• 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.

Is AAA gaming creatively bankrupt?

Naked Lunch

Member
I miss when devs took chances on things like Mirror's Edge, Binary Domain, Omega Boost, Jet Set Radio.
Those days are probably long gone.
Hell, DICE just said no more side projects.

I give Capcom credit though for still attempting new crazy stuff like the dinosaur Exoprimal game. Theyre one of the only AAA studios still taking some chances (in between their Resident Evil deluges).
 

JimmyRustler

Gold Member
Yes. Costs are too high because the budget is focused on big tentpole titles that are usually made by an army of people - and those then have to be a pretty save bet. So, OpenWorld with a lot of bloat usually.

Assuming publishers would start to distribute their budget to more smaller and shorter titles made by less people we‘d start to see more variety and more frequent releases right away.

But I honestly do not see that happening anytime soon. For two reasons:

1. OpenWorld bloat sells.
2. For some reason most people don’t think shorter games are worth the money.

I‘m sure we‘ll see more creative AAA games like Death Stranding in the future as well but those are going to become exceptionally rare. Except if maybe someone makes an engine that streamlines game production and allows for impressive games to be made by small teams.
 
Last edited:

Kagey K

Banned
No they aren't, look at how many indie games are basically the same pixel art stuff we played when we had no choice but now people act as if they are super creative and original, 80% of them are just the same thing.
Here's the thing though.

For all the indie garbage that comes out that's easy to ignore, there are some that just transcend all that and almost feel like they should be AAA because they are just that good.

It's easy to melt it down to pixel art, but AA, A and indies are much more than that.

There are probably a bunch of games that you think are AAA, but they really aren't. It didn't stop you from enjoying them though.

For example when Demons Souls came out it was A at best. Dark Souls might have stepped up to AA but just barely.

Those are garbage pixel games right?
 
Last edited:

Hunnybun

Member
To the original question, I don't think so.

People have been saying this sort of thing for a long time now. I think in most eras the median product has been unoriginal and highly derivative. Real innovation was always at the margins.

In the last year or so we've had Returnal, Deathloop, and Elden Ring. It was always rare to get AAA games more unusual or pioneering than any of those.
 

Wohc

Banned
Unfortunately yes since almost a decade now. Remakes, remasters, cinematics, open world Ubisoft formula, sequels that feel more like an addon rather than a new game. In other words: Play it safe>innovations.
 

Fredrik

Member
FightinCowboy saying Phantom Dust is his all time favorite caught my interest.

Anyhow, I agree and I understand why it’s happening. When dev cost go up and when new console generations mostly reset the userbase, then comes safe sequels, remasters and remakes of previous hits because doing something truly new for a small userbase is a huge economical risk.
 

winjer

Gold Member
No. AAA companies are always finding new creative ways to rip-off gamers. From cut content to make DLCs, micro-transactions, horse armor, NFTs, several in-game currency to mask spending, loot boxes, the list goes on and on.
 
Last edited:

Xeaker

Member
Anyways I kept on thinking about all the original games we got during the PS2-GC-XBOX era and how developers seemed to keep experimenting with all kinds of crazy ideas with varied range of success.

The golden era my friend. Those times are gone.
inb4 Indie games
 

Bo_Hazem

Banned
I would say the opposite: Gamers are "brainly" limited to certain games/modes/difficulties and whine like bitches about anything that could pull them off their safe zone. Devs need to adapt to that.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
People confuse popular for "safe". It's kind of like how people who like indie/alternative music complain about pop or arthouse film fans complain about big budget Hollywood films.

There are numerous AAA games that have failed and numerous AAA games that have innovated. Plenty of AA and indie games which do things by the numbers and have microtransactions too. I'm looking at you rocket league, Fallguys, Among Us etc.

People just like to shit on a lot of top quality AAA because it's popular and few and far between.
 

Holammer

Member
Yes, when you have a budget in the 100's of millions of dollars, you make product that's safe and appeals to the widest possible audience.
So all of you people that only consume AAA and refuse to play indies, go ahead and shove your entire head into the slop trough and lap it up.
 

Sygma

Member
Yeah it's been pretty shit and tested to hell and back since at least 5 years. Only had fun with some of sony's first party output. My main platform is pc and like the most fun I had on that was with pillars of eternity, disco elysium, remnant from the ashes and so on and so forth, can't remember the last pc "big" game which was something to behold
 
Last edited:

Wildebeest

Member
Hard to say. I often feel a big problem is from both sides. Devs take a "safe and bankable" game design which is overused and tiresome, then overload it with so much extra stuff that it just bogs you down.
 

Beechos

Member
Ask yourselves this question would you invest all your money on a risky new venture? Its easy for us gamers to cry about these things when its not our money being risked. One big aaa flop can prob ruin a company nowadays.
 

DGrayson

Mod Team and Bat Team
Staff Member
In a sense yes. Similar to blockbuster movie production, a publisher is only going to invest AAA money if they can hedge their bets to produce a profit. This means homogenized products that are tried and true. If you are looking for innovation, you typically are going to have to look at lower budget products. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule.


Yes I agree with this. AAA gaming doesn't seem to be pushing any boundaries. The money is invested to make the game but no risks are taken so monetization is baked into game design to be sure that publishers can make back their investment.
 

Belthazar

Member
Very expensive media in all forms of entertainment is. You'll hardly find innovative content on top 40 radio, blockbusters or AAA games. It happens, but it's very rare. And it makes sense, as those are all very expensive endeavors and companies aren't willing to take that much risk when sending so much money.

Quite honestly, if you're expecting innovative experiences on 100 million+ games the mistake is on your part. Search elsewhere.
 

01011001

Banned
Yeah the racing genre is reaching the ceiling I think, I guess ray-tracing and full damage model is the last few features that is missing, and flat tires, and Driveclub’s rain effects.

full damage models are blocked by the car manufacturers. they don't license their cars if you have realistic damage in the game.

scratches and slightly bent panels is the most they will allow
 

Fredrik

Member
full damage models are blocked by the car manufacturers. they don't license their cars if you have realistic damage in the game.

scratches and slightly bent panels is the most they will allow
Boring, racing devs need to sort that out somehow. Actors let devs scan their whole body in games with gore, displaying car damage shouldn’t be a problem.
Playing a sim racing game after Wreckfest is hilarious, there is no impact at all when you slam into something.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
Its not pretent. Its just people who cant appreciate things. I have had countless hours of fun playing games since then.

It must be a pretty miserable place to be where you can't enjoy something unless it does something new.

I don't need to a game to reinvent the wheel. I just need to have fun playing it.
The question we're discussing here isn't whether AAA games are fun. It's whether they are as creative as they could be. Spider-Man PS4 is a lot of fun, but it isn't exactly more creative than the awesome PS2 Spider-Man game from Treyarch all those years ago. PS4 Spider-Man is prettier and it's insanely fun, but the ground it was built on was broken two generations prior. Miles Morales is pretty much exactly the same game with a few safe tweaks.

Games like Ghost of Tsushima and Horizon Zero Dawn share a lot of bones with open world games that originated on the PS2. Those ideas started with games like GTA. Ghost of Tsushima especially tacks on some generic Assassins Creed style side quest filler. These games are plenty fun, they're absolutely beautiful, and they have a few new takes on some gameplay mechanics. Very enjoyable, but Hollywood levels of formulaic and not much risk taken or new ground broken.

Microsoft seems to be playing it so safe and same-y with Halo that people think it's a joke now. Ooh, a grappling hook mechanic on top of the same thing as always. Activision pumps out the same basic COD time after time. EA Sports updates rosters in the same game and charges full price every year. Ubisoft has all of their assassins backflip into the hay wagon from the high perch pretty much the same way they did over a decade ago.

Hey, some people thoroughly enjoy eating that same bowl of the same brand of cereal for breakfast every single day. They find it deeply satisfying. It's what they love and that's ok. If you love playing pretty much the same game over and over again that's ok, too.
 
Last edited:
So I was watching a video about this cool game I had no idea existed called Phantom Dust that was released in the original Xbox era. I was amazed at how original it was with it's collectible card game combat, destructible environment, flashy neo post apocalypse thematic and OST but was even more amazed when I found it was actually an xbox studios game. Here is the video, it's a pretty good watch:




Anyways I kept on thinking about all the original games we got during the PS2-GC-XBOX era and how developers seemed to keep experimenting with all kinds of crazy ideas with varied range of success.

I get game development is not the same as it was at that time and now it has become a monster which huge profits but also huge development costs. I believe this is probably the main reason why we don't get these kinds of bold ideas anymore, basically if your game fails you lose millions of dollars which makes developers and publishers very averse to risk. I also believe this is the reason it seems all we get are AAA coop shooters trying to emulate the L4D formula, F2P mobas and battle royale games, hero or military shooters and remakes of past beloved games. Seriously most of the biggest games announced for 2022-2023 seem to be shooters, sequels or derivatives of games we have had before like Callisto Protocol and remakes. Don't get me wrong I am hyped for RE4R, Callisto Protocol, Stalker 3, Starfield and SF6 but it just seems these are games I have played before with nothing truly new and innovative.

I know people will probably just say innovation is being kept alive by indie devs but man I just wish the modern AAA gaming industry would take some risks from time to time.

You nailed it.
 
Pretty much. There are always exceptions ofcourse, I'd say GoW and BotW were pretty exceptional and innovative.

But the industry has changed. It used to be fueled by creativity and artistry, the cream would almost always rise to the top. Now it is much more business oriented. Every decision top to bottom is based purely on how much money can be made and how much needs to be spent.

Most of the best selling games these days will have half thier budget spent on advertising. And that's before paying for gambling and psychology experts to help manipulate thier audiences.

Just like everything else in recent times it's all about the money. Money, money, money, money! Brand loyalty, customer loyalty, trying meet fan expectations? These are all things of the past and not exclusive to gaming.
 

Nico_D

Member
Many are. But the same can be said of other art forms too: reading, playing, watching a lot starts revealing the shallowness and repetiveness or any art form.

But of course more there is competition, the more difficult it is getting noticed. And you either do it the safe way, giving people what they are expecting, or the risky way.

I can understand why many choose the former.
 

Swift_Star

Banned
you can pretend we've not been playing the same shit over and over again since 2007, but it would be just that... pretending.

there are few and apart the real original ideas, and I'm not talking about writing, I'm about game mechanics.

people seem fine playing the same Post Apocalyptic Daddy Issues Walking Simulator with different amounts of gore every couple years.
Please make an extensive list of the bolded, because that’s not the vast majority of games I play, in fact it’s just one particular series that fits that bill.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
Depends on the publisher. Sony, Rockstar, Capcom, CD Project and Bethesda's AAA projects are still creative and almost always exceptional. Activision, Ubisoft, Microsoft, EA and most other western studios are indeed creatively bankrupt.

The problem is that the good publishers are taking far longer creating these AAA games and the longer they take the more risk averse they become. Rockstar has released a total of 1 game in the last 8 years. Now it was a game of the generation contender, but no game from them for the last 4 years is basically the same as 4 trash games of Ubisoft. Sony's AAA games have pushed graphics fidelity, storytelling and at times gameplay in ways most AAA games simply cant match, but once again, their studios are taking forever to release games, and 1 safe last gen game a year wont do. Yes, Im talking about HFW. A good game with above average storytelling and graphics, but it's combat is way too safe in 2022 when in 2017, it was unlike anything else out there. Ratchet feels safe too. Better than EA trash, but its not TLOU2, GoT, GOW and Spiderman we have come to expect from Sony.

CD Project screwed up their AAA game 5 years in the making even though they took a lot of creative risks. That said, id rather Bethesda and CD Project try and fail vs what we get from Microsoft more of the same stuff like Ratchet, GT7, Forza Horizon, Gears and Halo. To me, more of the same in 2021-2022 is indeed creatively bankrupt.
 
No, there will always be new ideas, but new ideas are risky and studios are much less likely to prob up a "maybe" than a sure thing. I find a lot of the more popular AAA releases are rehashing the same gameplay and ideas time and time again, constant formulaic releases. I still enjoy many of them but it's evident that the studios are putting a new skin on the same game. A good game is a good game regardless of budget but I find AAA leans a lot more on visuals than on fresh ideas. The indie scene has a LOT of partial games, unfinished games, not actually games, etc, but it also has some of the best games in terms of new gameplay ideas and honestly looking back over the last few years I've probably enjoyed my time with AA much more than AAA.
 

TintoConCasera

I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
AAA game devin' has become too expensive to take any risks with.

It's sad, but some AAA devs like Square taking on smaller AA projects like Live a Live or DQ III HD give me some hope.

No. But some forum posts are.
What a prick. How about creating some read worthy threads instead of complaining?
 

Abriael_GN

RSI Employee of the Year
What a prick. How about creating some read worthy threads instead of complaining?

If your idea of "read-worthy" is a banal ultrageneralization topped by the abuse of a silly, meaningless catchphrase like "creatively bankrupt," your bar is quite low. 😂
 
Last edited:
Most of them want to be movies and don't embrace what makes the medium of gamin unique. The art form is young tho. Even film went through a period where movies were just glorified plays before you had auters separate the medium. Most AAA game directors are failed film directors so until we get a generation of people who want to be just game designers. Hence why AA games tend to be more unique.
 

Swift_Star

Banned
Most of them want to be movies and don't embrace what makes the medium of gamin unique. The art form is young tho. Even film went through a period where movies were just glorified plays before you had auters separate the medium. Most AAA game directors are failed film directors so until we get a generation of people who want to be just game designers. Hence why AA games tend to be more unique.
Source?
 

Dr_Salt

Member
If your idea of "read-worthy" is a banal ultrageneralization topped by the abuse of a silly, meaningless catchphrase like "creatively bankrupt," your bar is quite low. 😂
Damn dude it is just a thread for fun. "Banal", "ultrageneralization", "abuse", why are you so triggered?
If I'm wrong then would you mind pointing out where all these innovative AAA games are because I surely want to play them.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
In a sense yes. Similar to blockbuster movie production, a publisher is only going to invest AAA money if they can hedge their bets to produce a profit. This means homogenized products that are tried and true. If you are looking for innovation, you typically are going to have to look at lower budget products. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule.
Yup.

And in modern day, it's Marvel and cartoon movies. You might get the occasional LOTR. Or those endless "big battle" epic movies that have a high budget (which I think started off based on Braveheart), but since the 90s animation movies are guaranteed bank and even the shittiest superhero movie the past 20 years probably still makes a minimum of $100M sales. Not saying it makes them all profitable, but there's at least a minimum amount of sales. It's not like one of these hero movies will bomb so bad making $15M sales. Even if someone made a shit movie based on Dazzler its probably make $200M.

No matter how derivative they are, people love superhero movies and Pixar/Disney kids animated movies.
 
Last edited:

TintoConCasera

I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
If your idea of "read-worthy" is a banal ultrageneralization topped by the abuse of a silly, meaningless catchphrase like "creatively bankrupt," your bar is quite low. 😂
Well if that's the case maybe you could help us by creating read-worthy threads instead of always complaining like a kid.

At least OP's thread is something original that came out of his own mind, and not something taken from twitter, youtube or some sales or business webpage.
 
Last edited:

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
I know people will probably just say innovation is being kept alive by indie devs
to all the people who say that AAA gaming isn't needed when indie exists... You're right, but at the same time you can't tell me a lot of indie games wouldn't do better from a larger budget. I know Cuphead certainly would.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
No, there will always be new ideas, but new ideas are risky and studios are much less likely to prob up a "maybe" than a sure thing. I find a lot of the more popular AAA releases are rehashing the same gameplay and ideas time and time again, constant formulaic releases. I still enjoy many of them but it's evident that the studios are putting a new skin on the same game. A good game is a good game regardless of budget but I find AAA leans a lot more on visuals than on fresh ideas. The indie scene has a LOT of partial games, unfinished games, not actually games, etc, but it also has some of the best games in terms of new gameplay ideas and honestly looking back over the last few years I've probably enjoyed my time with AA much more than AAA.
I think one of the major problems is just that. Reskinning.

There's certain genres and settings people love, and I dont think people want them taken away (ie. the 5000th game about swords and dragons, military shooters or FIFA), but where's the better AI? Where's the better physics? Where's the destruction like BF games have? Why doesn't any game allow someone to blast a charge or fireball and cause a cave-in?

Instead, they focus their attention on textures, hair strands and RT reflections.
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
No they aren't, look at how many indie games are basically the same pixel art stuff we played when we had no choice but now people act as if they are super creative and original, 80% of them are just the same thing.
this post especially cracks me up
"AAA gaming is creatively dead"
"no it isnt indies suck"
"ok but can you provide me an example of an actually innovative creative AAA game"
"no it isnt indies suck"
"are you ok"
"no it isnt indies suck"
"i think he's broken
"no it isnt indies suck"
 

The Alien

Banned
In a sense yes. Similar to blockbuster movie production, a publisher is only going to invest AAA money if they can hedge their bets to produce a profit. This means homogenized products that are tried and true. If you are looking for innovation, you typically are going to have to look at lower budget products. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule.
Exactly.

Innovation and uniqueness will be attributes for Ba and C tier games where they can take a risk. AAA will be large invested games that will be familiar and safe to generate streams of revenue coming in.
 
Top Bottom