The steady corruption of the AAA gaming industry

[Dav9834]

2 hours ago, Pickle Rick said:

 I'd better steer into the skid

Lmao! Well put! :thumbsup:

 

2 hours ago, Rick_Sanchez said:

I've been reading some of the walking dead comics recently and I'm at the part with Negan and stuff and his mannerisms of talking came out in part of that post. (I find Negan fucking hilarious) Sorry if I came off as throwing a tantrum which was no way my intention.

Ahh ya that happens, I talked like a mobster for like a week after binge watching the sopranos >< my family was confused lol

 

 

 

[Dreakon13]

27 minutes ago, jrdemr said:

 

Like @Pickle Rick said, I most certainly did not. I would much rather have a more concise, linear game if the alternative is to have mobile gaming's predatory systems in premium games. And back in the sixth generation, we already had games that were plenty large and diversified (see: Okami, Zelda, etc.) without the need for game developers to mortgage an entire country.

 

 

That's just it... everyone wanted bigger, shunning shorter games for not bringing enough "value"... without realizing that the bigger games are basically custom built for these predatory systems to effectively shrink it back down.  The bigger/longer the game, the more "replay-ability", the more incentive to try and monetize speeding it up... for some companies, in blunt, egregious ways.  It's not fair, you didn't ask for that, you wanted the good without the very obvious looming bad... can't blame you for that, but that's just the nature of the beast.  There will always be companies that care more about money than they do about you.

 

I'm glad you've come to appreciate the concise, linear games... I just wish it didn't take these predatory systems to get people there.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Dreakon13

[g-bake_1986]

This year has shown us that companies are willing to ignore the consumer and push their own agendas at any cost, hoping that none of us notice their greedy intentions. Then when we do, they just pass it off as an unintentional mistake and scramble for some positive PR by "fixing" the problem to make the game look in better shape.

 

The reality is that, despite passionate gamers fighting back this year, many of the biggest franchises are too big to fail on a commercial level and will still sell many millions. The common, casual gamer has little to no idea that there is even a problem with the infestation of microtransactions, and other dirty tactics, and will still buy games if they have the same logo on the box.

[Wavergray]

 

24 minutes ago, jrdemr said:

Tell me which of the following were present in gaming before the 7th generation came along:

 

1. DLC cut from the main game to be sold separately later (even cosmetics and additional weapons used to be given to you for completing an in-game achievement back then)
2. Season passes present in nearly every game like it's mandatory for them to be present (and frequently not even covering all of the DLC that end up coming later down the line)
3. Microtransactions
4. Loot boxes
5. Games so fundamentally broken at launch they were ultimately unplayable just because the developers chose to prioritize the launch date over the game's actual quality
6. The sheer amount of shovelware and asset flips you can see today, mainly on mobile and Steam

1. Not all DLC is cut from the main game, unless you are saying stuff all the GTA 5 DLC or the HORIZON ZERO DAWN DLC or name whatever game DLC is cut from the main game. Also before DLC we had expansion pack or on the worst side a "new edition" that add only 5% of new stuff to the game for full price. 
2. In most cases Season passes are to help people save $10-$15 on a years worth of DLC. While there are case where some stuff is not in the Season pass, it is nowhere near as frequent as you are implying. 
3. Have been around for a long time in MMOs/Moba/PC games and mobile games. Only near the end of the 7th gen and towards the start of the 8th gen did Microtransactions pop up in consoles.
4. See 3.
5. This has been happening since the 2nd generation. It's just part of how the game industry is sometimes.
6. Shovelware and asset flips has also been around since the 2nd generation. It's just that nowaday it's super easy to release these games. (mainly on mobile and Steam)

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

On 15/12/2017 at 5:16 PM, StrickenBiged said:

This is very relevant, if anyone fancies another long read.

 

http://www.hellblade.com/the-independent-aaa-proposition/

 

If you haven't played Hellblade yet, I highly recommend it. One of the most moving games I've played, definitely most moving this year. 

 

Just stumbled over the game on PSN. It starts out on kind of a Horizon Zero Dawn vibe with protagonist and environment but that's probably a coincidence.

 

... Kind of interested in Hellblade now, actually. But damnit if my backlog isn't way too big already...

[Wavergray]

47 minutes ago, jrdemr said:

Look, I know it wasn't perfect. No era is. They all come with their own sets of challenges.

 

1. Did we have buggy games? Sure, but it wasn't nowhere near as bad as what you see today.
2. Were the graphics worse? Sure... But since when do good graphics equal a good game? Hell, even the Playstation 2, the weakest of the 6th generation, could deliver amazing visuals without all that much horsepower. Just look at Ookami or any Final Fantasy or Kingdom Hearts game. Graphics ≠ visuals.
3. Did we have less storage on disc? Sure, but so did the X360 and its games still had a lot of content. Hell, a lot of multi-platform PS3 games were held back merely because the X360 still stuck with DVD. I would even say that, with the sheer amount of free, in-game unlockables we had back then, we had more content despite not having as much space.
    

I'm also not saying the current era is some kind of gaming hell or something. I have plenty of great, modern games myself. Hell, just this year, we had a A TON of great experiences. But in terms of the ethics and philosophies behind gaming corporations... it's not even a contest. Whether they used to be better by choice or by force is another thing and we'll never be entirely sure, but I'll take forced ethics over the current lawless landscape any day of the week.

1. In some case you they were and in most case they would never be fixed, unlike nowaday where there is a much higher chance of bugs being fixed after release.
2. For a huge part of the gaming audience Graphics are a key factor in whether or not a game is good are not.  It's funny that you bring up Final Fantasy, because one of square enix main goals as a company is to make the best and push the boundaries for better graphics.
3. What gen are you thinking of when you say this? 4th? 5th? 6th? you start talking about the 7th, but talk about it like it was the older gens. What games are you think of when you say "sheer amount of free, in-game unlockables we had back then"? Also this point is kind of ignoring how small and simple some of those games were which is the reason they had in-game unlockables.

[AJ_Radio]

14 hours ago, jrdemr said:

It's still pretty sad that the big publishers can (mostly) only think of this risk-averse approach instead of just... trying to make a good game. Say what you want about Hollywood, but at least there there's still a lot of passion in the business, even in the big studios, where they still try to make a good film and can even do some bold moves in terms of storytelling.

 

Hollywood has become incredibly cliche and overall just stale in what exactly gets passed for entertainment these days.

 

Growing up I was a big fan of Pixar. I enjoyed the shit out of Toy Story 1 and 2, liked Monsters Inc and a couple other movies that followed. But since 2006 - 2007 or so, it's been the same formula, over and over. I was already starting to think that Shrek 3 by Dreamworks was taking the franchise to live a little too long. I loved the first two Shreks, but by the third movie it was clear there needed to be new ideas.

 

Both studios are making movies that just follow the same theme over and over. They're doing exactly what happened to Disney back in the late 1990s and early - mid 2000s. Disney hit it big with Beauty & the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King. I consider those three animated movies some of my absolute favorites from my childhood. Once the late 90s hit Disney started bringing up live action shows with people who had no talent, and released a bunch of animated crap that was simply bad. Since then it's been the same themes, over and over. There's no innovation or creativity in these modern shows and movies, as long as they can rake up money at the box office and keep the television viewers occupied, with somewhat good ratings, that's all that matters.

 

I can say the same thing with a lot of modern live action comedy movies, and even drama and horror. Adam Sandler hasn't been good for a long time, and neither has he adapted to what modern audiences want. I would say Will Farrell is faring a little better but his new material is nowhere near as good as it was. Hollywood seems to be against taking any ideas or risks, they just want to crank out the same movies and shows over and over that had been done a thousand times in the past. Samuel L Jackson and George Clooney are some of the few people left in Hollywood I have a lot of respect for, not only because they're still making material that's good, but also because they are highly talented actors themselves.

 

If you ask me, movies that come from independent studios well away from Hollywood and from different countries I find a lot more engaging and interesting. Hollywood caters to the lowest common denominator, most of their material reflects that.

 

14 hours ago, Rick_Sanchez said:

As far as I'm concerned, AAA is short for Always Awfully Atrocity. When most of the money goes into marketing vs actually making the game and ensuring it works well right out the gate, the AAA industry failed in making a good, flawless game. Think about it, we have your EA, Activision, Ubisoft all making games that almost always release with bugs, glitches, and other issues and fix it later (optional sometimes). That would never have been acceptable, or possible, over a decade and a half ago.

 

The sooner the AAA game industry fuck offs and dies  the better. I have started to avoid games that are obviously to the AAA standards as stated above.

 

So far this generation has been very disappointing has far as AAA gaming is concerned. Past generations had a higher quality standard to their AAA games. It seemed that every two to three years there was a game that pushed the standards up higher. Grand Theft Auto III allowed you to steal cars and do all kinds of shenanigans, and it was great at the time. Today you can bet your top dollar there is a whole plethora of open world games that give you the option to do the exact same thing. 

 

You know then that when you got a game, that was basically it. Sure there were expansion packs if you were a PC gamer back in the day but you weren't required to buy them. You weren't required to download 10 - 15 patches for every AAA game you bought. That's one thing I miss about the N64 days was getting Super Mario 64 or Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and not having to worry about any expansions or patches. This wouldn't of been possible anyway since N64 games came in cartridges. Nobody had a fast enough internet connection in the 1990s to really download a whole bunch of patches anyway since that would of been counterproductive. 

 

10 hours ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

Not that it's much of an excuse, but...

a. expecting a "flawless" game is unreasonable, every piece of software ever made has bugs

b. games are infinitely more complicated today than they were 15 years ago... when you consider open world mechanisms, multiplayer, etc

 

The reason for this IMO is certainly cost cutting in the AAA space, but also more proficiency in the wrong areas when it comes to the folks actually doing the developing.  Too many creative types, idea people, getting wedged into tight deadlines... too many people leaning on pre-built or outdated engines to save time/money or just biting off more than they can chew... not enough people with the time/knowledge to fine tune an engine or build one from scratch to efficiently make what they want to make, while looking good and running well.

 

I have to admit you take the time to write your posts and I agree with most of your observations.

 

But...

 

Not every AAA game has to be like Jurassic Park. Not every AAA game has to be a Michael Bay inspired movie with a massive budget and tons of CGI animated effects thrown in. The problem with the industry is there's too much involved. There seems to be a fine line as to what constitutes as a AAA game these days. It can't be a AAA game if it doesn't have several hundred people working on it and certainly not a AAA game if there isn't millions of dollars spent on it.

 

I honestly don't think innovation is a thing anymore because taking risks or new ideas to the forefront is just too costly. Back when I was growing up, and even into the early 2000s people could sit down, take things over, brainstorm over ideas and spend a few months if not a year or two on a game. If it was a success then the developers could expand to a sequel, or branch out and make a new IP. There was a lot more leniency and creative flow, and that simply isn't there in AAA games anymore.

 

I look back on some of the greatest games to ever be made and I realize that a lot of those older games we remember so fondly were only developed by a small team. DOOM changed the gaming landscape and it brought first person shooters to the forefront. id Software was a small team operating out of a town in Texas in the early 1990s who poured in a lot of hard work to make their game. The credits screen is just one screen, I don't think I have to count over 10 to know how many people worked on DOOM.

 

Games like Assassins Creed Origins on the other hand have over a thousand people involved. Most of them had no part in making the game, but they have to be included because they're a part of the company who made the game. I will give credit to Ubisoft for not releasing an Assassins Creed game every year. But in all honesty, apart from the setting and the terrific graphics, there really isn't a whole lot new.

 

Gaming is a full scale business. In recent times it has dominated the entertainment industry, bringing in more sales and recognition than what the movie, television and music industry could ever hope to get. But it lost a lot of soul and passion along the way.

 

The various indie games I've played helped bring back what gaming used to be.

[Leaderboards]

Let the corruption spread.

 

Let the children weep.

 

Let the angels despair.

 

/pays for lootbox to get sexy Mercy skin

 

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Primeape

[Dreakon13]

2 hours ago, Spaz said:

You know then that when you got a game, that was basically it. Sure there were expansion packs if you were a PC gamer back in the day but you weren't required to buy them. You weren't required to download 10 - 15 patches for every AAA game you bought. That's one thing I miss about the N64 days was getting Super Mario 64 or Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and not having to worry about any expansions or patches. This wouldn't of been possible anyway since N64 games came in cartridges. Nobody had a fast enough internet connection in the 1990s to really download a whole bunch of patches anyway since that would of been counterproductive.

 

That's kinda the funny thing... maybe it's my history gaming both on console and PC since the 90's, but PC games not only had expansions and patches, but the patches were a PAIN to find online, download and sometimes to even install.  And in some cases, they were required just to get the game to run.  I remember every time I decided to pick up Final Fantasy VII for a new playthrough, it was probably a day or two of tinkering with 2-3 different patches with some of them having a few iterations to choose from for different hardware configurations I wasn't familiar with... and installing them in the right order (and uninstalling/reinstalling the entire game and starting over if I got it wrong or forgot), in some cases having to copy files into the installation folder manually or modding game files (or even system files or the registry) directly.  And that's assuming I had the patches saved down still... otherwise you add hunting down the patches online with that 90's dialup connection.

 

Could be for that reason, this stuff really doesn't bother me whatsoever.  Waiting 20 minutes for a day one patch to download automatically is nothing compared to what I used to do.

 

Same with DLC honestly.  Is Blood and Wine or Heart of Stone for The Witcher 3 so different than the Baldur's Gate expansions back in the day?  The various Half Life spinoffs?  Street Fighter II Hyper Arcade Turbo Edition?  Diablo II Lord of Destruction?  Countless MMO expansions.

 

For recent ones... how about The Episode Ignis/Prompto/Gladio in FFXV?  The Assignment and The Consequence in The Evil Within?  Every Borderlands game seems to get a few.  I think the season pass/DLC arguments are really weak... most games play nice when it comes to that stuff and it's been happening forever.  There typically aren't more than 2-3 notable "expansions" for any given game, if any, with actual significant content that you might "miss out on".  And generally speaking, the games are complete experiences without them.  If there are other minor DLC, it's typically paltry optional offerings with prices to match.  Microtransactions and lootboxes are where you start getting into sketchy territory, obviously.

 

As consoles become more like PC's, with hard drives and active internet connections, they seem to be getting some of these PC-ism's.  Sorry guys.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Dreakon13

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

So, where do we go from here?

 

With the rise of the indie games, has the problem been solved? Can we leave AAA gaming as it is?

 

Seeing the reactions in this thread, I expect more and more people will value indie games as a logical alternative, instead of the "if it's indie, I'm not playing" mentality of a few years ago.

 

It's weird how this went so gradually for me. Over the span of seven years, I went from buying an Arcade version of the X360 because I was sure I'd never need digital stuff, to playing indie alongside AAA (and being shouted at from both ends of the forum opinions), to playing mostly indie games this year, while most of the AAA games I played were exclusives from first or second party devs rather than third party devs.

 

I guess the third party AAA devs is where the problem we're talking about now lies... I don't see microtransactions in Super Mario Odyssey or Horizon Zero Dawn, and I don't expect them in the upcoming Spider-Man or Kirby games either.

 

I think we can be angry at the industry as much as we want, but certain big title games will keep turning a profit no matter how many microtransactions or other problems it has because there's too many people who don't care.

 

It's all in favour of the indie game, I guess. With digital stores getting the game to your audience has never been easier and thanks to the online society more people will hear about your game as well, you can make the game exactly how you want it and as long as it's a good game, there will be someone who's interested in it. There's still people who say €30 for Hellblade is too expensive, or that INSIDE is too short, but many people are starting to appreciate how the market works and what indie devs are doing. "Indie" just means "Independent", after all, and it seems like the actual talent is moving to either second party or to indie third party companies.

 

In conclusion, I think that as the publishers like EA drag on and create more and more badwill, more people will give up on them. EA itself won't go down because there's enough people who want a new FIFA game every year. Personally, I'm sad that Star Wars lies with EA, I'm glad that Ubisoft tries to innovate and reinvent, and I love the games I'm currently buying.

[AJ_Radio]

5 hours ago, Dreakon13 said:

Same with DLC honestly.  Is Blood and Wine or Heart of Stone for The Witcher 3 so different than the Baldur's Gate expansions back in the day?  The various Half Life spinoffs?  Street Fighter II Hyper Arcade Turbo Edition?  Diablo II Lord of Destruction?  Countless MMO expansions.

 

You're comparing games that get a lot of DLC (downloadable content aka expansions you get online) this generation to a game from the past that maybe had one or two expansions to it. Even with the expansions bugs and glitches were still prevalent in a lot of older 1990s era computer games.

 

Patches were hard to come by in the 1990s, but thankfully over the past 10 - 15 years a lot of unofficial patches have come for games that previously had no patches. Modding is a huge thing now, I've played various Wolfenstein 3D mods and DOOM mods on my PC and enjoy them because they actually bring something new to the table. Unlike a lot of AAA games that mostly copy what their predecessors had.

 

And those Capcom games were separate from each other. Sure you can call them re releases or just more polished up versions of the originals. Capcom released three separate Street Fighter II games, each adding more fighters and moves to the pile. I suppose that is something to complain about but that's basically what Capcom does. They release a lot of unneeded sequels, they did it to Street Fighter IV and now they're doing it to Street Fighter V.

 

51 minutes ago, Pickle Rick said:

So, where do we go from here?

 

With the rise of the indie games, has the problem been solved? Can we leave AAA gaming as it is?

 

Seeing the reactions in this thread, I expect more and more people will value indie games as a logical alternative, instead of the "if it's indie, I'm not playing" mentality of a few years ago.

 

It's weird how this went so gradually for me. Over the span of seven years, I went from buying an Arcade version of the X360 because I was sure I'd never need digital stuff, to playing indie alongside AAA (and being shouted at from both ends of the forum opinions), to playing mostly indie games this year, while most of the AAA games I played were exclusives from first or second party devs rather than third party devs.

 

I guess the third party AAA devs is where the problem we're talking about now lies... I don't see microtransactions in Super Mario Odyssey or Horizon Zero Dawn, and I don't expect them in the upcoming Spider-Man or Kirby games either.

 

I think we can be angry at the industry as much as we want, but certain big title games will keep turning a profit no matter how many microtransactions or other problems it has because there's too many people who don't care.

 

It's all in favour of the indie game, I guess. With digital stores getting the game to your audience has never been easier and thanks to the online society more people will hear about your game as well, you can make the game exactly how you want it and as long as it's a good game, there will be someone who's interested in it. There's still people who say €30 for Hellblade is too expensive, or that INSIDE is too short, but many people are starting to appreciate how the market works and what indie devs are doing. "Indie" just means "Independent", after all, and it seems like the actual talent is moving to either second party or to indie third party companies.

 

In conclusion, I think that as the publishers like EA drag on and create more and more badwill, more people will give up on them. EA itself won't go down because there's enough people who want a new FIFA game every year. Personally, I'm sad that Star Wars lies with EA, I'm glad that Ubisoft tries to innovate and reinvent, and I love the games I'm currently buying.

 

People are sheep. They will cling onto FIFA and Madden even with EA getting all the bad press. It's no different from fanboys clinging to Kesha, Lady Gaga or Justin Beiber, even if they were caught sexually assaulting someone

 

I do my research and pick what games I want. Having a bit of forethought and analysis to do on your own is something many people fail to take note of. And as you said, they don't care. Because they're sheep who just jump on the bandwagon because something is popular. They'll buy Star Wars Battlefront II because their friends got it. Doesn't matter if EA was voted Worst Company of America once again, they'll get the game anyway.

 

The industry, especially the industries out there in the mainstream know they can catch people, and therefore they rake in the profits.

 

We're a minority anyway. Most people don't even bother to read the forums, let alone do research on games and the companies that made them before they decide to go and buy them.

 

EA has people in a barrel, they can make the shittiest Madden game ever and people will still buy it. Because it's Madden. Because it's football (we consider FIFA soccer) and it's insanely popular.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Spaz

[Dreakon13]

5 hours ago, Spaz said:

 

You're comparing games that get a lot of DLC (downloadable content aka expansions you get online) this generation to a game from the past that maybe had one or two expansions to it. Even with the expansions bugs and glitches were still prevalent in a lot of older 1990s era computer games.

 

Patches were hard to come by in the 1990s, but thankfully over the past 10 - 15 years a lot of unofficial patches have come for games that previously had no patches. Modding is a huge thing now, I've played various Wolfenstein 3D mods and DOOM mods on my PC and enjoy them because they actually bring something new to the table. Unlike a lot of AAA games that mostly copy what their predecessors had.

 

And those Capcom games were separate from each other. Sure you can call them re releases or just more polished up versions of the originals. Capcom released three separate Street Fighter II games, each adding more fighters and moves to the pile. I suppose that is something to complain about but that's basically what Capcom does. They release a lot of unneeded sequels, they did it to Street Fighter IV and now they're doing it to Street Fighter V.

 

I'm saying that games back then had their expansion packs, games nowadays have their DLC.  It's really not very different.  Especially if you consider the price of the season pass rarely goes over $30, and expansion packs were typically that price or more.  One expansion pack at $30 versus three DLC packs in a season pass at $30... I'm not seeing the big, outrageous, insulting difference there.  Hence why I think it's a weak point for people to stand on.

 

Patches were not hard to come by in the 90's, at least not in the late 90's.  Honestly, I'm having a hard time thinking of big game that didn't have at least one or two official patches. See: Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Final Fantasy VII as mentioned, etc... and in some cases games that were still buggy messes even afterwards, hence the urge to make the unofficial patches once official support went away.  The Blizzard games (Diablo, Starcraft, etc) were some of the first with built-in updaters, along with any MMO's that started in the 90's, like Meridian 59, Ultima Online and Everquest.  Once the internet became a viable means of distribution, even on dialup, patches were almost immediately prevalent on PC... not unlike what happened with consoles once the PS3 generation came around since it was the first time consoles had HDD space to spare, and everyone and their grandmothers had internet on their consoles.

 

I agree, that's basically what Capcom did... and still does.

 

As such, maybe the 90's and the 2010's aren't so different afterall, for these topics (DLC and patches).  The only thing that's changed is console gamers are starting to feel the pain PC gamers have dealt with for decades now, as consoles become little more than cheaper, pre-built PC's with standardized hardware and the same internet access... but thankfully they live in an age with super high speed internet connections and the patches are readily available, and can download automatically whether you're at the console or not.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Dreakon13

[StrickenBiged]

16 hours ago, Pickle Rick said:

But damnit if my backlog isn't way too big alread

 

It's a relatively short game - 8 hours to plat with a collectible guide - if that convinces you to go for it.  

[MMDE]

Explore indies. Plenty of decent to good titles. They usually cost less and I've personally had much better experiences with those games. AAA games these days are just too polished and generic, and then they do all those greedy tactics that I'm not interested in supporting.

Edited December 19, 2017 by MMDE

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

7 minutes ago, StrickenBiged said:

 

It's a relatively short game - 8 hours to plat with a collectible guide - if that convinces you to go for it.  

 

As always, I'll do a first playthrough blind and I'll see afterwards if I want to go for the trophies.

 

Eight hours might not sound long but I still haven't gotten through Assassin's Creed Origins, I'm 30-40 hours away from finishing year two in Stardew Valley, I'm only ten hours into Skyrim and I've got dozens of hours of exploring left to go in Elite Dangerous. And that's just the few highest priority games that I have!

 

3 minutes ago, MMDE said:

Explore indies. Plenty of decent to good titles. They usually cost less and I've personally had much better experiences with those games. AAA games these days are just too polished and generic, and then they do all those greedy tactics that I'm not interested in supporting.

 

Seeing as our gaming preferences overlap from time to time, what games would you recommend?

[MMDE]

7 minutes ago, Pickle Rick said:

 

Seeing as our gaming preferences overlap from time to time, what games would you recommend?

 

Genres? (since you wanted to do it public)

[Zenpai]

11 hours ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

That's just it... everyone wanted bigger, shunning shorter games for not bringing enough "value"... without realizing that the bigger games are basically custom built for these predatory systems to effectively shrink it back down.  The bigger/longer the game, the more "replay-ability", the more incentive to try and monetize speeding it up... for some companies, in blunt, egregious ways.  It's not fair, you didn't ask for that, you wanted the good without the very obvious looming bad... can't blame you for that, but that's just the nature of the beast.  There will always be companies that care more about money than they do about you.

 

I'm glad you've come to appreciate the concise, linear games... I just wish it didn't take these predatory systems to get people there.

 

 

I know you mean well, but please don't try to talk on my behalf ? Again, I most certainly did not ask for the AAA company to become the corporate monster it did. I do not require games to be photo-realistic (I actually enjoy more stylistic visuals just as much, if not even more than ultra-realistic graphics) and I didn't "come to appreciate" the concise, more linear games only recently, I did so from the very beginning.

 

Hell, if for some reason we were stuck with the Playstation 2 forever, I'd be more than fine with it. The gameplay, the graphics, the longevity and the vastness of games were more than good enough and companies couldn't pull the bullshit they're pulling right now in the AAA market. Would we lose online multiplayer? Sure, but since I'm a single-player-only gamer anyway... I'd personally be more than fine with it.

 

 

11 hours ago, soultaker655 said:

 

1. Not all DLC is cut from the main game, unless you are saying stuff all the GTA 5 DLC or the HORIZON ZERO DAWN DLC or name whatever game DLC is cut from the main game. Also before DLC we had expansion pack or on the worst side a "new edition" that add only 5% of new stuff to the game for full price. 
2. In most cases Season passes are to help people save $10-$15 on a years worth of DLC. While there are case where some stuff is not in the Season pass, it is nowhere near as frequent as you are implying. 
3. Have been around for a long time in MMOs/Moba/PC games and mobile games. Only near the end of the 7th gen and towards the start of the 8th gen did Microtransactions pop up in consoles.
4. See 3.
5. This has been happening since the 2nd generation. It's just part of how the game industry is sometimes.
6. Shovelware and asset flips has also been around since the 2nd generation. It's just that nowaday it's super easy to release these games. (mainly on mobile and Steam)

 

 

1. I would say the vast majority of DLC is content cut from the main game, especially if it comes within 6 months of the game's release, or worse, if it's announced before the game even comes out. Only expansion-type DLC that comes out significantly after the game's release (like what happened with the Witcher 3) could possibly be considered genuinely new content.

 

 

2. Season Passes are there to incentivize people to buy the DLC, which again, in the vast majority of cases, is content cut from the main game.

 

Season Passes are nothing more than pre-ordering DLC, and if you're launching a game with a Season Pass, or worse, announcing it before the game's release or even alongside the game itself - then it's official: you've cut content from the game.

 

If your game has a Season Pass, that, in and of itself, is proof that the game was made with DLC in mind right from the start, which means that that content was withheld from the main game. I have yet to see a game that has both a Season Pass and DLC that is clearly content that wasn't cut from the base experience (i.e. expansion-type DLC).

 

3+4. We still didn't have them back in the 6th generation (and before), regardless of how recent they are.

 

5. It is true that there were a lot of broken and unplayable games back in the second generation... which is why it lead to the great video game crash of 1983. But between the 3rd and early 7th generation, the problem was nowhere near as widespread as it is right now in the AAA gaming space. And we most certainly did not have games that were shipped broken on purpose just because developers valued the launch date more than they valued the actual quality of the game. Look at Persona 5, for instance. It was delayed multiple times, but when it did launch, not only did it sell magnificently, it was buttery smooth with no bugs to speak of.

 

6. Still doesn't deny the fact that there are a lot more of them lately.

 

 

10 hours ago, soultaker655 said:

1. In some case you they were and in most case they would never be fixed, unlike nowaday where there is a much higher chance of bugs being fixed after release.
2. For a huge part of the gaming audience Graphics are a key factor in whether or not a game is good are not.  It's funny that you bring up Final Fantasy, because one of square enix main goals as a company is to make the best and push the boundaries for better graphics.
3. What gen are you thinking of when you say this? 4th? 5th? 6th? you start talking about the 7th, but talk about it like it was the older gens. What games are you think of when you say "sheer amount of free, in-game unlockables we had back then"? Also this point is kind of ignoring how small and simple some of those games were which is the reason they had in-game unlockables.

 

 

1. Again, we did have buggy games, and it is true games were un-patchable unless you were playing on PC, but they were nowhere near as broken back then, and shipping games broken on purpose was pretty much not even a thing precisely because people knew they were un-patchable. If your game was buggy... you were screwed. Permanently. Hence why people invested a lot more in QC back then.

 

Are games a lot bigger and more complicated these days? Sure. But then, all that means is that you've gotta invest in QC all that much more. There's no reason to ship a broken game on purpose. (Case in point: Skyrim. Game launched six years ago and the Switch version that came out this year still has the exact same bugs as the original version. Pretty sure that shouldn't be tolerated).

 

 

2. While it is true that graphics are one of the most appealing things for a lot of gamers (and I'm not going to say I don't like them myself), the fact remains that good graphics do not make a good game. Like I said in the original post, if games like Minecraft and Undertale can still sell like hotcakes in the current landscape, clearly that means that gameplay is still king when it comes to gaming (those games also have a very distinct art style, but that just goes back to what I said: graphics ≠ visuals.

 

And I used Square Enix's example because a company like that shows that you can still pull off amazing visuals even with limited hardware (which will consequently lower down your costs significantly).

 

3. Basically I was referring to the fact that modern consoles boast Blu-Ray while back in the 6th generation (the last one before the mass introduction of Internet capabilities to gaming) we only had DVD, which had significantly lower storage capabilities.

 

And I couldn't disagree more with your statement that games were a lot smaller and simpler back then. Even before the 6th generation we had tons of games that not only boasted great gameplay but also huge worlds to explore, even if they were (obviously) technically inferior. Games like Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64... the list is endless. Hell, even the Game Boy, a handheld that is nearing its 30th anniversary, had games like Pokémon, which was not only huge, it's still regarded as one of the industry's greatest classics. And it's far from being the only Game Boy game that really pushed the envelope.

 

Again, I'm not saying the current era is some kind of gaming Hell or something. I just think back then, gaming was still just as enjoyable as the best games of today without any of the crap they're trying to force upon us (or at least we didn't have nearly as much crap).

 

 

7 hours ago, Spaz said:

 

Hollywood has become incredibly cliche and overall just stale in what exactly gets passed for entertainment these days.

 

 

While I don't completely disagree, I still think Hollywood takes a lot more risks when compared to the AAA gaming industry.

 

Do we still have stinking piles of movie garbage like Transformers? Sure, just like we do in gaming. But I still see a lot of major studios taking bold decisions, even with their most beloved franchises, and credit where credit is due.

 

 

(I also just wanted to take the time to acknowledge the way you write your posts in a very clear, complete and interesting manner. I'm really liking the discussions we're having on the topic ?)

 

 

5 hours ago, Dreakon13 said:

I think the season pass/DLC arguments are really weak... most games play nice when it comes to that stuff and it's been happening forever.  There typically aren't more than 2-3 notable "expansions" for any given game, if any, with actual significant content that you might "miss out on".  And generally speaking, the games are complete experiences without them.  If there are other minor DLC, it's typically paltry optional offerings with prices to match.  Microtransactions and lootboxes are where you start getting into sketchy territory, obviously.

 

 

It's more the question that before the Internet became a given in consoles, we used to have everything, no matter how minor, inside the game from the start. Now, it's being sold to us piecemeal. We used to have to unlock those things through our efforts and now we have to unlock them through our money.

 

3 hours ago, Dreakon13 said:

I'm saying that games back then had their expansion packs, games nowadays have their DLC.  It's really not very different.  Especially if you consider the price of the season pass rarely goes over $30, and expansion packs were typically that price or more.  One expansion pack at $30 versus three DLC packs in a season pass at $30... I'm not seeing the big, outrageous, insulting difference there.  Hence why I think it's a weak point for people to stand on.

 

The big difference is that before it was rare for games to have expansions. Only the games with the most potential for them were given one. Otherwise they would just be given a sequel. But these days, true expansion-type DLC is extremely rare. In the vast majority of cases, it's just content carved up from the main game. And it's become so widespread that it seems like it's almost mandatory for games to have them these days.

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

45 minutes ago, MMDE said:

 

Genres? (since you wanted to do it public)

 

I play most genres, I only really ignore sports games and I often don't like J-games.

 

My main interests are platformers, puzzlers... But I'll try a lot, I never knew I'd like Stardew Valley as much as I did.

 

And yeah I figured if we keep recommending indie games public in this anti-AAA thread, more people might join in (or at least take note), like how @StrickenBiged recommended Hellblade or how I recommended Death Squared to someone That way, much more people can weigh in or come up with new ideas.

[Dreakon13]

I was operating based on what you said.

 

"we already had games that were plenty large and diversified (see: Okami, Zelda, etc.) without the need for game developers to mortgage an entire country"

 

You like/acknowledge the larger more diversified games...

 

"I would much rather have a more concise, linear game if the alternative is to have mobile gaming's predatory systems in premium games"

 

... and you're willing to accept more concise, linear games... only IF the alternative is that bad thing what you liked turned into.

 

Long and short, that "if" shouldn't be there.  Because that "if" is there, you're indicating that you're only on the "rah rah linear game" bandwagon because the alternative is turning into something you don't like.  If people appreciated those kinds of games initially, and not just when that better thing started to sour... maybe EA doesn't speak out against linear games, maybe they sell better, and maybe every AAA game wouldn't be some 100+ hour open world RPG-lites or endless multiplayer shooter custom fitted for "speed up" MT's and lootboxes.

 

I didn't speak for you, you said that.  You didn't ask for the industry to become a monster, but you contributed to it.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Dreakon13

[StrickenBiged]

20 minutes ago, Pickle Rick said:

puzzlers

 

The Witness, if you haven't played it. Don't think I've played any others. Do NOT spoil the solutions for yourself. This one is worth it. It's amazing. 

 

21 minutes ago, Pickle Rick said:

platformers

 

Have you done Guacamelee: STCE? 

 

It'd be helpful if your trophies weren't private so that we could see what you have or have not played. 

 

 

[Zenpai]

14 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

I was operating based on what you said.

 

"we already had games that were plenty large and diversified (see: Okami, Zelda, etc.) without the need for game developers to mortgage an entire country"

 

You like/acknowledge the larger more diversified games...

 

"I would much rather have a more concise, linear game if the alternative is to have mobile gaming's predatory systems in premium games"

 

... and you're willing to accept more concise, linear games... only IF the alternative is that bad thing what you liked turned into.

 

(...)

 

Long and short, that "if" shouldn't be there.  Because that "if" is there, you're indicating that you're only on the "rah rah linear game" bandwagon because the alternative is turning into something you don't like.  If people appreciated those kinds of games initially, and not just when that better thing started to sour... maybe EA doesn't speak out against linear games, maybe they sell better, and maybe every AAA game wouldn't be some 100+ hour open world RPG-lites or endless multiplayer shooter custom fitted for "speed up" MT's and lootboxes.

 

I didn't speak for you, you said that.  You didn't ask for the industry to become a monster, but you contributed to it.

 

 

Sorry, you're extrapolating way too far.

 

I was just giving examples of what people (not necessarily me) clamor for right now being done correctly long before the 7th Generation without the need to have multi-million dollar projects.

 

Do I like larger, more diversified games? Sure. If they're good. But I also always enjoyed more concise, linear games, long before the AAA industry turned into what it did now.

 

I basically think the industry was already good in the 6th generation before things went a little too far at the end of the 7th generation.

 

Again, please do not speak on my behalf.

[Dreakon13]

5 minutes ago, jrdemr said:

 

 

Sorry, you're extrapolating way too far.

 

I was just giving examples of what people (not necessarily me) clamor for right now being done correctly long before the 7th Generation without the need to have multi-million dollar projects.

 

Do I like larger, more diversified games? Sure. If they're good. But I also always enjoyed more concise, linear games, long before the AAA industry turned into what it did now.

 

I basically think the industry was already good in the 6th generation before things went a little too far at the end of the 7th generation.

 

Again, please do not speak on my behalf.

 

So you did misspeak then?  That's fine.  Your post implied it was concise, linear games IF the alternative was lecherous monetary systems (which it wasn't way back when, but currently is heading that way).  I'll try to avoid "speaking on your behalf"... but you saying literally the exact opposite of your actual stance on matters puts me in a difficult position.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Dreakon13

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

49 minutes ago, StrickenBiged said:

 

The Witness, if you haven't played it. Don't think I've played any others. Do NOT spoil the solutions for yourself. This one is worth it. It's amazing. 

 

Haven't played it yet. It was on a great sale a couple of weeks ago but I ignored it because my backlog is too big as it is. Since then I've decided to try out more PS+ games though, and quickly strike them through if they don't appeal, so my backlog is getting smaller now.

 

49 minutes ago, StrickenBiged said:

 

Have you done Guacamelee: STCE? 

 

Nope, I haven't. I've played up to the first trophy in a dive and I haven't gone back to it. I've started playing more MetroidVania games this year so this one may move up on the priority list.

 

49 minutes ago, StrickenBiged said:

 

It'd be helpful if your trophies weren't private so that we could see what you have or have not played. 

 

Yeah,I mostly did that to force myself to stop looking at my trophies; I've put them on friends only.

 

Still wouldn't be enough though as I also have a Switch and I have played many an indie game on there (Shovel Knight, Death Squared, Stardew Valley, Axiom Verge, Bulb Boy...)

 

I may put my trophies on public again if I'm going to ask more of these generic free-for-all questions.

[StrickenBiged]

@Pickle Rick Move The Witness up your priority list too. It's one of the most rewarding games I've played. The puzzles are a masterclass in design. 

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

3 minutes ago, StrickenBiged said:

@Pickle Rick Move The Witness up your priority list too. It's one of the most rewarding games I've played. The puzzles are a masterclass in design. 

 

Will do. Did you play The Talos Principle as well, can you recommend that one? Somehow I always put The Witness and The Talos Principle together.

 

If you're into puzzle games, have you tried Death Squared yourself? I thought that game was very good.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Pickle Rick