Called HR.
Who knew kicking out every passionate person with artistic integrity and forcing the death of the artist would impact the creativity of the industry?
Jesus christ I hate game CEOs, they need to be locked in a room with games until they learn how to have fun.
Dragon Age 1-3 all had their drawbacks but could always fall back on how beloved the lore was and how it was present. Dragon Age Veilguard has much of the lore the original creator laid out but presents the revelations in its game poorly and retcons lore from previous games in sterile ways. The original creator left after 3 and over the decade has dropped tidbits about the changing culture of the studio he left
Yoko Taro talking about weird shows a healthy deal of self awareness… +1 respect in my book
What is he trying to say? How can something be weird and unique but also consumed by millions of people as a popular product?
If he thinks riding a dragon in modern Tokyo to fight a big naked statue is weird and unique, he’s probably sad that the world has moved on from holding up sporks and going “lol random XD!”
The markets can’t sell Weird™ to the masses. Now there’s no “weird” people making super high budget art. Terrible!
I know im late to the party but… I just started playing Death Stranding. Lets just say its more than just a walking simulator…
It is mental, but I also kind of wish he’d hire somebody else to write dialogue for him.
And maybe somebody to check all the women characters, and make sure he’s not coming across as being a little bit odd.
And maybe somebody to check all the women characters, and make sure he’s not coming across as being a little bit odd.
Yeah…
And Death Stranding is better about its female characters than most of the MGS games…
Not sure what you mean - “Mario and Princess Beach” is obviously peak cinema
I JUST started collecting chrysalis crystals. (so mabyt 4-5 delvilvery/walking sim missions in)
To quote an old meme, ‘I know nothing Jon Snow’ but one i saw the ::: spoiler Title Hand prints in the sand, :::
I knew this was more than a walking simulator
By the time you finish the game, whatever you’ve seen so far will seem like the most normal thing in the world.
Definitely a lot of standard Kojima gameplay in there, among the apocalyptic Deliveroo simulator and bonkers 4th wall breaking.
I mean, it’s being a mail carrier in a world that is maximum Kojima.
I mean it’s an Amazon delivery simulator so yeah
That’s the entire tech industry. I got in at the tail end of it being full of nerds who were interested in computers. Then jocks and the like found out it pays really well and now it isn’t fun anymore.
Yeah, it was nice as long as it lasted, now it’s all meetings and stupid “agility” (as agile as DPRK is democratic) and measurings of your percieved productivity.
I’m still looking, maybe some c/c++ old legacy system needs a geek somewhere?
Jocks != Business c suite
What’s a jock if it isn’t the highschool quarterback?
Non usa-ish here
Too many business majors joined game dev teams
Yeah man all those well known jocks like Spez and Zuckerberg sure did a number on tech.
+1 to this, I feel like having a ton of money is what corrupts leadership, not necessarily their technical background.
Maybe Spez and Zuck haven’t changed much, but I feel like some others started out as relatively reasonable people who were also technically brilliant, but eventually their companies started doing shitty things and they are both aware and apparently unwilling to stop it.
Perhaps corruption in the Soviet Union is a good example of how even people from normal hard working backgrounds (i.e. not billionaires who have never worked a day in their life) can still be corrupted by power and a lack of accountability.
I’ll add, though, that I don’t necessarily disagree with the premise of this article: maybe the portion of people passionate about game development (and software in general) has become a lot lower, so now leadership is more likely to be people just looking to maximize income, power, and success, rather than people who want to make the best possible products, or at least work on projects that they are passionate about.
But I did want to agree with the person I originally replied to: just because someone is from a highly technical background and doesn’t seem like some MBA looking to maximize profits, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll make good decisions.
I am really interested in hearing ideas for how to optimize for the kind of behaviour we want, without encouraging bad behaviour that simply optimizes around whatever incentives exist, sacrificing things that are not always obvious to the consumer.
Like if it turns out that the best way to get quality games was to actually promote people passionate about game development into management… how do you catch people who fake it? Or prevent people who may absolutely love developing games from ending up in development hell and never focusing on prioritizing a usable game, cutting corners where necessary, or possibly only working on the fun parts (e.g. Star Citizen? Or most projects I start for fun
:(… )It is discouraging that the current system… having people review games and just choose not to buy shitty ones clearly doesn’t work, given the state of AAA games right now. And to some extent I feel like this can be applied to democracy and the economy as a whole: the wrong things are being optimized for, to the detriment of important things that are harder to measure objectively.
There are some success stories though, I absolutely love Factorio and its recent expansion. And I think there are lots of other great indie games. Maybe there is nothing to complain about in game development, at least, where supposedly the indie game options are better than ever. Perhaps this post is not a great place to ask this kind of question, but I honestly don’t know where it would be more applicable. I feel like political or economic discussions on the internet (and especially Lemmy) get way too polarized.
hey mark does ju jitsu and he’s totally really good at it and all the other martial artist guys love hanging out with him
Is he actually good at it or are guys who want to hang out with a billionaire saying he’s good at it?
The weird people are still there, but development teams are much larger now, so their input is not as prominent. Plus the budgets are so large that a flop can heavily damage a company or even ruin it, so they’re very risk-averse. We need more AA or A games instead of relying so much on heavy-hitters.
The weird people still make tons of indie games.
Indie games are great and all, but everybody I know is still waiting for great AAA games again that we can play together.
I mean, sure, complaining and while doing the same thing and expecting a different result is one strategy. AAA games are purely capitalistic endeavours.
Well you need better friends
I stopped playing AAA games years ago. They are all trash.
Indie games are where it’s at
They’re polished, but nearly all of them are too safe.
The ones that subvert things a little are always best for me, and these always get mixed reactions from people who went in with a set idea of what they wanted from it.
Red Dead Redemption 2 being a slow paced wild west simulator rather than Grand Theft Horse is a prime example. It didn’t play by safety and doing popular things. It did what they wanted it to be, and it’s all the better for it.
I dunno I like elden ring and rdr2. Some are still good, just not most, anymore
Yeah I’m playing cyberpunk for the first time and really enjoying it. i don’t know how much it innovates, but I’d say it was certainly a good game.
Not all, but yeah. 75% of my wishlists are weird and interesting indie stuff from the constant Steam demo fests.
I’ve mainly been an Indie gamer since 2012 or so. My last gaming build is almost 7 years old, but I think the last AAA game I played was during lockdown and that was just because it was a way to hang with friends. At this point I just play indie ports on my phone.
Funny enough, after going through my Steam recently played, the last AAA game I enjoyed was Nier.
The good ones are solid tho and last a long time, I do prefer indie/smallteam for the most part now
vrs got some cool unique stuff, vtol vr is solid gaming still got some really cool stuff coming out, I wanna live in a world where vtol vr is as popular as cod
Some are quite good tho
Capitalism at its finest.
There’s definitely weird people making games on itch and sometimes in the depths of Steam.
By its very definition weird isn’t going to sell to mass market. That being said I do agree that we need more weird AAA or AA games.
The Alters just released, is AA, weird, and very good! Indies are definitely the home for weird experimental shit but I feel like there are going to be more strange, niche games being made for larger budgets as the AAA space splinters and devours itself.
Looking from another angle from Yoko Taro’s point, I’d say that, in fear of failing due to being too big, companies would rather play it safe, but that causes creations to grow sterile.
And as consequence, people allegedly “weird”, which I wouldn’t think are necessarily people with curious antiques as Yoko Taro himself, but simply people whose game ideas are far from a safe ground, go for making indie titles instead as then they can be free to do whatever they want.
I found a game on itch about a laundromat that washes women in the machines.
Hmm. On second thought, maybe games were a mistake.
Weird still exists, true, but the combination of weird + budget is what’s really missing.
The only recent example I can think of is Death Stranding.
It’s not quite as weird, but Alan Wake 2 as well qualifies I think.
There’s definitely weird people making games on itch and sometimes in the depths of Steam.
Oh yes. Ever heard of Beautycopter?
I have. Watched two beings play it. I sincerely hope the person(s) who made that game make more games.
Deity Driving was their first Steam release.
i am so glad that only costs 2 bucks because flying through rings is giving me serious n65 superman flashbacks. they’re so bad i can’t find the number 5 on my computer. the one next to that.
Makes sense. AAA games are finance projects more than creative projects. Yeah there’s a lot of art and writing and stuff, but it’s all calibrated to make the most money and anything that threatens it is jettisoned. This makes them formulaic to a fault.
Indie games are passion projects, so you see a lot of weird stuff out there. Most of them are utter failures, financially, but the ones that survive are truly something special.
20 years ago AAA games could still experiment, but that was because back then AAA games had about the same budget as big indie games now.
You just can’t gamble if you have 10k employees and hundreds of millions riding on it.
Imagine having 10k employees and not setting aside an indie dev team or two for passion projects.
The huge majority of indie games never make any money at all. This link is a little older, but it claims that 50% of indie games on steam never make more than $4000, only 25% ever make more than $26 000 and only 14% cross the $100k mark.
Considering the cost of developers, that’s about 1-2 man years for the $100k mark, and then there’s only a 14% chance of even recouping that.
Passion projects work out because the people making them don’t value their time as work time, don’t make a salary from it, and even then in the huge majority of cases, it doesn’t work out financially.
Imagine having 10k employees and not setting aside an indie dev team or two for passion projects.
This statement holds true for pretty much every other corporation. Imagine owning a huge farm and not setting aside a few farm hands to grow old artisan vegetables. Imagine owning a supermarket chain and not setting aside a few shops for exotic sweets from Central Africa. Imagine owning a fast food chain and not setting aside a few restaurants for artisan burger variations.
Yes, every corporation could afford to do stuff like that, but they aren’t there to advance humanity by investing in arts and crafts, but for making every last drop of money they can. And yes, there’s much to criticise about this goal, but making little indie passion projects doesn’t work well with corporations.
Being “safe” is also a gamble, if you aren’t bringing anything new or unique you’re gambling that the title or brand is sufficient for success.
Less so though.
Yes, being “safe” means you won’t make the next Minecraft, where a hobby budget turns into the best selling game of all time. But it also means that the people who buy every instalment of Fifa or Assassin’s Creed will also buy it.
These popular franchises almost always turn a calculable profit as long as they don’t experiment and do something new that bombs.
As sad as it is, it actually does work out.
That’s why we gamers shouldn’t trust on AAA titles bringing something great to the market. If you want to play a game like you watch linear TV (plonk down on the couch/in front of the PC and to whatever to relax and waste time), then AAA is great. If you want to play something new, something exciting, something that you haven’t played before, then go with lower-budget titles.
AAA is the McDonalds of games. You don’t go to McDonalds for the freaky hand-crafted vegan fusion kitchen bacon burger with crazy Korean curry mayo and caramelized lettuce.
Fear of failure becomes self fulfilling, yeah. You get so worried about making the wrong move and losing money that you can have your spotlight stolen by a challenger doing it fresher for 1/10th the budget.
20 years ago people were complaining about the same lack of creativity in the AAA scene, saying that gaming was better in the 90s. In fact I remember it was a common talking point that AAA gaming had gotten so bad that there would surely be another crash like the one in '83.
Here’s how I see it:
From a gameplay standpoint: My perception of the mid to late 2000s is that every AAA game was either a modern military shooter, a ‘superhero’ game (think prototype or infamous), or fell somewhere in the assassin’s creed, far cry, GTA triangle. Gameplay was also getting more and more trivial and braindead, with more and more QTE cuts scenes. The perception among both game devs and journalists was that this was a good direction for the industry to go, as it was getting away from the ‘coin sucking difficulty’ mentality of arcade games and moving towards games as art (i.e. cinematic experiences). There were of course a few games like Mirrors Edge, and games released by Valve, but they were definitely the exception rather than the rule (and Valve eventually stopped making games). Then Dark Souls came out and blew all their minds that a game could both have non-braindead gameplay and be artful at the same time.Now I would say we’ve actually seen a partial reversal of this trend. Triple A games are still not likely to be pioneers when it comes to gameplay, we’ve actually seen a few mainstream franchises do things like using Souls-like combat or immersive-sim elements, which IMO would have been unthinkable 15 years ago.
From an aesthetic standpoint: My perception of the mid to late 2000s is that everything was brown with a yellow piss filter over it. If you were lucky it could be grey and desaturated instead. This was because Band of Brothers existed, and because it was the easiest way to make lighting look good with the way it worked at the time. As an aside, Dark Souls, a game where you crawl around in a sewer filled with poop and everyone is a zombie that’s also slowly dying of depression because the world is going to end soon and they’ve lost all hope, had more color than the average 2000s game where you’re some sort of hero or badass secret agent.
Things are absolutely better in the aesthetic department now. Triple A studios remembered what colors looked like.
From a conceptual / narrative standpoint: I don’t think AAA games were very creative in this department in the 2000s and I don’t think they’re very creative now. They mostly just competed to see who could fellate the player the hardest to make them feel like a badass. If you were lucky the player character was also self destructive and depressed in addition to being a badass.
Then and now your best bet for a creative premise in a high budget game is to look to Japanese developers.
From a consumer friendliness / monetization standpoint: In the 2000s people were already complaining about day one DLC, battlepasses and having to pay multiple times just to get a completed game.
Now its worse than its ever been IMO. Not only do AAA games come out completely broken and unfinished, really aggressive monetization strategies are completely normalized. Also companies are pretty reluctant to make singleplayer games now, since its easier to farm infinite gacha rolls from a multiplayer game (although this was kinda already the case in the 2000s).
Overall I think we’re now in a golden age for indie games, and things like Clair Obscura and Baldur’s Gate 3 give me a lot of hope for AA games.
I think your perception might be 10 years off.
Assassins Creed 1 came out in 2007, less than 20 years ago. It was mindbogglingly fresh and innovative back then. An open world where you can’t just run anywhere you want, but also climb anywhere? And your character dynamically climbed up walls, finding places to hold onto everywhere? That was amazing back then. It was the first game that even attempted anything like that, and it was really, really good. AC only became lame when they started doing the same over and over again with little change.
Similar story with Far Cry. FC1 came out in 2004, only FC2 was also released in that decade (2008). Both FC1 and FC2 were doing something new, fresh and genre-defining. Looking back from now, yes, these games look like everything else that followed it, but because these games defined it.
But in this decade we saw a lot of other genre-defining games, like Warcraft 3 (2002/2003), WoW (2004), KOTOR (2003), Bioshock (2007), Crysis (2007), Fable (2004), Batman: Arkham Asylum (2009), Portal (2007) and also a lot of AAA flops that happened due to too much experimentation and shooting for the stars, like Spore (2008).
And most of the games I listed above don’t have a piss filter.
So, when I mention the Assassin’s Creed / Far Cry / GTA triangle I really mean to say the poor imitators of those games. They did do some very innovative things when they first came out, but just like modern military shooters took regenerating health and the two weapon limit from Halo while leaving behind all the other gameplay mechanics that made that work, so too did many games adopt the open world and the general way you interact with it, while removing anything interesting. By “the way you interact with it” I’m referring specifically to the map unlocking, the collectables, the village / territory faction control, and the “heat” system that spawns enemies depending on how much attention you are generating.
IMO those sorts of games were very much the other side of the coin from CoD-likes, and the problem was that while the extremely linear levels of CoD-likes were too restrictive, these open world games had no structure at all. In games like Blood, Quake, or what have you, encounters are designed to flow in a certain way, with each one having its own flavor and favoring certain approaches over others. In some games you can even think of enemy encounters as a puzzle you need to solve. Level design and enemy placement of course form the two halves of encounter design. In good games this sort of thing extends to the structure of the game as a whole, with the ebs and flows in the action, and different gameplay happening in different sections so the formula keeps getting changed up. But in games where the level design is an open world that let’s you approach from any angle, and where enemy placement is determined on the fly by a mindless algorithm, there is no encounter design. At the same time the way enemy spawning works is actually too orchestrated to have interesting emergent gameplay. For example, if an algorithm made an enemy patrol spawn an hour ago, and the player can see it from across the map, they can come up with their own plan on how to deal with this unique situation. If the player gets one bar of heat and the algorithm makes an enemy spawn around a corner they can’t anticipate that at all, its just mindless. This has implications for the gameplay itself (no enemy can be very tough or require very much thinking or planning if you’re just going to spawn them around a corner) but also, as previously stated, the entire structure of the game.
As for the other games you mention, I want to bring up Bioshock in particular. Its true, that game is a master class in presentation and aesthetics, and a game I would highly recommend, but its actually one of the games that I remember people complaining about when they said gaming was better in the 90s. Specifically the way Bioshock is very dumbed down compared to its predecessor System Shock, both from a general game and level design standpoint, but also because of the inclusion of vita chambers and the compass pointer that leads you around by the nose. (One place I will give Bioshock points though is that it has way more of an ecosystem than most imm-sims with the way enemies interact with each other; it even beats out imm-sim darling Prey 2017 in this regard).
This is admittedly a way more niche complaint than people complaining about QTEs or games being piss/brown, but it was definitely a smaller part of the much larger “games are getting dumbed down” discourse.
I could talk about Crysis and Spore too, but this comment is already really long. I haven’t played the rest of the games you list, so I can’t offer an opinion on them, though I have heard that KOTOR was very good.
So, when I mention the Assassin’s Creed / Far Cry / GTA triangle I really mean to say the poor imitators of those games.
That only happened in the 2010s. That’s when the Ubisoft formula really took off. Assassin’s Creed 1 was only released in 2007, Far Cry 2 in 2008 (FC1 was a quite different game). GTA also only started to get imitated in the 2010s.
Open World in that sense (non-scripted encounters that can be approached from many different angles, with a “living” world) only became a thing in the late 2000s, precisely because of games like Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry 2.
I remember reading a pre-release article about Far Cry 2 in a game magazine, where were all hyped about the many different ways a player could take out an enemy camp, e.g. go in guns blazing, or set a fire that would spread to the camp, or startle wild animals which then would stampede through the camp.
While I do get your point about hand-crafted deterministic enemy placement, it’s just two different kinds of approaches that work for different players.
When you say “dumbed-down”, I understand you mean that the difficulty was too low, is that correct? While some players love or even need punishing difficulty levels, others play for other reasons. (Maybe check out the Bartle taxonomy of player types. It’s a bit outdated, but it shows some of these different reasons quite well.) If you want to just kick back and relax after a hard day of work, punishing difficulty might not be the right thing. Some players want to have to learn (or even memorize) levels/bosses/encounters and repeat them repeatedly until they know exactly which button to press when, and that’s fine. For others that’s just tedious busywork, everyone’s different. I quite enjoyed Far Cry 2 and its random encounters and having to adapt to different scenarios all the time.
I haven’t played the rest of the games you list, so I can’t offer an opinion on them, though I have heard that KOTOR was very good.
Forgive me for saying that, but it’s quite harsh to call a whole decade of games uncreative if you haven’t played a lot of the greatest and most creative games of that time.
To get back to the original point:
20 years ago people were complaining about the same lack of creativity in the AAA scene, saying that gaming was better in the 90s. In fact I remember it was a common talking point that AAA gaming had gotten so bad that there would surely be another crash like the one in '83.
That was in the 2010s, not in the 2000s. In the 90s, game development was pretty much completely low-budget, with games rarely having more than 5 programmers on staff, and maybe 5-10 content creators. In the 2000s games started getting bigger, but the studios were still led by game developers, not by finance dudes. Budgets were still not nearly where they are today. Assassins Creed 1, for example, had a budget of $20mio. Compare that to e.g. the $175mio that AC Valhalla cost to make. And AC1 was comparatively expensive back then.
It was only in the 2010s when finance really got into gaming, budgets ballooned and risks were lowered to nothing.
You’re right, as is so often the case when people talk about a decade I’m thinking more of its latter half and the beginning half of the next one.
But in my defense I did say “the mid to late 2000s”.
I have a few more thoughts, but I’ll have to make another reply in a bit.
Not dissimilar to what happens with big studio films
“Do you think video games are silly little things?”
no.
That entire credit sequence is high water mark for games as a medium.
Every emotion.
Drunk ass man writing his characters, crying in a room alone. The thing we need more of lol. Will purchase any game his name is attached to.
I couldn’t agree more
Meanwhile, Death Stranding 2 is just days from launch.
After Spec Ops The line, everything went to shit, the bar was too high
Dunno why you’re being downvoted, that game was insanely good. Mediocre shooter, but the story was amazingly good.
More than ‘story’, the way they made every part of the game about it.
It was mediocre/workmanlike when viewed entirely as a shooter. But most of the gameplay just used ‘shooter’ as framing.
Because there were still plenty of good games that came out after that?
That’s true. I was more commenting on how good a game it was though, but I do think it’s peak story for me. KCD series is second. There hasn’t been another game for me that had such a crazy twist in it than spec ops.
Yeah, personally a huge fan of the game, but if you think spec ops the line is the last best game, then you really haven’t played that many good games since.
There’s also such a thing as subjective tastes and I believe that it’s more so significant in games because of how diverse they are.
