the challenge or how repetitive the experience? Like, you never really feel inside of a movie, but you do in a game?
AAA to me often just seems to be a gamified movie experience, which IMO totally misses the point of gaming to begin with.
I'm serious here. I really don't understand. Please help.
For someone who plays games for the new experiences, to think about mechanics and their implementations and for the challenge (mostly), while not giving much about graphics beyond valuing consistency, it is just very baffling.
Could be an age/generational thing. If you grew up playing PS2 as a kid, then you’re probably more in line with today’s AAA environment.
Or maybe it’s a fashion/trend thing. Tentpole, blockbuster films aren’t as exciting as AAA ‘cinematic’ experiences, perhaps. Cultural events are now on the console?
The movie industry is no different. The endless meetings and constant “do you think this is the correct approach“ exist there too. Directors don’t take time off to mull, that’s just Grass is always greener thinking. In reality they have several projects on the go and are spinning pates constantly, networking constantly. It’s a nightmare —mostly because the most competitive people, are usually just the ones who shout the loudest, don’t stop talking and can afford to go to every party imaginable. I’d imagine that the games industry is a lot less reliant on networking and getting actors to do the part — as without the right actor your movie most likely isn’t going to get noticed, let alone made.Secret Source:
"This is an industry, right, it's not a hobby, and as an industry it's set up in a way that you can't breathe," said Colantonio. "You can't take a rest, you have to keep going and going and going. I think in the movie industry at least, which I don't know much about, but I have this idea of the movie industry, this fantasy, where movie directors, they do a movie and then they take a break. They're like, well, I don't know what I'm going to do next, let me breathe for awhile, let me not do anything for three years. And then they have the passion, it comes back—'Oh my god, I would like to talk about this thing.' And I wish games was sort of this way. Instead they're set up like a car factory, where, you know, after Model 3 we have to start thinking about Model 4. What a way to kill creativity and the juice of a creative person."
Sounds reasonable.Indie still exists.
You want money for your 4k textures and your next-gen physics engine and your online netcode + worldwide infrastructure of servers?
Well, that money has to come from somewhere.
The author's description of a movie director "taking a break" exists in every other field too, including videogames. It has nothing to do with the industry and everything to do with that person's financial security and flexibility. Nothing stops you from working as a dev contractor or designer or project manager (or whatever), then taking a 3 year break to "reflect on what you want to build", and then doing exactly that, nothing except your finances.
He's not wrong.
When I look at the trash the likes of EA and Ubisoft put out its just sad that a huge amount of money and man hours go into making these things.
It's such a waste but it is what it is.
huge amount of man hours go into making these things.
huge amount of man hours go into playing these things these things.
Gaming is the only business where people will defend it.
if there are 1 million indie games and 100 AAA games, there will be more crappy indie games than AAA games, yes. Go figure.since you also admit there's so many indie games more of them are crap than AAA games so...
For every actually good AAA title you can name, I could name at least a dozen that are just... "meh", at best.Man, this rant you're on is really something, all based on one comment that didn't include all this information you're coming up with. Like your narrow view of what a AAA game is. You realize the upcoming Cyberpunk 2077 will be a AAA title, right? Or Doom Eternal is AAA... you understand this, correct?
Dude, you need to chill the fuck out. Pretty much every entertainment medium has an 'Indie' scene. Its nothing new and they are not any better or worse than AAA games. Theres a lot of garbage and some gems just like in the mainstream scene.if there are 1 million indie games and 100 AAA games, there will be more crappy indie games than AAA games, yes. Go figure.
I also think the distribution of great and crap is more like a bell curve for AAA (the majority being painfully mediocre, while only few are truly great or entirely crap), and more like an inverted bell curve for indies (few mediocre ones, but more crap and more great ones).
There are also lots of indie games that are like 4$ 2-hour experiences, which.... I don't even. Why even create such a thing? But that's a different rant for a different time...
In absolute numbers, there are more great and more crap indie games than AAA games.
But since only great games really matter (because why would you play crap games?), indie gaming got the upper hand here.
For every actually good AAA title you can name, I could name at least a dozen that are just... "meh", at best.
So, yes, those great games you mentioned (I guess we all assume CP2077 to be great, huh?) - exceptions, believe it or not.
And AAA is actually fairly well defined - what matters is how much money got invested into production/marketing/etc. What else would you base the "AAA" tag on?
Also, maybe take a step back and try to realize that you are not the center of the universe and not everything is about you, including the stuff I wrote.
Although, I'd still be interested in why you wrongfully think indie games would be stuck in the past when it is AAA gaming that lacks any innovation beyond graphics and finding new ways to rip off players.
You say it's not graphics - yet it cannot be gameplay, so... ???
Trust me, I am now and was then as chill as ever.Dude, you need to chill the fuck out. Pretty much every entertainment medium has an 'Indie' scene.
Well, that's the topic of the conversation, isn't it?Its nothing new and they are not any better or worse than AAA games. Theres a lot of garbage and some gems just like in the mainstream scene.