-
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.
I just uncovered why AAA games are declining: developers aren't as good as they used to be
- Thread starter GigaBowser
- Start date
- Opinion Poll Analysis
GigaBowser
The bear of bad news
Not anymore
After recently developments were evidenced in this thread it's a landslide victory for "in favor"
yurinka
Member
There are now more great AAA games than ever in gaming history. Not only that, there are more genres and game types and platforms than ever before. And way more players enjoying them.
So maybe the notable developers were their team members and they were only the PR star of their company, team or studio. Or they and their teams became really popular once they weren't developers anymore and instead were executives/managers/producers/etc.
In some of these cases they became popular with great teams who did continue making great games without them, but they didn't continue making great games without these teams.
So maybe the notable developers were their team members and they were only the PR star of their company, team or studio. Or they and their teams became really popular once they weren't developers anymore and instead were executives/managers/producers/etc.
Last edited:
thismeinteil
Member
Some companies have definitely made it more about checking boxes than finding true talent. The fact that EA gave Mass Effect to a team who's leader drinks out of a "white tears" mug and filled with people who hadn't coded in years, just because they checked a box, shows that. How else was the game going to turn out?
GeekyDad
Member
Got a feeling that (as silly as this whole topic is
) it's less to do about the size of the budget, so much as it is about the dispersion of the budget. The design can now be mimicked and sent off to staffing agencies overseas where labor is cheap and not glorified whist putting a lion's share of said budget into aggressive advertising.
Stooky
Banned
Lol 90s were full of double dragon clones , all the Disney games clones were copy’s although I love them, 1942 shooters ,brawlers all clones etc. gaming has always been that. The great games stand out.
Games teams were small back then 2-4 people. They were much shorter in length 3-4hrs. And dev time was under a year. The initial push for graphics and hardware etc was to ‘bring the arcade home‘ from there the push was to meet gamers expectations, that goes to content, length of the game, and graphics.
Last edited:
NecrosaroIII
Banned
Isn't the average career in the game industry like 5 years? That probably has something to do with it. I think the other problem is the industry is risk averse since development is so expensive. It's pretty telling that there hasn't been any major innovations in the industry since like Minecraft, other then new models of monetization.
theclaw135
Banned
AAA games got too long for their own good, a breaking point of collect-a-thon style padding.
I believe age discrimination is underreported. There's surely any number of ways to keep older folks creative and productive.
I believe age discrimination is underreported. There's surely any number of ways to keep older folks creative and productive.
Dude here is spitting truths. Clones and copycats have always been around. Companies chasing trends has always been a thing. Gaming in the 90s had a zillion platformers. Everyone was making them. Bubsy. Cool Spot. Aero the Acrobat. Jazz Jackrabbit. Glover. The list goes on.
How many companies were trying to ape Capcom’s Street Fighter 2? Christ, the clones got so bad that at one point, Data East released Fighter’s History which was very obviously “inspired” by Capcom’s game to the point that Capcom literally took them to court over it.
Folks always gloss over the era of gaming they reminisce about the most for some reason. It’s so very tired.
Hell, it was prevalent in the 80s too. Mattel’s Intellivison had their own lineup of games “inspired“ by the competition. No Pacman on the platform? No worries, we have the same exact gameplay but we’ll call it Lock’n’Chase, except instead of ghosts it’s cops, instead of Pacman it’s a robber, and instead of pellets you’re collecting coins. What, don’t have the rights to Space Invaders? No worries, we’ll call ours Space Armada and make the visuals just a little different.
buenoblue
Member
We used to be those idiots though
. I bought many shitty games in the 80s and 90s. I just know better now.onnextflix5
Member
There are lots of reasons, not just wokeness, but hiring someone because of thire gender and race and not for their talent is dumb, but companies have no choice I’m afraid , the woke gods are in charge now.
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Name 5 people who were hire because of their race and/or their gender.
greenpower22
Member
Making assumptions like this is stranger behavior.
God of War 3 Ultimate Edition 99 msrp
God of War Ascension Collector's Edition 89 msrp
God of War Ragnarok 199 msrp
Also it doen't incude a game disk (!) but I guess that also cost around 20 cents and is also a huge positive for the environment.
Not to mention the shift in selling digital games from their exclusive store where they have higher margin profits than selling retail disks. Why God of War Ragnarok costs 70 in retail stores and the same for a digital copy?
Why all games have DLC and season pass now? Why they have multiple season passes?They don't have to increase the price for them to increase their profits. Online multiplayer locked behind a paywall, etc. That's why when you see 60$ games you think that the price is the same. It's not. They used all the above I mentioned to increase their profits.
Last edited:
onnextflix5
Member
Last edited:
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
That’s more then 5 right
I dont understand.
Are you saying all these people were hired because of their gender?
Kataploom
Gold Member
I mean... What does the artists that made those artworks have to do with a game being good? Like you're complaining because they don't stop doing art and go help the game designers? Or that good art make the game worse? I don't know what one thing have to do with another...
I mean, the game could be absolutely terrible or a master piece, but the art would still look amazing because the artists (which only work is to make art) made a great job... Go find the level designers, the gameplay designers, the producers, etc. and blame them for you not enjoying the game lol
I'm all against this forced gender and stuff bs but blaming a game of being bad just because there women in the art department doesn't even make you look "misogynist", just plain dumb because you need to blame something no matter what lol
Last edited:
Valt7786
Member
You only have to look at a company like Blizzard to see how true this is.
Company made by a group of male nerds, making games mostly for male nerds = Quality products.
Company sacks talented male nerds, hires all the blue hairs and trans people it can find despite whatever level of talent they may hold = Dragonflight and Overwatch 2.
Company made by a group of male nerds, making games mostly for male nerds = Quality products.
Company sacks talented male nerds, hires all the blue hairs and trans people it can find despite whatever level of talent they may hold = Dragonflight and Overwatch 2.
JackSparr0w
Banned
Exactly women have never had the power or will to get anything done.
It's the men they manage to manipulate into their side that do all the damage.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
make sense coming form JackSparrow
Companies do this all the time now. My company has a succession plan. Part of that succession plan involves making sure they tick off enough boxes and the company hits a certain "score" when it comes to DEI stuff. If a minority female gets placed in a succession plan over a male counterpart and both are equally suited for a job it will go to the minority female 99 times out of 100 so that the department can get "extra points" for having the DEI hire.
I have friends who work for other companies in the same industry I am in who have shared internal memos with me that state hiring women and minorities is the priority. These memos also detail incentive structures that get more money, budget, and bonus cash into the hiring managers pocket if they hit certain quotas and make a certain number of minority or female hires.
I've seen the memos, I've sat in the meetings. This stuff is happening. I don't work in the game industry, in fact I work in an industry that is far less into DEI crap than games, but they've adopted it due to social pressure. Pretending hiring decisions aren't made based off race and gender is naive at best.
As for the topic at hand I think it has less to do with the OPs point (although that plays a partial role). The games industry has matured and this is seen mostly in the AAA space. Games are released to make money and that is more prevalent now than ever. The best way to make money is to have a game that sells well, which by default means less risk because you want to mimic what normally sells well. It's hard to innovate when your goal is to produce a product that makes its way to as many consoles as possible.
MacReady13
Member
You sure about that? I enjoyed gaming FAR more in the 360/PS3 era and before days. Far FAR more...
cinnamonandgravy
Member
dev teams were smaller, systems were simpler, and less money was at stake.
so it was easier to experiment and collaborate.
hardware limitations forced creative solutions, and this creativity inspired other aspects of the development.
plus there was less to create overall, so what did get created got a lot of attention and character.
i mean, sonic 1, which is one game, has better original music than all of the last 5 years put together.
there were also fewer games to choose from back then, so the player would give each game more attention too.
(somewhat often, i find myself rushing through a game so i can get to the next one)
so it was easier to experiment and collaborate.
hardware limitations forced creative solutions, and this creativity inspired other aspects of the development.
plus there was less to create overall, so what did get created got a lot of attention and character.
i mean, sonic 1, which is one game, has better original music than all of the last 5 years put together.
there were also fewer games to choose from back then, so the player would give each game more attention too.
(somewhat often, i find myself rushing through a game so i can get to the next one)
yurinka
Member
Yes, I'm sure of that. The amount of revenue and players in the industry has been growing since it started over 40 years ago.
And in recent years around a dozen or two of the top companies have like over 80% of the these revenues and players.
I'm (and was) talking about the whole industry and amount of players, stuff that can be measured. Not if players -or yourself- liked these games then more than now.
Nostalgia also tricks the memory, there were great games but also a ton of crap there. The amount of games with great sales or great metacritic also kept increasing over time, mostly because the total amount of games and people in games highly increased over time. This means now there is way more crap than generations ago, but also more great games.
Oddvintagechap
Banned
You can’t get laid, or did a lady break your heart?
MarkMe2525
Banned
Lower profit per unit, but they are selling millions more. As video games become commiditized, they naturally will conform to this model. Price stagnation can also be a result of strong competition which is something that every consumer should champion.
Edit: I quoted wrong person
Last edited:
kuncol02
Banned
And Roberta Williams (with her husband) created graphical adventure games when Carmack was 10 years old. I don't see your point.
Kagoshima_Luke
Gold Member
Back in the day, gaming wasn't mainstream. Yes, nerds made games for nerds. Teams were smaller, so you really felt the dev's vision and influence in the game. Now, teams are so large and the content is churred out on a conveyor belt and approved by suits.
It has happened to movies, too. AAA studio movies are just the same recycled garbage that hit all the points to bring in as much money as possible. The original Star Wars was the product of someone's vision. It wasn't even clear if the movie was going to make any money, but it was made anyway.
It has happened to movies, too. AAA studio movies are just the same recycled garbage that hit all the points to bring in as much money as possible. The original Star Wars was the product of someone's vision. It wasn't even clear if the movie was going to make any money, but it was made anyway.
BigbyTheSheriff
Member
Good thing there's like a million indie and AA games. Unless all you care are big blockbusters.
OldBoyGamer
Banned
Nonsense.
Game dev has changed dramatically in the past 10/15 years.
Just the addition of online and MP addd such a huge impact to any game.
Just look at some of the big names of yesterday and see how many of them are still making games that had the same impact as their original games did.
And I’m not slagging these people off btw. They are just used as examples. But they were all great developers:
Warren Spector
Hideo Kojima
David Braben
Peter molyneux
Ron Gilbert/Tim Schafer
Chris roberts
Cliff bleszinski
Ken Levine
All of the above were game devs that had huge impact on the industry in their day but have not replicated that in modern times.
Fact is that game dev has become a very difficult thing to get right for a million different reasons. So when one team comes along and gets it right, it’s an amazing achievement.
Look at devs like rocksteady, rockstar, guerrilla, naughty dog, the Nintendo devs that are making Zelda and Mario, Fromsoft. When devs get it right today they’re making some of the best games ever made.
Game dev has changed dramatically in the past 10/15 years.
Just the addition of online and MP addd such a huge impact to any game.
Just look at some of the big names of yesterday and see how many of them are still making games that had the same impact as their original games did.
And I’m not slagging these people off btw. They are just used as examples. But they were all great developers:
Warren Spector
Hideo Kojima
David Braben
Peter molyneux
Ron Gilbert/Tim Schafer
Chris roberts
Cliff bleszinski
Ken Levine
All of the above were game devs that had huge impact on the industry in their day but have not replicated that in modern times.
Fact is that game dev has become a very difficult thing to get right for a million different reasons. So when one team comes along and gets it right, it’s an amazing achievement.
Look at devs like rocksteady, rockstar, guerrilla, naughty dog, the Nintendo devs that are making Zelda and Mario, Fromsoft. When devs get it right today they’re making some of the best games ever made.
tommib
Banned
PonyStation4
Member
I don't see any problems with the things you posted. $60 Games from 1990 with much lower budgets sold for the equivalent of ~$120 today. A $60 game from 1980 would be equivalent to ~$205 today.
The only way for the AAA model to keep up now is with microtransactions, but even with that the level of profit is still far lower per buyer than in the past. Now they rely solely on their games selling more than before and having sustained profits years after release.
If you don't like this, then support buying indie games or games with low budgets (Pokemon) and perhaps one day the idea of making big budget games comes to an end.
Last edited:
GametimeUK
Member
It's too hard to judge. The developers of yesterday laid the groundwork and innovated. The developers of today have many more tools at their disposal and have refined the craft. Could these people have switched places in time and succeeded in each others timelines? Who the hell knows?
A game like Tomb Raider for example from the PS1 era was just mindblowing at the time and you can give the team full credit for creating such an incredible game.
However, let's say Tomb Raider didn't release on the PS1 and instead it just released on PS5 this year (exactly how it is on PS1). We would be horrified at the controls and terrible graphics. It would be bunched in with those shovelware games that plague the PS Store.
Yesterday's developers had the struggle of innovating and paving the way. They also had the benefit of exploring uncharted territory such as jumping from 2D to 3D. Having GTA3's city as a sandbox was new and exciting.
Today's developers have the benefit of more sophisticated technology at their disposal and years of groundwork laid for them. They also have the challenge of keeping things fresh. GTA5's city is so rich and detailed, but it just doesn't have the same impact as seeing GTA3 for the first time.
So yeah, developers back then had that wow factor of doing things for the first time a lot back then. We no longer have such luxury, but Astrobot on PSVR is a game that for me shows modern developers still can wow us when showing us new gameplay options for the first time.
A game like Tomb Raider for example from the PS1 era was just mindblowing at the time and you can give the team full credit for creating such an incredible game.
However, let's say Tomb Raider didn't release on the PS1 and instead it just released on PS5 this year (exactly how it is on PS1). We would be horrified at the controls and terrible graphics. It would be bunched in with those shovelware games that plague the PS Store.
Yesterday's developers had the struggle of innovating and paving the way. They also had the benefit of exploring uncharted territory such as jumping from 2D to 3D. Having GTA3's city as a sandbox was new and exciting.
Today's developers have the benefit of more sophisticated technology at their disposal and years of groundwork laid for them. They also have the challenge of keeping things fresh. GTA5's city is so rich and detailed, but it just doesn't have the same impact as seeing GTA3 for the first time.
So yeah, developers back then had that wow factor of doing things for the first time a lot back then. We no longer have such luxury, but Astrobot on PSVR is a game that for me shows modern developers still can wow us when showing us new gameplay options for the first time.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
And they didn't have constant streams of mtx revenue either. You got giant studios like Rockstar that can hum along for 10 years making only a couple games. Game companies back then werent that profitable. Maybe Nintendo was. Maybe EA too(?). But most hustled making all kinds of new games for survival. Now, all the well known game companies are at record (or near record) profits the past few years. So it shows despite giant dev teams and game budgets, they are making it all back and way more. And that's with fewer games made. They just never tell gamers that in Twitter PR. You got to skim their quarterly earnings reports.
They don't even have time enough to do iterative sequels at yearly/bi yearly pace anymore, then things can start to go bad pretty quick, COD Black Ops Cold War and Vanguard didn't repeat the same success as Modern Warfare 2019, and its also a negative compared to what Black Ops 1 and World at War did.
greenpower22
Member
You are obviously either a troll or a shareholder.
If you bought a AAA game in 2012 like Soulcalibur 5 you would pay 60 to get the full experience. In 2022 you buy Soulcalibour 6 and you have to pay 20% more if you consider inflation. So you have to pay 72 to get the full experience of this AAA title right? Let's see the real cost then. 60 for the game, at least 10 for only one month of psplus for online play, 30 for season pass 1, 33 for season pass 2. So to get the full AAA experience of Soulcalibur you have to pay at least 133. Add the fact of lower costs for them and bigger profit margins (removal of manuals/extras and shift to digital sales).
Bernardougf
Member
When you start to hire by gender/color/sexual orientation "quotas" and not only and ONLY by merit... its what happens... all entertainment industry is going down the drain in the woke bubble...
PonyStation4
Member
Soul Calibur has never been an AAA game, so your argument is flawed to begin with. If we're talking about low to med budget Japanese games, then there are a lot of them with expensive total DLC like Monster Hunter Rise.
The topic is about AAA games and why they're not as innovative and fun as they used to be. Nothing you have posted so far argues against my point which is in the 2nd post of this thread.
Also, attacking me by calling me a troll in order to win an argument is pathetic
Last edited:
Trogdor1123
Member
Most games seem fine to me…
njean777
Member
Eh, I think it is more to do with developers having to check boxes (open world being the most annoying to me), and the focus testing to hell and back again. I couldn't care less about the woke stuff as I really don't think that is the problem (even though some would have you think its the end of the world). Not every AAA game needs to be open world, padding quests/activities, tacked on MP when not needed, GRAPHICS POWERHOUSE, etc. That is not including the small windows some devs are allotted to create a game and are rushed to the point where they are working 60-70 hour weeks or some BS.
I think better expectations, and time management would go a long way to creating better games. Games take time and many people to create.
I think better expectations, and time management would go a long way to creating better games. Games take time and many people to create.
Woke and other things that are driven by people that act like they are mentally ill is affecting all forms of art indeed. So why gaming would be different?
When companies hire people to fill some imaginary amount of minority x, instead of pure talent.
When companies limit artistic freedom, because they want either to kiss asses of these loud groups, or they fear those loud groups.
When people have stress and fear that they will be canceled because they said one joke 10 years ago.
And everything else like that, it have big potential to affect things.
in the 90's we had all kind of games and almost nobody complained, because "crazy attention seeking people" werent noticed gaming back then, now they are like parasites that feed on the attention.
Redneck rampage. Imagine doing something like that now, but replace rednecks with gay, black, trans or even just have rednecks. And it would be twitter wars.
We have countless of games that are basically "murder white people simulators".
What if some game would have mission to do massacre on some gay bar or trans-pride-thing? That would be actually what some people want, "equal representation", yet I bet that if this would happen, there would be riots by these people, at least on twitter.
Making art looks like a maze of imaginary rules that artists have to try to run around, while fear of investors being wussies that fire people from the smallest thing that some twitter warrior think is cancel worth.
Second part is of course high dev costs, if it takes 5 years and hundreds of millions, it is harder to take risks, so maybe companies stick in the safe path.
Personally I dont care whom or what devs want to have sex with, or what they look, IF they can keep their personal political agenda out of the art and wont try to force others into that AND they have the skills.
When companies hire people to fill some imaginary amount of minority x, instead of pure talent.
When companies limit artistic freedom, because they want either to kiss asses of these loud groups, or they fear those loud groups.
When people have stress and fear that they will be canceled because they said one joke 10 years ago.
And everything else like that, it have big potential to affect things.
in the 90's we had all kind of games and almost nobody complained, because "crazy attention seeking people" werent noticed gaming back then, now they are like parasites that feed on the attention.
Redneck rampage. Imagine doing something like that now, but replace rednecks with gay, black, trans or even just have rednecks. And it would be twitter wars.
We have countless of games that are basically "murder white people simulators".
What if some game would have mission to do massacre on some gay bar or trans-pride-thing? That would be actually what some people want, "equal representation", yet I bet that if this would happen, there would be riots by these people, at least on twitter.
Making art looks like a maze of imaginary rules that artists have to try to run around, while fear of investors being wussies that fire people from the smallest thing that some twitter warrior think is cancel worth.
Second part is of course high dev costs, if it takes 5 years and hundreds of millions, it is harder to take risks, so maybe companies stick in the safe path.
Personally I dont care whom or what devs want to have sex with, or what they look, IF they can keep their personal political agenda out of the art and wont try to force others into that AND they have the skills.
BlueAlpaca
Member
Two possible reasons other than woke culture (which is definiltey poisonous by itself):
1) It could be that there has been a creative decline everywhere, and a decline in intelligence too. Something else might be going on, pollution (micropolastics/pesticides/etc...) or inteligent people having less children or who knows what.
2) The gaming medium is reaching its limits. No room for much else other than recyle the same basic ideas.
1) It could be that there has been a creative decline everywhere, and a decline in intelligence too. Something else might be going on, pollution (micropolastics/pesticides/etc...) or inteligent people having less children or who knows what.
2) The gaming medium is reaching its limits. No room for much else other than recyle the same basic ideas.
greenpower22
Member
Soulcalibur IS a AAA fighting game. Nice try to dodge the argument with lies. Also your 2nd post is false as I proved in my replies with many examples yet you falied to rebuke any on them. Games are already 70 and digital games are the same as that. You dodged the question why like many of others. But yea poor multibillion companies....
I am not insulting you. I am stating the truth. And the truth is that you are talking without arguments, with irony/passive agressive attitude/low key irony failing to answer anything. You are arguing in bad faith and I am done replying to you. Have a nice day.
Rayven_king
Member
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
He's making a point showing the political pandering that game companies do. He's not saying "look at these women and how they all suck" which is how you are trying to frame it. It's not a stretch to think that pandering to gender instead of who's best for the job will have a negative impact on quality of games.
For you to not get that shows just how brainwashed people like you are. It proves his point- that social justice has become more important than great games. You do realize, that kinda "look at how diverse our company is" stuff is all political, right? You think these corporations really care about any particular group of people? It's all about public image and $$.