5 ms·

I agree with you, and am sure if you could make large list of small developers that closed during any given period of time. But there are downsides to the curr

by NoPiece 14y ago

I agree with you, and am sure if you could make large list of small developers that closed during any given period of time. But there are downsides to the current trends. When big companies have to take bigger financial risks they are less likely to take creative risks. So while we are seeing really beautiful well crafted games, many are cookie cutter sequels and copies. The industry is large enough that there is innovation (and a vibrant indie scene), but I wish there was more interesting AAA stuff.

ekianjo 14y ago
Well the AAA stuff does things right too. Look at Far Cry 3. It's hardly a indie game, and most people who played it loved it and found it refreshing. Look at Witcher 2. Hardly a small game either, and they managed to pull off one of the best RPGs in recent history, with non-linear paths in the story. Indie or AAA, there's crap everywhere anyway. There's a lot more people buying crap than ever, too, and that is exactly why crap endures : it's profitable. This would not have happened in the same way in the 80s/ early 90s when gamers were more of an "elite", educated and curious bunch of people, rather than the average Joe nowadays who buys Video Games just because they can.
- NoPiece 14y ago
  I liked Far Cry 3, but it is the perfect example of what I was talking about. Far Cry 2 took a lot of risks (and failed in some ways). Far Cry 3 is polished as hell, but basically dumbed down so that anyone can pick it up and play. Objects you should pick up glow and even beep when you look at them. There is a mini map with arrows telling you where to go. There are pop ups constantly telling you what to do. And it is the third game in a franchise. I liked it, but found it very safe. The Witcher 2 was developed in Poland for ~8million. Great quality from a relatively small company and team. Compare that to Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 (I know it is old, but wanted to find citable numbers). $50 million dollar dev budget, and $200 million dollar launch budget according to the LA Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/18/business/fi-ct-duty18 http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/18/business/fi-ct-duty1...). I'm sure the spent lot more on the development the most recent Call of Duty - Black Ops 2.
  - ekianjo 14y ago
    There are not many games that spend as much as Call of Duty. There is probably NONE, in fact, so it can hardly be used as a benchmark for the whole industry. And the numbers for the expensive productions are never really given so I doubt what the real numbers actually are. It's far from being as transparent as Hollywood. Most AAA games spend about 10-20 millions for multi-platform titles, that much we know, and it has not increased significantly over the past few years. THe Witcher2 's cost of 8 millions is not small by any standard. It was a PC-only game when it came out, and spending as much for a PC-only title is fairly expensive, on the contrary. ANd they spend some more when they made the Xbox version, too - besides, take in account that 8 million in Easter Europe probably means double the budget if it were made in the US or Western Europe. It's not apple-to-apple.
    - NoPiece 14y ago
      I expect Battlefield 3, Assassins Creed 3, GTA V have similar development costs. Halo 4's budget was reportedly $40 million, and Gran Turismo's was $60 million. Basically if you can't spend the big bucks to compete, you go out of business (see THQ, Atari). If it is true the average budget hasn't increased over the last few years, it is because the current console hardware is maxed out, or because companies are getting better at outsourcing asset production to cheaper labor in China. When the next generation consoles from Microsoft and Sony roll out later this year, I'm sure budgets will jump again.
  - thisone 14y ago
    > Far Cry 3 is polished as hell, but basically dumbed down so that anyone can pick it up and play. Objects you should pick up glow and even beep when you look at them. There is a mini map with arrows telling you where to go. There are pop ups constantly telling you what to do. And it is the third game in a franchise. I liked it, but found it very safe I really don't see that as a problem. I was at DragonCon this year, where I learned of the "girlfriend mode" broo-haha. (I'm a girl, when I first heard about it I went "oohhh, that's not good", then I listened to what happened, and I'm now "ouch, that was badly phrased") I spoke to my race car game loving brother about it, and all those things that make FPSs easier, those are the things that would get him to actually play FPSs. He hates that he sucks at them and isn't willing to deal with the frustration that comes from sucking at FPSs. He'd like to be able to play them though, but he doesn't because he doesn't like feeling stupid, and I don't think he's alone in this.

by NoPiece 14y ago

ekianjo 14y ago

Well the AAA stuff does things right too. Look at Far Cry 3. It's hardly a indie game, and most people who played it loved it and found it refreshing. Look at Witcher 2. Hardly a small game either, and they managed to pull off one of the best RPGs in recent history, with non-linear paths in the story. Indie or AAA, there's crap everywhere anyway. There's a lot more people buying crap than ever, too, and that is exactly why crap endures : it's profitable. This would not have happened in the same way in the 80s/ early 90s when gamers were more of an "elite", educated and curious bunch of people, rather than the average Joe nowadays who buys Video Games just because they can.

NoPiece 14y ago
I liked Far Cry 3, but it is the perfect example of what I was talking about. Far Cry 2 took a lot of risks (and failed in some ways). Far Cry 3 is polished as hell, but basically dumbed down so that anyone can pick it up and play. Objects you should pick up glow and even beep when you look at them. There is a mini map with arrows telling you where to go. There are pop ups constantly telling you what to do. And it is the third game in a franchise. I liked it, but found it very safe. The Witcher 2 was developed in Poland for ~8million. Great quality from a relatively small company and team. Compare that to Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 (I know it is old, but wanted to find citable numbers). $50 million dollar dev budget, and $200 million dollar launch budget according to the LA Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/18/business/fi-ct-duty18 http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/18/business/fi-ct-duty1...). I'm sure the spent lot more on the development the most recent Call of Duty - Black Ops 2.
- ekianjo 14y ago
  There are not many games that spend as much as Call of Duty. There is probably NONE, in fact, so it can hardly be used as a benchmark for the whole industry. And the numbers for the expensive productions are never really given so I doubt what the real numbers actually are. It's far from being as transparent as Hollywood. Most AAA games spend about 10-20 millions for multi-platform titles, that much we know, and it has not increased significantly over the past few years. THe Witcher2 's cost of 8 millions is not small by any standard. It was a PC-only game when it came out, and spending as much for a PC-only title is fairly expensive, on the contrary. ANd they spend some more when they made the Xbox version, too - besides, take in account that 8 million in Easter Europe probably means double the budget if it were made in the US or Western Europe. It's not apple-to-apple.
  - NoPiece 14y ago
    I expect Battlefield 3, Assassins Creed 3, GTA V have similar development costs. Halo 4's budget was reportedly $40 million, and Gran Turismo's was $60 million. Basically if you can't spend the big bucks to compete, you go out of business (see THQ, Atari). If it is true the average budget hasn't increased over the last few years, it is because the current console hardware is maxed out, or because companies are getting better at outsourcing asset production to cheaper labor in China. When the next generation consoles from Microsoft and Sony roll out later this year, I'm sure budgets will jump again.
- thisone 14y ago
  > Far Cry 3 is polished as hell, but basically dumbed down so that anyone can pick it up and play. Objects you should pick up glow and even beep when you look at them. There is a mini map with arrows telling you where to go. There are pop ups constantly telling you what to do. And it is the third game in a franchise. I liked it, but found it very safe I really don't see that as a problem. I was at DragonCon this year, where I learned of the "girlfriend mode" broo-haha. (I'm a girl, when I first heard about it I went "oohhh, that's not good", then I listened to what happened, and I'm now "ouch, that was badly phrased") I spoke to my race car game loving brother about it, and all those things that make FPSs easier, those are the things that would get him to actually play FPSs. He hates that he sucks at them and isn't willing to deal with the frustration that comes from sucking at FPSs. He'd like to be able to play them though, but he doesn't because he doesn't like feeling stupid, and I don't think he's alone in this.