Modern AAA gaming

[Flippy Warbear]

You should spend your time elsewhere doing something more productive than loitering in public forums, engaging in pointless conversations, Natty.

[Natty]

I don't consider it pointless to discuss the future of triple A titles , also, this is off topic so Cannonfodder was alright in creating such thread.

[luftwaffe.be]

- there's no need to have 100% perfect working games on release day anymore

nothing pisses me off more then a game I buy and does not work. Been able to patch up is no excuse whatsoever. I bought ETW (hardly an "old" game is it ?) and had to wait 6 months before they finally published a patch that solved the issue. And I wasn't a sole case on this : many others had it as well.

It ruins the experience and the franchise. I'll never buy a TW game again, that's for sure

Don't forget that the most important thing about a game is to be able to fucking play it. So releasing a game that works 90% might be good from a chash-in point of view, it also might reduce the income of future sales if you're going to do that to often.
BF3 has also given me more problems that then I would like. I'm not talking about bugs or glitches here (those are in any software), but I'm talking about complete software mallfunction. And the main problem about it is that I can't login ! sometimes the server craps out and I have to wait half an hour to log in. And when I finaly get to log in, install 5gb of patches, and finally want to join a server, turns out that I can't join because I miss an update of the plug in.

So I click on download plug ... and nothing happens. doesn't download. tried different browsers ... nothing. tried fresh install of browser ... nothing. It's this kind of bullshit that pisses me off. The problem resolved itself after a week (It was EA's fault apparently, some cock up with the plug in) but do you think that after a week I still want to play ? No, I say I've had it with this bullcrap, and I will never buy a game again that supports this user interaction (ie battlelog)

So don't go too light over this Natty, because I guarantee you that you'll lose customers on the long run ( well for PC ofcourse, since consoles are always treated better then the PC gamers)

[Gezoes]

- there's no need to have 100% perfect working games on release day anymore, you choose to play on PC, then you can enjoy games being patched regularly as well, be happy you dont need to wait 6 months to download an .exe anymore, you get the fixes automatically nowadays, go make a sandwich and the game has updated when you come back

Crafty PR, but I read it like this:

In the old days we'd get a full kickass and stable game, an add-on, and say 3-4 patches. Now we get broken, unstable and incomplete games, ETW being a prime example. On top of that we get milked with content that was usually in the game already (DLC's). And when I come back from my sandwich my installation won't even start anymore because Steam and possible DLC's fucked up every (modded) file they could find.

If I get screwed by a game developer or publisher, you bet I remember that. It's the teenagers that compensate and make you profit, they don't know it wasn't always like this.

[Natty]

no it's not. The most money spending demographic in games is between 25-35 years old

You can't compare some free maps in patches for 10 year old games with the content you buy in today's DLCs... Look at BF3, just the Karkand DLC itself is worth more money than half bf42 retail game.

All industries adapt and change as time, technology, innovations and designs move forward. These (r)evolutions is only good for creativity, competition and quality. Just accept it 

[hitm4k3r]

All industries adapt and change as time, technology, innovations and designs move forward. These (r)evolutions is only good for creativity, competition and quality. Just accept it 

Please show me the new innovative features in BF3 compared to it's predecessors. Don't come with awesomeeeeeeeeeeee graphix and things like this. Whether your mentioned evolution is good for creativity is something I would heavily argue if I take a look at recent AAA titles. And I don't accept it, because I don't buy modern games anymore. The last interesting idea in the game industry was DayZ. The next "modern" games I will eventually buy are RO2 (if the expansions and mods get released) and ArmA III. The rest is the same repetive crap over and over again just with updated graphix and features that were raped off.

[Surfbird]

I agree with Gezoes and 5hitm4k3r.

Natty, there is not a whole lot of evolution. The games of today and the future might offer better technology, but they surely won't offer content and freedom for the player. Every 1-2 years a new game of the series is released. This has nothing to do with the time they need to develop stuff. They wait for the perfect moment to come up with the successor. The moment when the players will buy it because they played the ancestor long enough. These are small steps in developement. Battlefield 4 is going to be the same shit as Battlefield 3. They work just as much on their project as needed to make the maximum profit. And you seriously call that innovative, revolutionary ? Things might be develop further, but creativity gets less necessary.

No, the attitude of the developers and publishers changed so much. Of course there is the natural innovation, the natural improvements in graphics, physics and gameplay, mostly out of competition. And what they do is not using the innovation to the max, they just go as far as they need to. The only thing that keeps them going relating technology is, as you say, competition. Just keep up with the others and then put some innovations ingame, and keep the rest of them for the successor.

Money destroyed gaming to a certain extend. Innovation and evolution will be kept at the minimum, competition is the only advantage of the money-making business. I just hope that some companies will still offer mod support and that people get sick of playing games that are all not really different to their ancestors and stuff like kickstarter projects get some recognition. DayZ showed that people are up for creative, extraordinary ideas that go away from the regular structure of games. I just hope that this is a trend. As long as companies EA come up with DLC's instead of mod support though, there won't be any REAL innovation, all the more no (r)evolution, rather stagnation.

[Zoologic]

It is actually not really an "AAA" titles. It is just a major sellout craps.

Chinese made stuffs sells like crazy, they dominate the market, and made the country number one manufacturer in the world. I guess that's how their business adapt to the demand of the current modern world, they are on the top of the business and they are thriving.

Pretty much the same story with EA, Activision, and Ubisoft.

Hollywood may cough up franchisee like Expendables, another Star Wars movie, TV series made-into-movie, etc. But few are gems like The Longest Day, Beautiful Mind, Forest Gump, Cool Hand Luke, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Gone With the Wind, Citizen Kane. But the best selling ones aren't these titles.

Sometimes you don't have to improve the value, you don't have to go up, move forward, leap afar, you don't have to aim for the better to achieve business/entrepreneurial success. We used to have Concorde, it has beautiful shape, supercruise at Mach 2+, state of the art avionics and flight controls. Then we have the jumbo jet, big beautiful fella that cruises at Mach 0.85, pretty fast, then there is Convair CV-990 Coronado that cruises at amazing subsonic speed of Mach 0.90. Today, regular Airbus/Boeing cruise at roughly Mach 0.82 to Mach 0.84. They no longer feature luxuries, instead, they have this cramped plastic seats and shared windows if you are lucky enough not to seat near the air con ducts.

DVORAK keyboards are more efficient and people who are trained in it, types much faster (8-15% faster). But QWERTY dominates the market early on and saw wider acceptance, eliminating DVORAK-layouts with ease. VHS is also not "an improvement" compared to Sony's Betamax, if you look closer at their specification details. A dick move by some business sometimes kills the good things on their own (in this case Sony's arrogance).

It is simply ignorant to call all of these innovation "moving forward" or better or all that bullshit.

Today's electronic are given limited lifetime, they are shittier, and does not last any longer. They are built to expire, so people will continue buying new stuffs in given period. Samsung smartphones will eventually annoy its users, just like iPhones with its trend-changing thingy everytime they release newer model.

Please stop calling the creativity and quality. It is competition for both cost and revenue... those who have the best balance, wins. Not everyone in this world can afford quality Mercedes Benz, but when there is a modest built Toyota or Volkswagen, people will find what suits their standards. However, there is nothing like comparing a Toyota Camry and Mercedes E-class. In video game industry, it is simply finding the market taste, not improving shits or innovating. You guys are there just to sustain the some industries (e.g. nVIDIA and ATi).

[Natty]

Please show me the new innovative features in BF3 compared to it's predecessors.

lol, don't know if trolling 

Money destroyed gaming to a certain extend.

correction: money created gaming.

DayZ showed that people are up for creative, extraordinary ideas that go away from the regular structure of games.

this thread is about AAA titles, blockbusting big games. not obscure mods based on minor games.

I just hope that this is a trend. As long as companies EA come up with DLC's instead of mod support though, there won't be any REAL innovation, all the more no (r)evolution, rather stagnation.

what does DLCs have to do with innovations? REAL innovations are in the games, like BF3 or Skyrim or Diablo III. DLCs are for the fans to be able to enjoy their games longer, and to add to the production value of AAA games.

BF3 has achieved so many awards currently, which the industry/market has created and which is given to those who drive innovations, quality and designs.

you want to say that the entire gaming industry/world is "wrong" or is it all controlled by illuminati forces that play us like puppets?
if there werent any innovations in bf3, then why are they given all those awards and prizes? huh?

Get the tinfoil hats out already.

[ajappat]

DayZ showed that people are up for creative, extraordinary ideas that go away from the regular structure of games.

this thread is about AAA titles, blockbusting big games. not obscure mods based on minor games.

Well this minor game is selling more on steam than any AAA title, because of this obscure mod. Has been doing so for couple of months now actually.

[Thorondor123]

DayZ showed that people are up for creative, extraordinary ideas that go away from the regular structure of games.

this thread is about AAA titles, blockbusting big games. not obscure mods based on minor games.

Well this minor game is selling more on steam than any AAA title, because of this obscure mod. Has been doing so for couple of months now actually.

But mods don't affect game sales! Valve must have rigged Steam to show those numbers..!

[hitm4k3r]

Please show me the new innovative features in BF3 compared to it's predecessors.

lol, don't know if trolling 

And here we go Natty. You didn't answer my question. I want to get a list of you, what innovative things are in BF3 compared to it's predecessors wich persuade me to buy the game. Better animations and graphics isn't a valid point, since it lies in the nature of evolving technology over time.
BC and BC2 for example were kinda innovative because they offered desctructible environment up to a certain scale and a SP campaign - but that was everything special about them. I just don't see any innovation or (r)evolution in BF3. It is like a mixture of BC2 and a castrated BF2.
And that's the same problem with CoD and MoH. I visited a friend some time ago and he was playing CoD. My first qestion was "Wich CoD is this?". And that's the same problem with Crysis 2 and Crysis 3. I just get f*ckin' bored if I watch a trailer longer than a minute.

I don't want to have a revolution with every game, but I want to see that developers take the base game and bring it a step further. That's the reason why I struggle to buy RO2 atm. Compared to RO1 it isn't enough. The only game that looks really good to me atm is ArmA III. I see that the devs are working together with the community to improve the things that were annoying in ArmA II. Nevertheless do they still support ArmA II up to extent of wich DICE customers can only dream of.

It is quiet clear that DayZ isn't a AAA game, but it is a good reference to show innovation. Same as with Portal. It is so freakin' simpel but still better than the x'th 08/15 shooter. But it isn't a AAA game. I don't know whether I would call ArmA a AAA game, but I see the innovation in the next part - fighting on the ground, on the water (or under) and in the air.

[Kelmola]

"Gaming consumers" will buy something that's "in" and heavily advertised. Given several choices, they will hopefully have the sense to buy the one with enough paid decent reviews.

"Gaming hobbyists" are looking for things that something new.

Natty, if we take your dear EA, every year they roll out a new sports game in every sports they have licences to. The changes to previous year are negligible, and nothing that couldn't be handled with a patch, really. If we compare, say, NHL95 (the first 3D entry in the series IIRC) and NHL13 coming out this year, besides improved graphics and up-to-date team rosters, there's very little new.

Problem is, FPS games have fallen into the same pit. In the late 90's the genre was still evolving in leaps and bounds: Doom added height differences to Wolf3D's flat floors, Duke 3D added scripted events, Quake made the entire world 3D, Tomb Raider brought in the interactions with the environment, Half-Life made you actually participate in the previously fully scripted events, Jedi Knight used Force in a unique way (unlike its sequels), Rainbow Six brought in the semi-realistic military theme and finally Battlefield nailed the multiplayer gamemodes. But after that, the genre seems to have been "finished" and we just get "season updates" every year in every franchise. More of the "same old, same old". What would be the compelling reason for me to buy generic modern FPS shooter part LXVI? Batshit insane plot that someone who once was the ghostwriter for a famous author scribbled on a napkin during his lunch break? Endless cutscenes with wooden CGI characters speaking with wooden voice acting? Multiplayer where I must grind for hundreds of hours to unlock the very same weapons that I already unlocked in the game before?

What makes this even more stupid is that game companies actively forget one of the basic laws of economics. You can only make true profit if you invent something new. Once everyone starts copying that innovation, you may get your investment back, but you can't make profit from an economics point of view (even if you were "in the black" from the accounting point of view). Sadly - though I'm an accounting guy myself - all the companies care is the accounting profit. As long as that stays good, they believe what they're doing is right. After all, profit is also reward for extra risk (if we believe the finance guys in turn), and they perceive the entire industry as inherently risky, so they will be content to minimize risks and forgo extra profits. This, despite the fact that what really gets the attention of industry, media, hobbyists and even the most casual consumers (and thus sells millions) are games that truly provide something new.

[cannonfodder]

@Kelmola: I was surprised neither of the Dungeon Keeper games made the list.

In the case of Batman:AA, I assume it's because it's far superior to the console version...

- what's wrong with casual games?
- what does "dumb down" mean?...

There's nothing wrong with casual games, what I don't like is when they take an established series and "dumb it down" by removing features and/or reducing the learning curve. It dilutes whatever made the series popular in the first place.

There's probably a better one, but I'll use Battlefield as the example...

When we "upgraded" to BF3, we lost: the commander, in-game VoIP, the bots, bombs on the jets...and what did they give us to replace these lost features? Pretty much fuck-all (and no, the new engine and shiny GFX don't count, not after a 6 year wait).

EDIT: Better example: C&C Generals 2 won't have a singleplayer campaign.

- Predator is a big big franchise with multiple movie and game projects attached to it, dunno what your rant is about it.

Being part of a big franchise doesn't mean it's a good movie. I honestly dunno which was worse, it or Starship Troopers 2...but that's getting off the subject.

- there's no need to have 100% perfect working games on release day anymore, you choose to play on PC, then you can enjoy games being patched regularly as well, be happy you dont need to wait 6 months to download an .exe anymore, you get the fixes automatically nowadays, go make a sandwich and the game has updated when you come back

As long as I've been gaming on PC, it's always been a given that most games I buy will need a few patches and a few may require a bit of fiddling to get them to work on my particular setup, but lately the amount of patching seems rather excessive and as I said earlier, it's for stupid fucking mistakes/oversights that should've been picked up before release.

Want an example? How about RAGE, a game that was, upon release, completely unplayable for anyone using an ATI/AMD video card.

And the worst part about it all, is when they fix these fuck-ups they get praised for it! It's always the same bloody line too:

To their credit, the problem was quickly solved through a patch.

To their credit, my arse...

Money destroyed gaming to a certain extend.

correction: money created gaming...

@Surfbird: I agree.

Natty I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the guy programming the first video game wasn't sitting there thinking about how much money he was going to make off it.

And besides that, there was no money in making games in the early days, so how could it create gaming?


Makes more sense if you say: "Money created modern gaming"...



@Zoo: Yep, good marketing of a shit product will always beat shit marketing of a good product.

[Surfbird]

Natty, the DayZ thing was just an example that things can be done differently.

correction: money created gaming.

Of course money created gaming, but gaming industry has developed a lot in the past 10-15 years, leading to companies behaving more ruthless. They perfect the system of minimum effort, maximum profit. But I explained my opinion on that earlier already.

what does DLCs have to do with innovations? REAL innovations are in the games, like BF3 or Skyrim or Diablo III. DLCs are for the fans to be able to enjoy their games longer, and to add to the production value of AAA games.

I did not mean innovation in terms of moving technologically forward. Technological evolution moves forward by competition and the need to bring something new to the player. It does that, fine. What is seriously circumscribed is creativity. The AAA companies "never change the running system". It definitely entertains a lot of players, but that does not change the fact that games are developed with better technology, but with less creativity.

Look at FH2, you think I play it because of it's technology ? I play it because it is different, better and most importantly offers more content than modern AAA games.

That's my whole point. The AAA companies move forward in technology as much as they need to and stagnate in creativity and don't come up with different, new content. You come up with Diablo 3 as innovative example. That innovation has to be reduced on better graphics, animations and...oh, that's it. That's no innovation to me. Relating Diablo 3, not for 80 % of the playerbase either.

Technological innovation is worth nothing when you don't come up with content. Even when games like Battlefield and CoD are still played by a lot of people, it's not worth for me buying these games anymore. Everything after CoD 4 is like the same game for me.

you want to say that the entire gaming industry/world is "wrong" or is it all controlled by illuminati forces that play us like puppets?
if there werent any innovations in bf3, then why are they given all those awards and prizes? huh?

It got prices because it's the first real battlefield game with destructable environment, modern graphics, fluent gameplay. It's the only game on the market offering such an experience, there are no direct competitors. The prizes are deserved, they did a good job at improving things. But again it's lacking content, pretty much what 5hitm4k3r said. I am sick of that pseudo-innovation, there is so much potential thrown away.

It's alright when the "innovation" the AAA games offer satisfy you, I am just a bit harder to satisfy. And what means they are evil, they just follow maximum profit, that's natural, but still sad. To me it's a fact that innovations with content and creativity heavily drop, because they simply don't need it to make maximum profit.