Support NeoGAF

[MrS]

No lies detected

 

[HerpDerpstreit]

"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."

I worked in the games industry for a couple of years in 08 and 09, and can say that based on my limited experience, most of what they said is accurate. Very little downtime in between projects. I will disagree with their perspective on the film industry though. Most of the people that are in the film industry and the game industry have a passion for it and don't want to do anything other than make games, or tell stories. There are a few directors that will do what this person suggested and takes time off, Tarantino is one of those. There are others though that once a film has wrapped, they may take a week or two ff then they are on to the next thing.

The point is, the factory AAA experience this person referred to does happen more often than not unfortunately. However I would argue that if your only passion is to make games, tell stories, or contribute in some creative way to media, then you will eventually find the perfect studio, production house, or team that will allow you to do just that and at a pace that's comfortable.

If you need an example of a non-AAA studio constantly grinding, look no further than Hello Games, I'm sure they have taken some breaks, but they have been busting their asses to make No Man's Sky what it is today and is way beyond what the game was at launch in 2016. They are doing it because of their passion for the project, not because of the outrage and backlash they received at launch or due to some corporate investor making demands. Those were all contributing factors I'm sure, but if those were the sole reasons, the game would not have been continually updated the last 2 years as it has been.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

The bigger the budget, the safer, broader, market "researchey" a game has to become. AAA is in an awful place right now.

 

[synchronicity]

The more money becomes a factor, the more real creativity is suffocated, generally speaking.

That's not to say that there are no good AAA games, certainly. I enjoy plenty of them myself, but if I want real fire - to feel the heartbeat of another, I venture outside that space - especially nowadays.

 

[anthraticus]

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.

Fuck AAA 'entertainment' then. Can't remember last time I actually enjoyed a big Hollywood movie either.

And the new Mad Max SUCKED ppl !! One long boring chase scene the whole time with absolutely zero pacing.

 

[Dr Bass]

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.

Yeah that was a really strange comment. Thought the guy sounded like quite a whiner.

 

[GrayFoxPL]

Pretentious generalizing blanket statement.

Truth.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

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.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

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.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

You've been market researched.

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.

 

[anthraticus]

Look for passion projects that have been worked on for years and years by people making the kind of stuff THEY actually want to play....as opposed to all these bigger companies that are pretty much just in it for the $$.

 

[TheSHEEEP]

Disagreed, AAA games lately are the best games, indie games are all boring me, totally stuck in the past. Glad both exist, though.

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.

 

[tsumake]

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.

 

[tsumake]

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?

 

[mortal]

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.

 

[Klayzer]

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.

Some silly notion "for the love of the game". But clearer minds know, each indie developer is trying to be the next Minecraft.

 

[TheSHEEEP]

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...).

The distinction is in how they are developed and what the results of that are.
With which goals in mind, with which focuses set for the developers, what kind of development, WHY develop it to begin with.

AAA is generally developed for a specific target audience. The entire development is by-the-numbers, very risk-averse, what the customer wants (or what the devs think the customer wants) is the "primary directive".
There is (again, exceptions exist) no director or a team with a grand vision behind it, instead, the higher-ups make sure that the game stays within the parameters of what potential customers would expect.

Now, with indie development, the vision of the developer is everything (assuming the execution is done well, of course).
The target audience often doesn't even play a role, because the game is designed for the developers themselves, not for someone else. Obviously, this ends up resonating with fewer people, but those that it does appeal to, it appeals to much more than any game that "played it safe".

The results of these two very different approaches will always be very different games.
Having played so many games over 25+ years, I can easily tell by now which games (or which parts within a game) came from a person with a vision and with passion behind it, and which games (or parts within a game) were made because someone felt that they had to be made that way as it was expected of them.

Some silly notion "for the love of the game". But clearer minds know, each indie developer is trying to be the next Minecraft.

Nah, that's rubbish.
No indie developer does what they do because they are trying to be as successful as Minecraft. Devs aren't that daft.
Frankly, you'd have to be an utter fool to think you can do indie development and become rich doing it - when most can barely make a living from it.
Maybe Minecraft serves as an ideal in how well all parts of the game come together, that's certainly something to strive for.

Not that indies don't hope for success. Who doesn't hope they can do what they enjoy and make a living from it?
But hoping for success and building primarily for success are two very different things.

 

[Paracelsus]

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.

Gaming is the only business where people will defend it.

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.

He's talking about the obvious distinction between casual gamers and hardcore gamers.
To cater to the masses your product has to be watered down and "mainstreamed".
If you want a good action game, and there's "Game that sold 50m" and "Game that sold 5" you'd think you want the former but you're probably going to find the latter is better.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

You are basically saying you only care about graphics and not give too many fucks about gameplay.

Nope.

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.

I've been found out, it's them fancy graphics that do it for me...

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...

Man, you really can knock down those straw men you set up for yourself... well sort of since you also admit there's so many indie games more of them are crap than AAA games so...

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.

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?

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.

Yeah, you baffle yourself really easily.

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?

I bought a PS2 the same day as a Gamecube and about a year past my purchase of an XBOX because I was working and had the money to do so. Lots of AAA games aren't linear cinematic experiences, Ubisoft's entire slate of AAA games are not linear.

 

[tassletine]

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."

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.

 

[-Minsc-]

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.

Sounds reasonable.

I wouldn't even call it a three year break. Instead call it moving on to a new project. It may happen to have nothing to do with video games.

On the salaried note... From my own experience of how I function I definitely see how it makes me lazy.

 

[nush]

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.

 

[GHG]

huge amount of man hours go into making these things.

huge amount of man hours go into playing these things these things.

And me after a dozen hours or so through one of these games:

 

[Manstructiclops]

Feet sliding on floors lol.

I mean he's not wrong. Halo just got torn to shreds because someone memed an inconsequential enemy npc and because a dropship wasn't wibbly-wobbly enough in flight.

 

[Fbh]

Gaming is the only business where people will defend it.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Besides, didn't a lot of people get butthurt when Scorsese had similar things to say about the Marvel Movies?

 

[TheSHEEEP]

since you also admit there's so many indie games more of them are crap than AAA games so...

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.

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?

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... ???

 

[sleepingbear]

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... ???

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.

 

[TheSHEEEP]

Dude, you need to chill the fuck out. Pretty much every entertainment medium has an 'Indie' scene.

Trust me, I am now and was then as chill as ever.

It's called a discussion.
You bring arguments and explanations when you participate, not just one-liners and memes (except for shitposting, which is fine, too).
And you refer to what has been said.
Sorry that my 4.5 paragraph post has overwhelmed you. Can't promise that I won't do it again.

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.

Well, that's the topic of the conversation, isn't it?
Obviously lots of people don't see it like that and some have brought good arguments. What do you have?