Support NeoGAF

[Zoramon089]

It's hard to see devs say this and really feel sorry for them. Handhelds have been neglected by western devs for GENERATIONS despite being a suitable platform for smaller budget titles. Even still they're not really considered. So...while Rare probably couldn't develop on Nintendo's handhelds (or could they?) I have no sympathy for these devs

 

[Dr.Hadji]

Gameplay has always trumped graphics. IF graphics always was important then explain the popularity of minecraft

*cough* Walking Dead *cough* where's mah gameplay *cough*

 

[TheFightingFish]

When you sell a system as a technical behemoth, the people who buy it are going to want technically superior games.

I'll ask the same question I just asked the last person: why do you think there were no big, successful PS3 games that looked like PS2 games? Or PS2 games that looked like PS1 games?

This statement feels rather off to me give what we've seen from XBLA at the start of this generation and PSN as it has gradually caught up. Unless you are using a different definition for successful than I am. For the first time ever this gen consoles have provided an interesting lower price point for games to break in at. And while there is legit criticism of these platforms for sales reasons there have been plenty of PSN and XBLA games that have been hits with graphics that are rather close to PS2 / Xbox levels. The fact that iPhone is now in the picture does not somehow retroactively not make this a great generation for attempting interesting games on the AAA consoles.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

No one's going to click on that link since you quoted all the good parts...

 

[Dreams-Visions]

obviously, the more invested into a game, the more it HAS to be able to pay off in the end. Investors don't want to see the risk of a game concept that may not swim. So more than giving "the people" what they want, they have to give publishers and investors what they want.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

Because the market that buys PSVita generally wants high end games.

When you sell a system as a technical behemoth, the people who buy it are going to want technically superior games.

I'll ask the same question I just asked the last person: why do you think there were no big, successful PS3 games that looked like PS2 games? Or PS2 games that looked like PS1 games?

Obviously it would have been technically possible to do. But no one did it because the market Sony is attracting is particularly and keenly interested in pushing the tech envelope, and this strongly discourages companies from making a technically inferior game.

Of course, the Vita may end up reinventing itself as an indie machine (I very much hope it does), because nobody is making those high end games for the Vita and thus the market Sony was after never even really materialized and the system is failing. I certainly hope it can reinvent itself as an indie machine, because that would be both good for developers and good for a consumer like me.

I'm not sure why you say that. Sure, the dudebros demand AAA ultra realism, but sony made it's fortune catering to nitche games just as much as the dudebros. Games like Katamari sold gangbusters on their platforms, as did many rpgs, and stylized games.

Nothing about the vita prevents such games. Heck, with a standardized platform, and Arm innards, it's actually very friendly toward them.

It seems the vita is caught in a FUD where critics both demand ultra good looking games, and then bash it when it ether gets those games, or fails to meet that standard. Meanwhile the actual owners are buying and playing all sorts of titles. Basically, what critics say we want and what we are actually buying are two different things entirely.

 

[noobasuar]

Video games as we love them are almost completely dead.

Thank god for my backlog.

 

[FStop7]

Is this really true?

CoD 4: Modern Warfare was a departure and a risk for Activision.

They ditched the WW2 formula and completely took their multiplayer in a different direction.

Arkham Asylum seems like it was a pretty big risk. Rocksteady was an unknown quantity.

 

[jmls1121]

Sadly I feel the Wii U could still offer and allow some of those innovations.

Zombi U is the perfect example.

However, unless the game has cutting edge graphics and dude bro explosions all over the place, the press will not give it the time of day.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

Video games as we love them are almost completely dead.

Thank god for my backlog.

To be fair, the vast majority of all games ever made for any platform have well, sucked. This is nothing new.

 

[Opiate]

This statement feels rather off to me give what we've seen from XBLA at the start of this generation and PSN as it has gradually caught up. Unless you are using a different definition for successful than I am. For the first time ever this gen consoles have provided an interesting lower price point for games to break in at. And while there is legit criticism of these platforms for sales reasons there have been plenty of PSN and XBLA games that have been hits with graphics that are rather close to PS2 / Xbox levels. The fact that iPhone is now in the picture does not somehow retroactively not make this a great generation for attempting interesting games on the AAA consoles.

PSN and XBLA are great examples of what I'm talking about. They do not undermine my point; they reinforce it.

PSN and XBLA have been treated as "lesser platforms within the platform" which give games which aren't "good enough" for a real retail release a place to go. This only reinforces the sense that these games are lesser/smaller, and that therefore you shouldn't really charge more than, say, 15 dollars for the games.

This creates a gigantic gap in the market where you can make 10 dollar games or 60 dollar games, with very little in between. It reinforces the notion that games with lower production cost don't deserve to be on the same platform as those games with higher production cost -- they are segregated off in their own little haven.

Hopefully this problem is solved next generation, and retail isn't given a special pre-eminence over PSN or XBLA games. But as it stands, PSN/XBLA only reinforce the notion that lower-spec games are "inferior" and need to be cordoned off.

 

[Canon]

The eShop would like a word with (ex) Rare.

 

[Opiate]

I'm not sure why you say that. Sure, the dudebros demand AAA ultra realism, but sony made it's fortune catering to nitche games just as much as the dudebros. Games like Katamari sold gangbusters on their platforms, as did many rpgs, and stylized games.

Oh please. Katamari is a niche success, sure. But the suggestion that something as small as Katamari is just as important to the Playstation's success as, say, Grand Theft Auto, or Gran Turismo, or God of War, or Madden, or more recently Call of Duty, is silly.

This isn't some crazy idea I came up with. Sony has on several occassions explicitly stated that their strength is in big, blockbuster production games.

Nothing about the vita prevents such games. Heck, with a standardized platform, and Arm innards, it's actually very friendly toward them.

The market does. The way the Vita was marketed -- specifically advertising how much more powerful it is than the 3DS, for example, focusing on "PS3 in your pocket" advertising -- prevents these games from being successful.

It seems the vita is caught in a FUD where critics both demand ultra good looking games, and then bash it when it ether gets those games, or fails to meet that standard. Meanwhile the actual owners are buying and playing all sorts of titles. Basically, what critics say we want and what we are actually buying are two different things entirely.

Nobody is buying the Vita. The market the Vita was supposed to attract never materialized. So yes, it's possible the Vita could reinvent itself given the complete collapse of its primary market, but in the short term this is why the Vita is failing.

 

[Kickass667]

iOS gaming is not the answer.

Hate this trend of big shot guys leaving/fired only to make mobile games.

VITA NEEDS SOME LOVE YOU KNOW

iOS gaming is not the answer, but Android sure as hell is!

how expensive is it to put a game on steam? if it's not that expensive, why not just make games exclusivly for PC, the pc market is growing afterall

 

[Coolwhip]

Isnt it frustrating to go from bigshot console developer to iOS developer?

 

[entremet]

This the double edge sword of technology. We want our graphic! But development is too expensive for high risk projects.

 

[Kickass667]

Oh please. Katamari is a niche success, sure. But the suggestion that something as small as Katamari is just as important to the Playstation's success as, say, Grand Theft Auto, or Gran Turismo, or God of War, or Madden, or more recently Call of Duty, is silly.

This isn't some crazy idea I came up with. Sony has on several occassions explicitly stated that their strength is in big, blockbuster production games.



The market does. The way the Vita was marketed -- specifically advertising how much more powerful it is than the 3DS, for example, focusing on "PS3 in your pocket" advertising -- prevents these games from being successful.



Nobody is buying the Vita. The market the Vita was supposed to attract never materialized. So yes, it's possible the Vita could reinvent itself given the complete collapse of its primary market, but in the short term this is why the Vita is failing.

The problem with the vita is not that the market isn't there, but rather that it has very few exclusive games that are available for the market they are trying to appeal too (the gamer).

 

[TheFightingFish]

PSN and XBLA are great examples of what I'm talking about. They do not undermine my point; they reinforce it.

Your post that I quoted specifically stated that:

a. Why were there no successful PS3 games that looked like PS2 games.

and

b. Technically superior systems create customers who want only technically superior games

Am I wrong on that? Sure, I'd not argue your point about XBLA or PSN ghettoization in the slightest. I'm arguing the points that I listed above. This generation has been probably the best console generation ever for successful games that don't utilize the full power of the systems that they run on. Would you disagree with that?

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

So going by the other thread, Microsoft has apparently ruined Rare with Kinect, yet here we have some folks who left Rare because they wanted to experiment in the social/casual space because they see it as more exciting than AAA development. Funny how that woks, but it shouldn't really come as a surprise to any sane person.

 

[DocSeuss]

I must admit, I'm surprised. I thought they'd say "which is why we switched to the PC market," since indie PC games seem to be doing pretty well there (Klei's latest game is a PC exclusive, isn't it?).

“Rare was unique. Nobody was making games of the quality that Rare and Nintendo were making,”

Well, uh, sure, on consoles.

It kinda feels like they're ignoring the existence of PC gaming.

 

[DaBoss]

So if you don't feel like you're taking risks with ios games then why comment on consoles being too high risk? They obviously believe the platform allows for a lot of creative risks otherwise they wouldn't have left.

Just cause they aren't taking risks on iOS doesn't mean they can't comment on the risks involved. You can't deny the fact that the costs for AAA games are rising and causes less risks to be taken. We may not like how they don't take much risks, but the issue is there. They seem to think that the Apple market is where it is going to be huge, so that seems to be why they left.

Though what you said earlier about many iOS games are spot on, they are made to shamelessly get money.

 

[SapientWolf]

Solution: Make fewer AAA titles. Make more low-budget titles at reasonable price points where you can experiment with new IPs and gameplay mechanics without breaking the bank. If those titles succeed, you have funding and brand recognition for when you want to make a AAA release. If they don't, you haven't run your company into the ground.

Smaller budgets necessitate smaller teams, unless big publishers decide to flood the channel with dozens of small scale releases a year.

 

[Opiate]

Your post that I quoted specifically stated that:

a. Why were there no successful PS3 games that looked like PS2 games.

and

b. Technically superior systems create customers who want only technically superior games

Am I wrong on that? Sure, I'd not argue your point about XBLA or PSN ghettoization in the slightest. I'm arguing the points that I listed above. This generation has been probably the best console generation ever for successful games that don't utilize the full power of the systems that they run on. Would you disagree with that?

My response is I was discussing retail games, and/or games that push systems. The games people buy the system for, and the subsequent market built around it. As well as Trials Evolution HD sold, I think the number of systems sold on its back is close to zero.

I think you'll note that indie/small developers have been gradually migrating away from PSN/XBL -- unless directly subsidized by Sony or Microsoft -- for precisely this reason; they are treated as second class citizens, and the sales show it. Not that nothing can possibly succeed on those PS3/360, but that your chances are higher on platforms which treat these games as the main course and not a light snack to compliment the main course.

 

[Sothpaw]

Ken Griffey III PC exclusive confirmed.

 

[Oracle Dragon]

I guess it is mentioned a bit in the article, but I don't buy that you can't take risks on a console (or any platform) these days. The problem is you've made yourself beholden to executives who have in turn made themselves beholden to the shareholders, and then it is all about what the profit is.

When you see stuff like Super Meat Boy, Fez, Dust, etc, games of quite high quality that take a risk or fill a niche, games put out by small 1-2 man teams... there is nothing stopping some of these ex-<big_company> devs from taking that road. You got a vision for a game you think is great, unique, and publishers don't want to touch? Get it up there yourself. The tools to take risks in video games are better and more available than ever, just not when working for a big publisher who needs to please the shareholders.

I'm honestly excited for next gen, not because of the next big EA/Ubi/whoever game, but to see the next wave of XBLA/PSN/Indie stuff. Sure, there is a good chunk of crap (because it is so easy to take risks, so many more try it!) but there are some real gems on there, and often made by newcomers. An experienced dev team could knock something out of the park.

 

[injurai]

Watching the BAFTA awards right now and the Sony indie-dev's are doing pretty awesome.

First parties account for some cushion room to allow for risk, especially Sony.

But your average dev that has to fight for publishers will not be able to.

 

[deviljho]

It's hard to see devs say this and really feel sorry for them. Handhelds have been neglected by western devs for GENERATIONS despite being a suitable platform for smaller budget titles. Even still they're not really considered so...while Rare probably couldn't develop on Nintendo's handhelds (or could they?) I have no sympathy for these devs

Good point.

 

[FlyFaster]

AAA might not be the answer but the way some people talk about indie games is just as bad.

Most of these cheap indie games don't and can't hold my attention for long. I play it once or twice and beat and then never come back to it. I have loads of indie games on my PS3 just sitting. They are mostly just novelties and nothing more.

I want more depth out of my games, I'm sorry, and at least AAA games -- the Skyrims, the GTAs, the Mass Effects, the Mario Galaxies, the Gran Turismos, the Batman Arkhams, ect... give me more of what I'm looking for in a game then some cheap $1 or $5 downloadable title.

I grew up on NES, SNES and onward. Most of these "indie games" are just re-treading ground I've already walked on. It may be neat for a new generation of gamers but I've been there and seen it before. The indie/mini games now are essentially NES style games but with an HD coat of paint. As much fun as it is to play older games, I've enjoyed the general rise in complexity of games over the years.

AAA might not be the best answer but no one should fool themselves into thinking that Indie is the best answer either.

 

[Mondriaan]

Because the market that buys PSVita generally wants high end games.

When you sell a system as a technical behemoth, the people who buy it are going to want technically superior games.

I'll ask the same question I just asked the last person: why do you think there were no big, successful PS3 games that looked like PS2 games? Or PS2 games that looked like PS1 games?

Budgets for Vita games are in the same ballpark as PSP games and DS games. More can be spent, of course.

3DS games are apparently more expensive/difficult to develop. I think Senran Kagura could be an example of the Vita being easier to develop for than the 3DS, given the same concept and similar game play and probably similar budgets.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

I must admit, I'm surprised. I thought they'd say "which is why we switched to the PC market," since indie PC games seem to be doing pretty well there (Klei's latest game is a PC exclusive, isn't it?).



Well, uh, sure, on consoles.

It kinda feels like they're ignoring the existence of PC gaming.

lol, always a me too, and we were first attitude.

 

[Orayn]

AAA might not be the answer but the way some people talk about indie games is just as bad.

Most of these cheap indie games don't and can't hold my attention for long. I play it once or twice and beat and then never come back to it. I have loads of indie games on my PS3 just sitting. They are mostly just novelties and nothing more.

I want more depth out of my games, I'm sorry, and at least AAA games -- the Skyrims, the GTAs, the Mass Effects, the Gran Turismos, the Batman Arkhams, ect... give me more of what I'm looking for in a game then some cheap $1 or $5 downloadable title.

I grew up on NES, SNES and onward. Most of these "indie games" are just re-treading ground I've already walked on. It may be neat for a new generation of gamers but I've been there and seen it before. The indie/mini games now are essentially NES style games but with an HD coat of paint. As much fun as it is to play older games, I've enjoyed the general rise in complexity of games over the years.

AAA might not be the best answer but no one should fool themselves into thinking that Indie is the best answer either.

AAA games generally aren't deep or robust, either. Most of them are bloated, mechanically simplified versions of games that have been done better years before. You're mistaking production values for actual quality.

 

[nasos_333]

Isn't alienating all your core gamers a risk as well ?

For example from xbox being my biggest focus with xbox 360, has gone to not even considering xbox 720 right now, since most games i want are either casualized (Fable, Kinect stuff, Rare making sports games), on PC (Fable, Alan Wake) or not wanted by MS anymore (indie games, JRPGs)

 

[FlyFaster]

AAA games generally aren't deep or robust, either. Most of them are bloated, mechanically simplified versions of games that have been done better years before. You're mistaking production values for actual quality.

Some are just cheap remakes essentially but games like Skyrim or Mario Galaxy or GTA or Batman Arkham City are worth every penny and are deep and robust imo.

 

[flabberghastly]

Some are just cheap remakes essentially but games like Skyrim or Mario Galaxy or GTA or Batman Arkham City are worth every penny and are deep and robust imo.

You realize that Skyrim is basically a much less complex version of Morrowind and Daggerfall, right? And that all of them are, in a number of ways, less complex than something like Ultima VII?

 

[RibbedHero]

He shouldn't talk about risk-taking in iOS games. Almost all risk-taking in game development seems to take place on the PC.

 

[FlyFaster]

You realize that Skyrim is basically a much less complex version of Morrowind and Daggerfall, right? And that all of them are, in a number of ways, less complex than something like Ultima VII?

Sure, but Skyrim is certainly more immersive imo. Having more then like 3 voice actors helps that and even though I'm not a huge graphics guy, I can't deny that they way Skyrim looks also helps.

There are plenty of other games that we could list that are more or less complex but my point is against indie/ios/mini games. Also, maybe the word "complexity" isn't fully getting at what I'm aiming for but it was close enough and I believe serves my point.

 

[Visualante2]

I think it was a risk bringing back Deus Ex and Thief. I think it's a risk bringing Diablo 3 to PS3.

You can't be stupid and take risks but you absolutely can take risks.

 

[deviljho]

Sure, but Skyrim is certainly more immersive imo. Having more then like 3 voice actors helps that and even though I'm not a huge graphics guy, I can't deny that they way Skyrim looks also helps.

There are plenty of other games that we could list that are more or less complex but my point is against indie/ios/mini games. Also, maybe the word "complexity" isn't fully getting at what I'm aiming for but it was close enough and I believe serves my point.

So like Orayn pointed out earlier, you're still (mainly) talking about production values, and that costs money. Quality gameplay experiences and production values aren't mutually exclusive, but...

AAA games generally aren't deep or robust, either. Most of them are bloated, mechanically simplified versions of games that have been done better years before. You're mistaking production values for actual quality.

 

[Axspell]

But as others have said, there is nothing technically stopping a company from making a PS1-esque game on the PS3. Or the PS4. I'm saying the market Sony (and Microsoft, of course) have cultivated for their systems is not very tolerant of games with lower end graphics. It isn't technically difficult to make a PS1 like game on PS3; it's economically difficult. The realities of the market make it a challenge, and Sony/Microsoft would need to consciously choose to market their systems in a different way if they want to attract an audience less concerned with high end graphics.

This is a good point, and one that raises a good question regarding the viability of the Arcade/PSN platforms as potential harbingers for these types of products. Do you think it would get to a certain point where having a separately branded storefront for such games would help their economic viability?

 

[crazy monkey]

and people still complain about hair and wall not being realistic enough. Dudes there is a limit to obsession about anything.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I'm cool with our mobile handheld phone/tablet future. I love all these tiny unique games being developed.

 

[AoM]

Isn't Steven Hurst working on that Banjo-Tooie spiritual successor? Hope they can get that Kickstarter up.

 

[Wyndstryker]

This is a good point, and one that raises a good question regarding the viability of the Arcade/PSN platforms as potential harbingers for these types of products. Do you think it would get to a certain point where having a separately branded storefront for such games would help their economic viability?

The console itself is still being marketed to a specific target audience. The games traditionally are catered to such audience. However to introduce a game outside the intended audience, you need to change the whole console branding. A separately branded storefront doesn't change the consoles perception because the console itself is still aimed to a different audience. Console publishers need to change the actual console's perception and audience direction as a whole. PC, tablet, and mobile phones are basically considered as "do anything devices" so people are very accepting to smaller scale games. Consoles come with the "big game" stigma behind them so people will assume a smaller game is garbage because it doesn't match up to other games it's traditionally being released with.

Marketing also becomes a more complicated matter when indies don't got the budget, and console publishers won't give them a marketing budget. That leaves the big guys with the budget to get their games known, which are as expected, the high budget titles.

 

[rjc571]

Maybe you're wearing rose tinted glasses? Graphics have been important pretty much since the beginning. It's actually with this generation that developers have gone back to some of the classic styles of games that were prematurely left behind when 3D gaming was becoming popular. Outside of handheld games anyway.

They weren't so important in any previous era, that the budget needed to make your game graphically competitive was so astronomical, that it became impossible for publishers to take risks on titles that didn't conform to a very particular set of standards because they were sure to lose millions of dollars, resulting in the nearly homogeneous market that we have today.

 

[Chet Rippo]

Even still they're not really considered. So...while Rare probably couldn't develop on Nintendo's handhelds (or could they?) I have no sympathy for these devs

They certainly had at one point. They made a few GBA and DS games.

 

[Cwarrior]

 

[Spring-Loaded]

http://i658.photobucket.com/albums/uu307/soldiab0y/shakira.gif[IMG][/QUOTE]

Wat

EDIT: Oh, I get it. yeah... I understand.

 

[Balb]

They weren't so important in any previous era, that the budget needed to make your game graphically competitive was so astronomical, that it became impossible for publishers to take risks on titles that didn't conform to a very particular set of standards because they were sure to lose millions of dollars, resulting in the nearly homogeneous market that we have today.

True, but I wasn't taking budget into consideration. My post was in response to him saying graphics didn't matter as much last generation.

 

[Alcotholic]

Wat

EDIT: Oh, I get it. yeah... I understand.

I dont.

 

[Spinluck]

Vita is also very expensive to develop for.

That's the problem. Not that consoles have a magic, expensive aura that makes games cost a lot to make. It's that higher end tech = more expensive to make games for. The Vita is cheaper than the PS3 to develop for because the hardware is more developer friendly, but that doesn't make it cheap. "Less than the PS3" does not equate to "cheap."

If you want developers to take more risks, you're going to have to back down on the tech race.

I thought the Vita wasn't supposed to be that expensive to develop for? Or maybe it was that the devkits weren't that much.