• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Theres simply not enough talent in this industry. Everyone wants to be in Hollywood. Gaming culture and stereotypes have killed the desire to be a....

This is going to be the new thing on GAF for awhile isn't it? Lots of threads with the OP swigging cheap bottles of vodka out of his tore up dress jacket while he props up his "the end is nigh," sign and speaks about Behemoth and his cedar cock heralding in the apocalypse, right?
If you consider the age of this forum and the age range of members here, then quite a few people should be approaching a mid-life crisis or are already in one. Guess what a mid life crisis looks like for a gamer 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

G-Bus

Gold Member
I agree with the industry not seeing any big innovation since the ps360 days.

Maybe things have got too expensive to make so publishers aren't willing to take chances.

The medium is still young when compared to movies. With better dev tools and proprietary engines that can speed up and ease development we might go back to seeing bigger steps in innovation. More risk taking.
 

Kataploom

Member
Allow me to potentially translate for OP.

The Plucky Squire, to me, looks phenomenally creative from a visual presentation standpoint. Buuuut, the actual gameplay segments look like standard 2D /3D platformers + hack n slash gameplay. We've choked on these types of games for 30+ years.

Gaming purists view games from a gameplay perspective rather than from a visual presentation standpoint.

The "movie games" criticism can be used on The Plucky Squire as well considering it's the developers asking the player to look how creative they are, rather than them asking the player how creative he or she is.
I don't see how this is a problem... Then again, I don't see how some seem to "suffer" by the fact the industry is stagnated and shit like that...
 

THEAP99

Banned
So true honestly. Great thread.


An answer I have is the fact that video game development is so much harder for much much less reward compared to movies and shows.

Additionally, movies and tv shows will always be more respected and superior mediums.

Even people like Sony and Neil Druckmann see the writing on the wall.. using gamers and video games as a well to make it to the top of tv shows and movies
 

Amiga

Member
AAA will go for safety because of the big budget.

AA is where a lot of the pure creativity happens. And AA is not just 2D pixel games today. A lot of them would be considered AAA games years ago.
The Euro gaming scene supports these AA games more than the English speaking community in North America and the UK.
 

DemonGamerTTT

Neo Member
Yeah... You get all the answers you want just by reading a through some of the responses in this topic, they don't care... A lot of those folks just plays games to have a feeling that they "belong".. They don't give a single fuck about the industry.

The thing you need to understand is game is "cool" and mainstream more than ever.

So you have 3 types of players:

Kids - Loves free to play (they are broke), loves animeshit(tennagers and hormones + trying to hit up can get you canceled now days) and they have low standards because they never really experienced good games. Only do what is told(they are kids after all) so they blindly follow and play everything their favorite streamer/e-thot tells them to.

Boomers - Play casually, are dumb and eat bad practices like abusive dlc practices like their donuts. Made Sport Games the clown cassino fiesta it is today, usually are so dumb they even pay to skip parts of the game(they literally pay to not play)

Seasoned Gammers - Played some of the best games of the last 25 years and have high standards(sometimes to high), sometimes they wear nostalgia googles and just complain about everything (it's not your case tho)

Companies knows those demographic and makes games to them... Now guess which of those 3 demographics are the easiest to please and mine money from?

The talent exists, it's just there the games they are hired to make are not for you.
 
Last edited:

Alebrije

Gold Member
Why OP has all those complains? It's simple , videogames are now social acceptable it's not a niche since at least 15 years ago and grows every year. Just by examples You have tons of moms and grandmoms playing Candy Crush, You can talk about consoles or videogames openly and no one looks at You like if You were a creep. So they are mainstreams and when spmething become popular Quality and talent lives in the shadows of the tsunami of generic games that flows in the market.

There is still talent but You need look carefully...SOMA is an example.but it depends of each one taste.
 

ahtlas7

Member
Stressed Tonight Show GIF by The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon
 

kevm3

Member
Working in the game industry sucks. Likely tons of crunch and you get underpaid at that when those same developers can make a mint at some FAANG. What's the reward for working on a AAA game? Your name listed among 400 others in the credits that nobody bothers watching?

The real innovation is taking place in the indie space where a developer is willing to experiment and work hard on their passion projects. It was a lot easier to be 'experimental' back in the day since games were much cheaper to make and several gameplay mechanics weren't invented yet. Resident Evil 1 was mindblowing back then since it was the first survival horror. Make a survival horror today and it's just one amongst dozens.

Realistically, working on AAA games means you'll likely be a cog in the development of a largely safe and formulaic sequel. Companies are not going to take many risks when they have to spend $100 million.
 

Thirty7ven

Sony make cringe trainers.
Only a handful of studios are in a position to attract actual artists, and unfortunately Sony is on course to ruin half of them.
 

kevm3

Member
The reality is that innovation will only trickle down to the AAA space until after it gets proven at the indie level, in which case you will see a bunch of clones come out in that space.
 

WolfusFh

Member
Again why would demanding more from games be an issue? Who said that improving the graphics would take away innovation from the gameplay? These are all assumptions.
Games are products with finite budget. If gameplay innovation is ignored when compared to shiny graphics, that's all that the AAA industry will focus on.
Also, if you're allocating development time and hardware resources on making it look ultra realistic, it's obvious that less time and power will be available to push gameplay in other directions. You can't expect some crazy destructible scenario with never before seen movesets, physics and mechanics while also expecting the best visuals ever with 120+ fps.

Also, we are now in the PS5/Series X era so why wouldn’t seeing games that look like PS4/Xbox one games be a little concerning? That was never an issue when it was mentioned in previous console generations.
Ironically, this part of your comment is a perfect representation of the mindset I'm talking about. To you, the gameplay part of my comment was ignored. As it would be with the public reaction. It wouldn't matter if the developers decided to push the hardware in a different direction other than visual fidelity. It would be utterly ignored. I didn't even say to drop the visuals to PS2/3 levels. I simply said it would look like games for the PS4/one. And many games in this era are still very beautiful. But of course, not beautiful enough apparently.
I don’t think demanding more from games is an issue, I just think the industry is struggling to deliver innovation and that’s the issue because it should be evolving. For example, why does Halo infinite have less content than Halo 3, which is a 14 year old game?
How do you expect it to evolve in both directions if you're so willing to completely dismiss innovation in one direction (gameplay mechanics) if the other direction (visuals) aren't the best thing ever made?

Why would a company bother with gameplay innovations if most of the consumers will just buy games based on visuals alone? From a business perspective, there's no reason for this. Hence the complaint about the "graphics whore" that the other guy made.

The issue isn't that visuals are given value. They should be. But they are given most of the value, if not all of it. That's the complaint here. Like you said it yourself, if a game looks "last gen", even though the "new gen" just released very recently, it will be "concerning" (which last face it, many people won't put it that way. They'll say the game looks like mobile garbage), regardless of what is shown in the gameplay.
Wouldn’t the new tech make the game development process more cost effective and less time consuming? Why is everything going backwards or remaining the same with more capable consoles and technology?
It won't make it less time consuming if you also expect ultra hyper realistic graphics infinite times better than the last hardware. With each new "gen", people always talk about visual expectations that proportionally even surpass the quantitative hardware gain. So time and money will be spent on prioritizing that.
Just look at the comments on the thread regarding "new gen expectations", see how many of them are about visuals and don't even mention gameplay mechanics of any kind.
 

VN1X

Member
I'm playing Vampire Survivors, Turbo Golf Racing & CULTIC and am having the time of my life. Sorry. :(
 
Frankly I agree with the notion that all AAA games suck. Not in the sense that they're poorly made, but just that every other big title is a generic cashgrab with boring gameplay and a bland cinematic story targeted to please every possible demographic.
 
This is my favorite point "Everything is a fucking secret."

But I wonder if this secrecy formed as a result of how tough people became on anything that is shown, so devs want to make sure they get everything good before revealing anything.
 
This is my favorite point "Everything is a fucking secret."

But I wonder if this secrecy formed as a result of how tough people became on anything that is shown, so devs want to make sure they get everything good before revealing anything.
You'd think that they embrace early and honest feedback from their customers, especially with projects of that scope and financial risk. Correct course on a project mid-development to release it to the public in an acceptable state is always better than pushing a steaming pile of dogshit to the market only to watch it crash and burn.
 
Last edited:

Impotaku

Member
AAA caters for the bottom of the barrel super casuals that only care about pretty graphics & shallow gameplay. Same as summer blockbusters do at the movies.
 

KXVXII9X

Member
It's the AAA gaming paradox: People want more unique and risky games, but they'll thrown a tantrum if it comes at the cost of graphics.
Imagine the mental breakdowns around here if the next big Naughty Dog game focused on physics, ai and innovative gameplay at the cost of not looking much better than Uncharted 4.
Pushing visuals further and further makes games more expensive, and publishers only greenlight boring samey games that they consider to have wide appeal and represent a low risk.

It's the same in every industry, movies are no different. I don't really get the point of throwing around names like Jordan Peele or Alex Garland. They don't make super expensive blockbusters, most of their movies are made under $50 mill.
The stuff that gets the super expensive visual effects and budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars is usually the same formulaic bland shit: Marvel Stuff, Fast and Furious, Star Wars, etc
Games like Sifu, Ori, and upcoming Stray are extremely stunning because they all have solid art design which allows them to be more efficient. The file sizes are smaller, the games perform much better, and there is more consistency overall. Even Uncharted 4 is stylistic. Slapping on some realistic lighting and 4K textures doesn't make a game look good. You don't have to put every single detail into your assets. It is like a good painting with visible brushstrokes. It still gives the illusion of realism with less detail. Less is more sometimes. Developers CAN make games that both look good and have exciting new systems. A game mentioned above, "The Plucky Squire" is among them.
 

KXVXII9X

Member
I agree with you on 90%, but what u said about jp characters designs...Not really!


I get the reason you put that here to prove a point. With that said, most games on the Japanese side are series that are decades old. More and more Japanese games are looking alike due to adopting the anime aesthetic. Thank goodness we still get new designs from Nintendo like in Splatoon and Arms, but lately a lot of Japanese and Asian made games are very similar. I also agree with the typical western game looking similar as well.
 
All I want from AAA games are single player games with good gameplay, a story I care about and great production values. They don't need to reinvent the wheel with every game. If I get a few of those every year I'm satisfied, nothing like playing a well designed game that excels on multiple fronts and there are some things a good AAA can do that is out of reach for AA or indie games.

Multiplayer games pretty much already lost me, I was really into them in the past but it always ends in disappointment and there is something about modern multiplayer games that deeply displeases me. The only one I'm hopeful about at this point is Factions.
 
Last edited:

KXVXII9X

Member
Hear me out... Maybe what you want is readily available, you're just looking at the wrong places. You seem to want innovation and risk taking but only if that comes in 100+ million dollar games, but that's not gonna happen. Just like in movies or any other media, the risk takers will always have smaller budgets to work with because, guess what? It's a risk and big companies will not take those risks with those kinds of budgets. Just look elsewhere and you'll find plenty of what you're looking for, either in indie titles or in smaller scale titles from big companies.
They said they are already aware on indies and that their GOTY (as well as mine) is Sifu. I mostly agree with them. While indies are nice and offer something a bit different, they don't push new grounds for the industry with a few exceptions of course. Indie games are running into the same bankrupt creativity AAA has ran into. How many roguelikes/lites and Metroidvanias do we have now. Now the new trend is Souls-like. With that said, most of the new games I am interested in are still in the AA/Indie space, but it isn't unreasonable to understand why someone would want more than just indies.
 

KXVXII9X

Member
I enjoyed the rant.

Try vr. It's the only new thing going on. Pray for psvr2 tho. Otherwise vr is stuck with cell phone graphics and it back on your shit list.
I really hope PSVR2 takes off. I have a Quest 2 and it has brought some magic back into gaming for me, but I am also wanting a bit more. I think the tech is extremely impressive, but I feel that VR games need to at least look PS3 level to really start taking off. I also hope some form of leg tracking comes. It would broaden the range of gameplay possibilities.
 
I STILL don't understand why we don't have a half decent AI in games. Go ahead, keep focusing on the graphics. Ugh.
We don't even have decent AI in the Civilization series (where it should be the main focus), it's a hard problem to solve and really hard to turn it into a selling point compare to mind-blowing graphics.
 
Last edited:

MiguelItUp

Member
I agree with the industry not seeing any big innovation since the ps360 days.

Maybe things have got too expensive to make so publishers aren't willing to take chances.
AAA will go for safety because of the big budget.

Honestly, that's exactly what I've been thinking for awhile now.

I've personally felt that AAA games cost so much and take so long to develop that the majority are concerned about taking risks, trying something new, innovative, creative, etc. Because any wrong move can mean they risk failure, or even closure. So, they blend things that have been successful, or give a safe result. Which, unfortunately is enough for some players, whereas older players are the ones that call it out.

Much like it's been talked about already, AA and indies continue to take that torch of creativity and innovation. However, I'd argue that nowadays, we continue to see a ton of recycled ideas even in the realm of indie and AA. Like, survivor and resourcing games. I talked about it in another thread, but I thought that overflow was behind us, but no, we're definitely seeing more of those still. But in the end we DO see the most creativity and innovation there. Especially more so than AAA.

I definitely agree that even in the PS360 era we saw a lot more creativity and innovation from AAA devs. But it felt like it just got worse and worse. That period everyone wanted to do a MOBA game, then they tried to do BRs, and then resourcing/building/survival games. It all felt oversaturated IMO. Gaming fads have always existed, sure. But it just felt even more excessive IMO.
 

Crayon

Member
I really hope PSVR2 takes off. I have a Quest 2 and it has brought some magic back into gaming for me, but I am also wanting a bit more. I think the tech is extremely impressive, but I feel that VR games need to at least look PS3 level to really start taking off. I also hope some form of leg tracking comes. It would broaden the range of gameplay possibilities.

Oh now that you mentioned leg tracking...

You guys have got to check out this guy with the sexy kermit skin pole dancing in vr chat! YouTube that s***. It's the funniest thing I've seen in weeks.
 
You'd think that they embrace early and honest feedback from their customers, especially with projects of that scope and financial risk. Correct course on a project mid-development to release it to the public in an acceptable state is always better than pushing a steaming pile of dogshit to the market only to watch it crash and burn.
I definitely agree. I have been thinking about this for quite some time.
 
Honestly, that's exactly what I've been thinking for awhile now.

I've personally felt that AAA games cost so much and take so long to develop that the majority are concerned about taking risks, trying something new, innovative, creative, etc. Because any wrong move can mean they risk failure, or even closure. So, they blend things that have been successful, or give a safe result. Which, unfortunately is enough for some players, whereas older players are the ones that call it out.

Much like it's been talked about already, AA and indies continue to take that torch of creativity and innovation. However, I'd argue that nowadays, we continue to see a ton of recycled ideas even in the realm of indie and AA. Like, survivor and resourcing games. I talked about it in another thread, but I thought that overflow was behind us, but no, we're definitely seeing more of those still. But in the end we DO see the most creativity and innovation there. Especially more so than AAA.

I definitely agree that even in the PS360 era we saw a lot more creativity and innovation from AAA devs. But it felt like it just got worse and worse. That period everyone wanted to do a MOBA game, then they tried to do BRs, and then resourcing/building/survival games. It all felt oversaturated IMO. Gaming fads have always existed, sure. But it just felt even more excessive IMO.
Just look at all the hate a game like Death Stranding got for being a AAA game not focused on combat or how much hate TLoU2 got because they took some risks with the story. Both could've easily avoided that by just being like every other game.

From Software, despite the massive success of Elden Ring is still pressured to "fix" everything that makes their game unique.
 

MiguelItUp

Member
Just look at all the hate a game like Death Stranding got for being a AAA game not focused on combat or how much hate TLoU2 got because they took some risks with the story. Both could've easily avoided that by just being like every other game.

From Software, despite the massive success of Elden Ring is still pressured to "fix" everything that makes their game unique.
Yeah, it's unfortunate. To some degree I can't blame any of them for doing what they do. Though I'm personally not the biggest fan. Thankfully there's still some stuff that comes out that tickles my fancy, so I've just learned to be more patient.
 

KXVXII9X

Member
Oh now that you mentioned leg tracking...

You guys have got to check out this guy with the sexy kermit skin pole dancing in vr chat! YouTube that s***. It's the funniest thing I've seen in weeks.
I remember seeing that lol. Not gonna lie, kind of sold me on the whole VR thing lol
 
Games are products with finite budget. If gameplay innovation is ignored when compared to shiny graphics, that's all that the AAA industry will focus on.
Not true at all...

For example, Gears of war 1, Dead Space 1, Resident Evil 4 all had amazing graphics and innovative gameplay at the time when they released.

See the thing is your believing the BS "reasons" the industry created for not innovating. Games are making more money than ever before with things like microtransactions, DLC and the increase in digital store fronts purchases (less used game buying). Plus the gaming audience has gotten bigger so there are more customers now. So the lack of innovation isn't due to just budgets.
 
Last edited:

Fbh

Gold Member
Games like Sifu, Ori, and upcoming Stray are extremely stunning because they all have solid art design which allows them to be more efficient. The file sizes are smaller, the games perform much better, and there is more consistency overall. Even Uncharted 4 is stylistic. Slapping on some realistic lighting and 4K textures doesn't make a game look good. You don't have to put every single detail into your assets. It is like a good painting with visible brushstrokes. It still gives the illusion of realism with less detail. Less is more sometimes. Developers CAN make games that both look good and have exciting new systems. A game mentioned above, "The Plucky Squire" is among them.

I'm not saying you can't make nice looking game with innovative gameplay. I agree with you that art direction is much more important than raw graphics, and usually stylized games tend to age much better than realistic ones.

But the people who are always complaining about graphics don't want stuff like Sifu and Ori
The people who think this is underwhelming cross gen trash:


Don't want the next $60-70 Naughty Dog/Santa Monica/Ubisoft/The Coalition, etc game to look like this:




Look at the thread of that GOW reveal. Almost no ones seems bothered that the world and gameplay look very similar to the first one. Almost no one is worried cross gen might limit the setpieces and scope of the sequel.
It's all about "muh graphics"
 
Last edited:

Kataploom

Member
Working in the game industry sucks. Likely tons of crunch and you get underpaid at that when those same developers can make a mint at some FAANG. What's the reward for working on a AAA game? Your name listed among 400 others in the credits that nobody bothers watching?

The real innovation is taking place in the indie space where a developer is willing to experiment and work hard on their passion projects. It was a lot easier to be 'experimental' back in the day since games were much cheaper to make and several gameplay mechanics weren't invented yet. Resident Evil 1 was mindblowing back then since it was the first survival horror. Make a survival horror today and it's just one amongst dozens.

Realistically, working on AAA games means you'll likely be a cog in the development of a largely safe and formulaic sequel. Companies are not going to take many risks when they have to spend $100 million.
Curiously enough, I can't play Resident Evil 1 because of how archaic the save game feature is... It's just too much for me to loose my time on... Sure it was innovative but a hell of an inconvenience
 

KXVXII9X

Member
I'm not saying you can't make nice looking game with innovative gameplay. I agree with you that art direction is much more important than raw graphics, and usually stylized games tend to age much better than realistic ones.

But the people who are always complaining about graphics don't want stuff like Sifu and Ori
The people who think this is underwhelming cross gen trash:


Don't want the next $60-70 Naughty Dog/Santa Monica/Ubisoft/The Coalition, etc game to look like this:




Look at the thread of that GOW reveal. Almost no ones seems bothered that the world and gameplay look very similar to the first one. Almost no one is worried cross gen might limit the setpieces and scope of the sequel.
It's all about "muh graphics"
I think the gamers should be focusing on overall presentation rather than graphical fidelity. I also dislike how some gamers wrote off any game that isn't photorealistic and I hope it is more younger gamers. I remember scoffing at Zelda The Windwaker as a kid, among a lot of other gamers because it wasn't realistic, but the game is gorgeous and holds up extremely well.
 

Amiga

Member
..see a ton of recycled ideas even in the realm of indie and AA. Like, survivor and resourcing games..

It's RNG.
AA is also the space for what is similar to "b-movie" like games. Because the budget is smaller the output is higher. will get a higher percentage of mediocrity. but there is also a good chance of a good game amongst them.
 
I get the reason you put that here to prove a point. With that said, most games on the Japanese side are series that are decades old. More and more Japanese games are looking alike due to adopting the anime aesthetic. Thank goodness we still get new designs from Nintendo like in Splatoon and Arms, but lately a lot of Japanese and Asian made games are very similar. I also agree with the typical western game looking similar as well.
Well i like anime style too. We have lots of jp games that design isn't anime based, i can post a few...

But i get you, indeed we have a little more anime style designs!
 
Last edited:

Represent.

Member
I demand a clown reaction. OP deserve one
Please enlighten me, i'm sure the AAA space is in great shape. Tons of innovation, fresh ideas and quality from every studio. Game design and AI has improved significantly since the PS360 ear also. Who am I kidding. :messenger_relieved:








:messenger_poop:🤡
 
Top Bottom