Support NeoGAF

[March Climber]

Games do this all the time. Ratchet & Clank, Psychonauts, Crash Bandicoot, Inside, It Takes Two, and many, many more find success doing fictional settings that have nothing to do with regular fantasy or sci-fi.

I don't understand this thread.

Yea, this thread kind of comes across as the usual:

Someone looking for something new to play, but not just outright asking for recommendations and also not willing to do their own research.

 

[geary]

Ghostwire Tokyo had an interesting setting and theme.

 

[ReBurn]

Kinda what I was thinking. Death Stranding is sci-fi. Unique sci-fi, but still sci-fi.

Thought the OP was gonna bring up something like the AAA game equivalent of Eyes Wide Shut or American Pie. I'd like to see something like that, AAA or upper-AA.

It's dystopian sci-fi. The premise isn't all that unique. There's an undercurrent of it in the Horizon series.

 

[Games of Today]

I'd like to see something different.

A fantasy RPG set in a mythical South America (Inca vibes) or West Africa (like Black Leopard, Red Wolf) would be very refreshing.

I was actually pretty excited seeing that Skull and Bones was set in the Horn of Africa. Awesome setting imo but too bad that game is going to blow.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Well, that's rich. You guys are gonna use utterly absurd terminology like that and then claim that I'm the one who's not making any sense, lol.

You mean like AAAA?

I'm just trying to distinguish something like Plague Tale: Requiem, Kena or Stray from the lower-tier (production/budget-wise) AA games. Like, I'd probably put Sea of Stars as a AA game but on the lower-end scale cost-wise.

Meanwhile most of the indie games out there I'd put as A, since they're so cheap to make (comparatively).

 

[Drizzlehell]

Games do this all the time. Ratchet & Clank, Psychonauts, Crash Bandicoot, Inside, It Takes Two, and many, many more find success doing fictional settings that have nothing to do with regular fantasy or sci-fi.

These are basically cartoons in a video game form, what's so groundbreaking about that?

 

[ByWatterson]

These are basically cartoons in a video game form, what's so groundbreaking about that?

Yeah Inside is basically Loony Tunes.

And that's not the question you asked. What is this thread even about?

 

[Drizzlehell]

You mean like AAAA?

I'm just trying to distinguish something like Plague Tale: Requiem, Kena or Stray from the lower-tier (production/budget-wise) AA games. Like, I'd probably put Sea of Stars as a AA game but on the lower-end scale cost-wise.

Meanwhile most of the indie games out there I'd put as A, since they're so cheap to make (comparatively).

I really hate this terminology. "Triple-A" is basically a way to describe major studio's first-party games, nothing more, and this attempt at inventing some kind of a rating system for video game budgets is vague and reductive, and individual people often misuse it in very infuriating ways.

 

[Drizzlehell]

Yeah Inside is basically Loony Tunes.

And that's not the question you asked. What is this thread even about?

That's like one example out of five that you provided. Inside is the closest thing you mentioned to being an arthouse video game, I'll give you that. But it's still an indie game when I suggested/asked if first party developers should experiment more with such concepts.

 

[Danjin44]

I find Gravity Rush's setting very unique, its not sci-fi, its not medieval fantasy and its not apocalypse.

 

[ByWatterson]

That's like one example out of five that you provided. Inside is the closest thing you mentioned to being an arthouse video game, I'll give you that. But it's still an indie game when I suggested/asked if first party developers should experiment more with such concepts.

None are sci-fi or high fantasy. What is this thread about?

 

[Drizzlehell]

None are sci-fi or high fantasy. What is this thread about?

Do you have a reading comprehension deficit?

 

[ByWatterson]

Don't understand what you're asking for. Is it ground-breaking settings or non sci-fi/high fantasy settings. The best selling game every year, COD, is neither. Countless games are set in our world, like Uncharted 4 or history like Age of Empires or inside a literal novel like Alan Wake 2.

Then you have steam punk titles like The Order, horror titles like Outlast or The Evil Within, alternate past titles like Wolfenstein.

Like literally none of these are the clichés you find lame and tired. This stuff is everywhere, you're just not looking.

/ignore

 

[Drizzlehell]

Don't understand what you're asking for. Is it ground-breaking settings or non sci-fi/high fantasy settings. The best selling game every year, COD, is neither. Countless games are set in our world, like Uncharted 4 or history like Age of Empires or inside a literal novel like Alan Wake 2.

Then you have steam punk titles like The Order, horror titles like Outlast or The Evil Within, alternate past titles like Wolfenstein.

Like literally none of these are the clichés you find lame and tired. This stuff is everywhere, you're just not looking.

/ignore

Just read the OP. You're asking questions about the things that I already explained so why should I try to re-explain it on your whim if there are clear signs that you didn't even bother reading the very first post ITT? And if you still don't get it then go ahead and ignore the thread, fine by me.

 

[Trogdor1123]

What makes a game aaa again? Wouldn’t those sports games count? They are expensive to make.

 

[EruditeHobo]

Anything that isn't familiar is a risk when you're talking about the kinds of costs associated with "AAA" development.
So the very obvious answer is yes. It is risky to try something new or "original".
Now... it might pay off! It might pay off big time. But more likely, it will not pay off.

 

[Humdinger]

I mean, typically when you're dealing with either fantasy or sci-fi, it all usually revolves around the same concepts. To clarify, I may not necessarily think that the setting itself is generic, because there may be some unique visual flare to it that's unique to that specific game (i.e. the various "-punk" subgenres like steam, diesel, or even to be more topical - NASApunk in Starfield). But even with those unique touches, at the end of the day, we're still dealing with a story about people warping across the galaxy in their starships and fighting alien monsters on planet Zog.

What I would like to see more is something that breaks out of that mold somehow, and tries to tell a different kind of story about something that's not so easily definable. Idk, maybe it's more about the fact that typical fantasy and sci-fi tropes have been so overused at this point that they just feel ordinary instead of sparking the imagination. Death Stranding is a pretty decent example because it's such an unusual setting and it forces you to think outside of the box. Kinda like that movie Stalker, which features a seemingly sci-fi concept but the movie itself is so weird and philosophical that you kinda have to stop thinking about the Room as a scientific anomaly and more like an abstract, metaphorical concept that's beyond human comprehension.

Ok, I gotcha. Well, I'd make two points:

First, the setting itself may be very familiar (e.g., spaceflight + aliens), but the story itself doesn't have to be. Just because it's a SF game with those features doesn't mean it has to be about "fighting monsters on planet Zog." I'm watching The Expanse right now, for instance. That's a fascinating story, told within that same "outer space and aliens" framework. That is a huge framework. There are millions of potential stories to be told there, not all of them just reducible to boring cliches.

Second, videogame storytelling is really constrained by the medium. Unless you're Kojima and you want to include 14 hours of movie within a game (or whatever DS had), you have to pare down any story ambitions pretty severely -- compared to what a TV series like the Expanse can do, or even more what a series of novels can do. So I think that's why you often end up with simplistic stuff like you see in Starfield, Mass Effect Andromeda, or Outer Worlds. So, although I think it's theoretically possible to have a lot more creativity at the level of story/plot/character, we don't see a lot of it in the videogame sphere.

 

[delfrickintree]

What exactly did you have in mind? It seems you kind of just covered all bases when describing fictional worlds, past, future, and present but different.

This. What are you talking about, OP? This is such a vague thread. Do you want a game where you go on a DMT trip or something?

 

[IAmRei]

This is why i'm not too interested in AAA, i mostly playing japanese games these days.still had imagination checked, for me.

 

[poppabk]

Ok, I gotcha. Well, I'd make two points:

First, the setting itself may be very familiar (e.g., spaceflight + aliens), but the story itself doesn't have to be. Just because it's a SF game with those features doesn't mean it has to be about "fighting monsters on planet Zog." I'm watching The Expanse right now, for instance. That's a fascinating story, told within that same "outer space and aliens" framework. That is a huge framework. There are millions of potential stories to be told there, not all of them just reducible to boring cliches.

Second, videogame storytelling is really constrained by the medium. Unless you're Kojima and you want to include 14 hours of movie within a game (or whatever DS had), you have to pare down any story ambitions pretty severely -- compared to what a TV series like the Expanse can do, or even more what a series of novels can do. So I think that's why you often end up with simplistic stuff like you see in Starfield, Mass Effect Andromeda, or Outer Worlds. So, although I think it's theoretically possible to have a lot more creativity at the level of story/plot/character, we don't see a lot of it in the videogame sphere.

Exactly - videogames pretty much have to be action orientated so things are limited in the stories you can tell. You aren't going to be able to do something like a 'Children of Time' for example.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I really hate this terminology. "Triple-A" is basically a way to describe major studio's first-party games, nothing more, and this attempt at inventing some kind of a rating system for video game budgets is vague and reductive, and individual people often misuse it in very infuriating ways.

Nah; the way I've come to learn of it, AAA denotes games of very large budgets and production value/scale. GTA5 and RDR2 are easily AAA games, but don't come from any of the first-party teams at Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft.

I mean most games don't have the $200 million budgets of a Horizon Forbidden West or Starfield. Even among some AAA game, budgets of that size aren't common. A game like It Takes Two, I'd say, is like an upper-tier AA game. To me AA are games with budgets that can range between $10 million - $50 million, or basically the budgets upper-tier AAA games in 7th gen had. Games like It Takes Two, Plague Tale: Requiem, Kena etc. fit to the higher end of that, but I'm just speculating on that front.

What makes a game aaa again? Wouldn’t those sports games count? They are expensive to make.

Technically yes, the costs would. Though in the case of the sports games, I think a lot of their costs are due to the licensing fees involved. Otherwise those games are basically just roster updates, and their engines rarely change. There may be a few stat tweaks here and there or even a new mode every now and then, but aside licensing fees for the teams and likenesses, or the OSTs, the budgets for the sports games likely isn't very big.

OTOH, a game like HFW, or GTA5, or RDR2 or Cyberpunk etc. would be a lot bigger because even if they're using pre-existing engines, the nature of those games is inherently much more creative. So, lots of additional money has to be spend on script writers, voice actors, mo-cap actors & actresses, location trips (for image scanning and data collection), music production, sound effects, character artists, environment artists, 3D modelers for all the assets, etc.