Too Many Games on the Market

[Nytegard]

I can't say I know exactly what you're talking about

My favorite gaming genre is adventure. That's what I grew up with, particularly Sierra adventure games. But I'm not really a fan of LucasArts games, and that's where I started to lose interest in the genre, though that's where most modern adventure game fans got interested.

One of the complaints often brought up with Sierra games were that they had tons of moon logic, red herrings, dead ends, and that people hated dying.

The moon logic I'd agree with, to an extent. One major reason for this is that games went from having to type everything to point and click. This changed the style of the genre though. For example, in King's Quest 4, one of the most notable puzzles was that you were stuck in a whale's mouth and had to use a feather to tickle the whale's uvula. It was fairly obvious from the beginning what you had to do. But these games were aimed at children, and this puzzle was more about extending your vocabulary. These games often mixed in some education with gameplay as well. Remember, there's no Google at the time, and it's hard to look up a word in a dictionary if you only know how to describe something, but not what the something is. But with point and click, this type of puzzle went away. So, how do you create difficult puzzles? This really lead to the moon logic often associated with Sierra, as that's where the difficulty was now brought in.

The game developers at LucasArts didn't like the fact that you died a lot in Sierra games. To be fair to Sierra, it's not like Sierra invented stuff like dying, dead ends, red herrings, etc. This stuff had existed in adventure games from the beginning. Sierra was just the biggest name in the market. But LucasArts didn't like that type of stuff, so you couldn't die anymore, nor get stuck in the game. And the adventure game audience grew, as they viewed the Sierra style as archaic and bad game design that LucasArts remedied.

But to me, that killed the genre. If you look at LucasArts games, they're almost all comedy. With Sierra, they had comedy such as Freddy Pharkas, Leisure Suit Larry, and Space Quest. They had gritty reality such as Police Quest. They had hard Sci-Fi such as Manhunter. They had historical drama such as the Conquests series and Gold Rush. They had mystery with the Laura Bow series. They had fantasy with King's Quest. Etc. You just can't have a game like Police Quest anymore, because Police Quest requires risk & reward. Want to shoot a criminal? You should be able to, but you should also immediately lose the game if it's just a random traffic stop.

Modern adventure games lost the puzzle aspect of adventure games altogether because they removed all the risk, which was now deemed bad game design. And the genre has only gotten easier with "quality of life" enhancements like hotspots. People often say the genre went under because the internet took out all the difficulty, but I think they're wrong, because the games are now so easy and straightforward that I don't ever get stuck. Now these games are just drag something out of your inventory, click on every hotspot, move forward, and repeat until you beat the game.

And this wasn't greedy companies who caused the downfall. Because there are still plenty of indie adventure games. But the indie adventure games all follow the tastes of modern audiences. It's the audience of the genre which changed and drove the changes to the genre, effectively killing the genre for me.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

My favorite gaming genre is adventure. That's what I grew up with, particularly Sierra adventure games. But I'm not really a fan of LucasArts games, and that's where I started to lose interest in the genre, though that's where most modern adventure game fans got interested.

One of the complaints often brought up with Sierra games were that they had tons of moon logic, red herrings, dead ends, and that people hated dying.

The moon logic I'd agree with, to an extent. One major reason for this is that games went from having to type everything to point and click. This changed the style of the genre though. For example, in King's Quest 4, one of the most notable puzzles was that you were stuck in a whale's mouth and had to use a feather to tickle the whale's uvula. It was fairly obvious from the beginning what you had to do. But these games were aimed at children, and this puzzle was more about extending your vocabulary. These games often mixed in some education with gameplay as well. Remember, there's no Google at the time, and it's hard to look up a word in a dictionary if you only know how to describe something, but not what the something is. But with point and click, this type of puzzle went away. So, how do you create difficult puzzles? This really lead to the moon logic often associated with Sierra, as that's where the difficulty was now brought in.

The game developers at LucasArts didn't like the fact that you died a lot in Sierra games. To be fair to Sierra, it's not like Sierra invented stuff like dying, dead ends, red herrings, etc. This stuff had existed in adventure games from the beginning. Sierra was just the biggest name in the market. But LucasArts didn't like that type of stuff, so you couldn't die anymore, nor get stuck in the game. And the adventure game audience grew, as they viewed the Sierra style as archaic and bad game design that LucasArts remedied.

But to me, that killed the genre. If you look at LucasArts games, they're almost all comedy. With Sierra, they had comedy such as Freddy Pharkas, Leisure Suit Larry, and Space Quest. They had gritty reality such as Police Quest. They had hard Sci-Fi such as Manhunter. They had historical drama such as the Conquests series and Gold Rush. They had mystery with the Laura Bow series. They had fantasy with King's Quest. Etc. You just can't have a game like Police Quest anymore, because Police Quest requires risk & reward. Want to shoot a criminal? You should be able to, but you should also immediately lose the game if it's just a random traffic stop.

Modern adventure games lost the puzzle aspect of adventure games altogether because they removed all the risk, which was now deemed bad game design. And the genre has only gotten easier with "quality of life" enhancements like hotspots. People often say the genre went under because the internet took out all the difficulty, but I think they're wrong, because the games are now so easy and straightforward that I don't ever get stuck. Now these games are just drag something out of your inventory, click on every hotspot, move forward, and repeat until you beat the game.

And this wasn't greedy companies who caused the downfall. Because there are still plenty of indie adventure games. But the indie adventure games all follow the tastes of modern audiences. It's the audience of the genre which changed and drove the changes to the genre, effectively killing the genre for me.

First off, quality post. And it's one that I understand.

I too played many Sierra adventure games in the 90's and early 00's. Everyone knows Sam & Max hit the road, Leisure Suit Larry, to say nothing of Tex Murphy etc etc.

And so in this case, you're mostly right that it has become not fashionable to make point and click adventure games. But I do think that the genre has continued to exist in puzzle and mystery games and has mostly evolved to being more like evolutions of Myst rather than evolutions of King's Quest (though they were making King's Quest games as late as 2016). Blizzard even famously worked on and then cancelled their adventure game. But those may be unsatisfactory to you, because they feature aspects of the genre but not all of the same aspects as their predecessors.

I won't get into the nitty gritty of particular mechanics, but it definitely seems like a niche that someone could fill. The major caveat being that whomever does it would have to likely have better writing than ever before and likely more thoughtful puzzles than ever before. In other words it would have to be an exemplary product to appeal to a wider audience and not just fans of the genre in order to be able to be successful. And the hard part about that is, unless it's some game designers dream to make it then no publisher is going to push for it. And even then the publisher might push back against making such a game precisely because as you note it doesn't have broad appeal. The upside being that theoretically other than art design, such a game would be significantly less money to make.

But hey, Disco Elysium got made, I see no reason why adventure games could also not - again with the caveat that they would have to be genre breaking or genre defining levels of quality in order to make an impact in the market. OR alternatively be made by 1-2 person indie studios for <$100k.

EDIT: Sam & Max games are still being made, there is even a 2023 released game. However they may not be defined well enough to scratch your particular itch. And I'll also note that the first modern 3d titles were frankly not good games either. Still they're continuing to make them, so theoretically they could be getting better over time.

Telltale in general seems to still being making adventure games if not Adventure adjacent. Life is Strange also got made. But again, may not fit your criteria.

 

[Nytegard]

First off, quality post. And it's one that I understand.

I too played many Sierra adventure games in the 90's and early 00's. Everyone knows Sam & Max hit the road, Leisure Suit Larry, to say nothing of Tex Murphy etc etc.

And so in this case, you're mostly right that it has become not fashionable to make point and click adventure games. But I do think that the genre has continued to exist in puzzle and mystery games and has mostly evolved to being more like evolutions of Myst rather than evolutions of King's Quest (though they were making King's Quest games as late as 2016). Blizzard even famously worked on and then cancelled their adventure game. But those may be unsatisfactory to you, because they feature aspects of the genre but not all of the same aspects as their predecessors.

I won't get into the nitty gritty of particular mechanics, but it definitely seems like a niche that someone could fill. The major caveat being that whomever does it would have to likely have better writing than ever before and likely more thoughtful puzzles than ever before. In other words it would have to be an exemplary product to appeal to a wider audience and not just fans of the genre in order to be able to be successful. And the hard part about that is, unless it's some game designers dream to make it then no publisher is going to push for it. And even then the publisher might push back against making such a game precisely because as you note it doesn't have broad appeal. The upside being that theoretically other than art design, such a game would be significantly less money to make.

But hey, Disco Elysium got made, I see no reason why adventure games could also not - again with the caveat that they would have to be genre breaking or genre defining levels of quality in order to make an impact in the market. OR alternatively be made by 1-2 person indie studios for <$100k.

EDIT: Sam & Max games are still being made, there is even a 2023 released game. However they may not be defined well enough to scratch your particular itch. And I'll also note that the first modern 3d titles were frankly not good games either. Still they're continuing to make them, so theoretically they could be getting better over time.

Telltale in general seems to still being making adventure games if not Adventure adjacent. Life is Strange also got made. But again, may not fit your criteria.

Roberta Williams released a remake of Colossal Cave at the beginning of this year. It's a fairly faithful remake as well.

It got the publicity, mainly because of who worked on it. But if you can exclude Steam reviews, the game wasn't well received. Modern audiences just have evolved from that style of game.

Why I say to ignore Steam reviews, is that it's not really liked on adventure game forums, i.e. the people who would actually play it, where it has a positive rating on Steam. Once you go to OpenCritic, the game is sitting at an average score of 64/100. When it first was released on Steam, there were a lot of negative reviews, but those reviews seem to have "disappeared".

That's something that does frighten me about modern gaming. Reviews are now being curated, to the point I really don't trust them.

I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt, and hope that it's not the developer who put pressure on Steam. Like, it's not 1989 anymore, and they don't have pull like that anymore. Rather, I'm guessing just that these sites are automated to remove negative reviews to prevent review bombing. This type of game though doesn't have that large of an audience though, so any negative reviews would probably be legit. Still, the fact that reviews get slanted, I find disturbing.

As far as the King's Quest remake, that was a travesty. It was nothing like the original series. It was like a Saturday morning cartoon, which is not my style of game. The characters were all over the top and zany, and the game was too bright, trying to focus on comedy. And while the original series did have some laughs, it was pretty dark, especially when you consider that the audience was mostly children. For instance, the first game starts because the queen wanted a child, was scammed, ended up dying, and the king was robbed of his wealth and the kingdom withered and fell into ruin. At the very end of the game, the king dies.

 

[dogDAbone]

So to summarize:

Copy.... paste.... add a new lighting angle/character/weapon/checkbox etc... rinse....repeat....

Been happening for many, many years, yet there is nuthin actually NEW on the horizon

so sad, 'cause silly folk just keep buyin the stuff over & over again....

 

[UnknownSouljer]

So to summarize:

Copy.... paste.... add a new lighting angle/character/weapon/checkbox etc... rinse....repeat....

Been happening for many, many years, yet there is nuthin actually NEW on the horizon

so sad, 'cause silly folk just keep buyin the stuff over & over again....

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not. Because every post I've made about this subject is basically that we get around the same number of quality games every year. And this post reads like nearly perfect satire.

However yes, if you're looking for the big, mainstream studios to be making good games when they are mostly iterative then yes you will be disappointed.

And while not directly related, I and quite a few other people are drowning in way too much content in terms of quality games in a backlog anyway. The common problem is having 100's if not 1000's of games in a backlog. What is coming out in the next 3 months is very rarely the most pertinent information. CP 2077 + PL if you want to get through all the content in that one game is well over 200 hours. And Baldur's Gate 3, which I haven't even gotten to start yet I know will take me another 150 hours. DoS 2 that they also made was a 80+ hour game and I know BG3 is bigger. And those are just "2" titles that came out this year that literally have more hours in them than I will have game time for the rest of the year.

 

[dogDAbone]

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not

Nope..

My son, who is in his 2nd year of college & has been a pretty hardcore gammr since he was 8, has been complaining for many years about the lack of any truly "NEW" games, but rather rehashes/updates of the same ole stuff over & over again, so that's why I said what I did

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Nope..

My son, who is in his 2nd year of college & has been a pretty hardcore gammr since he was 8, has been complaining for many years about the lack of any truly "NEW" games, but rather rehashes/updates of the same ole stuff over & over again, so that's why I said what I did

Okay. If that is your qualifier then iterative games have been what it is for nearly 30 years. Time to quit gaming.

 

[Hulk]

I was thinking why there are no games that really stand out. There are simply too many games that cancel each other out. Game A is similar to Game B but game C is the same as Game A and B which one does a person commit to.

Being gamers have short attention spans it's hard to make decision.

What it really takes is something like a MMO that was in development for 10 years to stand out from the pack. Or a new Genre with new mechanics that actually engage the consumer.

I agree 100%. There are too many options. I remember when I had the Dreamcast. Only game I had for a long time was Resident Evil Code Veronica. When I had Xbox 360 I only had Forza 2 for a very long time. I was very happy but now I have a PC with like 100+ games and it just doesn't bring me joy. I rush through the games, even though I got them all for sale for less than $10 each. I think GTA V was like $20 or something.

 

[peppergomez]

Just refund them all

 

[chameleoneel]

IMO, gaming is in a pretty great place right now. Rather in spite of often poor management during developement. And game ideas which don't really seem to be well formed, before running with it as a big project.

Indeed, it could be better. But, I think that overall, the industry is moving in some positive directions. Even if we are still dealing with some lingering shit like hyper monetization, and trying to make every game have tons of "features" to market and attract people whom need to see that. I think that's my biggest critical point on games right now. Most of them could use a healthy dose of cutting room floor with features and systems. And more examination of what is actually fun.

I also think the idea that Baldur's Gate 3 couldn't be made by a AAA studio, is incredibly laughable. They absolutely could, if they took any sort of care with managing and directing a project. But then we become privy to how a company like Ubisoft works. Where at any given moment, they are throwing paint at 17 different walls and then folding and mixing the results around, until a monkey types a good sentence they can run with. Its an incredible waste of time/money/resources----and other companies are doing things similarly. Its no wonder games struggle to be profitable, ship in poor condition, and seem to lack cohesive visions.

 

[Axman]

I also think the idea that Baldur's Gate 3 couldn't be made by a AAA studio, is incredibly laughable.

Don't try to pass off this Divinity knockoff as a Baldur's Gate game.

 

[flegg]

I think there is definitely something to be said about big developers absolutely making trash these days. If you look at smaller guys they are all pumping SOLID games but without fancy 4090 devouring graphics. Also fairly dominated by survival/rogue lite crowd - Subnautica, Hades, Returnal, Valheim, Vampire Survivors, Revita, Slay the Spire, Zenith (dead now though). Some Japanese developers aren't completely trash yet - Zelda games still good, Elden Ring good, last Dragon Quest was good, personally didn't like FF16 but I wouldn't call it bad. Small JRPGs have also had some great games (best one made in the last decade is an adult game though). Haven't played Risk of Rain 2 or ONI yet but supposedly solid. I'm not a racing guy but I think racing ones are still good? Also Insomniac is still making good games - Ratchet, spiderman.

Also I think there's macro economic factors in play that reduce quality not in just video games but across MANY industries. Interest rates been too low for too long. Cheap money and debt means things get pumped and dumped and executives are only interested in short term instead of producing quality that creates brand loyalty. Health care being eaten up by corporations - can't even see a doctor anymore have to see a mid level. Boeing used to be pinnacle of engineering quality -now see recent Alaska plane debacle. lol @ cars. I think you do see some turning of a corner in terms of culture correction, etc, Draftkings really emphasizing quality, brand name. Kia bought some German designs and their upcoming cars look nice as hell - see EV9.

 

[peppergomez]

Indie is the way to go if you want good games and aren't a graphics whore

 

[t1337duder]

I think there is definitely something to be said about big developers absolutely making trash these days. If you look at smaller guys they are all pumping SOLID games but without fancy 4090 devouring graphics. Also fairly dominated by survival/rogue lite crowd - Subnautica, Hades, Returnal, Valheim, Vampire Survivors, Revita, Slay the Spire, Zenith (dead now though). Some Japanese developers aren't completely trash yet - Zelda games still good, Elden Ring good, last Dragon Quest was good, personally didn't like FF16 but I wouldn't call it bad. Small JRPGs have also had some great games (best one made in the last decade is an adult game though). Haven't played Risk of Rain 2 or ONI yet but supposedly solid. I'm not a racing guy but I think racing ones are still good? Also Insomniac is still making good games - Ratchet, spiderman.

Also I think there's macro economic factors in play that reduce quality not in just video games but across MANY industries. Interest rates been too low for too long. Cheap money and debt means things get pumped and dumped and executives are only interested in short term instead of producing quality that creates brand loyalty. Health care being eaten up by corporations - can't even see a doctor anymore have to see a mid level. Boeing used to be pinnacle of engineering quality -now see recent Alaska plane debacle. lol @ cars. I think you do see some turning of a corner in terms of culture correction, etc, Draftkings really emphasizing quality, brand name. Kia bought some German designs and their upcoming cars look nice as hell - see EV9.

It's funny to examine macro economic factors when there are much more obvious and significant cultural factors at work. The golden age of games were made by a completely different "crowd" of the people you'd find today in the modern gaming industry. It's clearly been infiltrated. These people care more about using games as vehicles for their ideology than actually creating good games. Examining this through any other lense is just silly. It's like having a crime scene where the murderer is clearly in the room, and you go out onto the street questioning random people for suspects.

(By the way, you can take what I just said and apply this to those other industries too )

 

[flegg]

It's funny to examine macro economic factors when there are much more obvious and significant cultural factors at work. The golden age of games were made by a completely different "crowd" of the people you'd find today in the modern gaming industry. It's clearly been infiltrated. These people care more about using games as vehicles for their ideology than actually creating good games. Examining this through any other lense is just silly. It's like having a crime scene where the murderer is clearly in the room, and you go out onto the street questioning random people for suspects.

(By the way, you can take what I just said and apply this to those other industries too )

I'd agree, but low interest rates, cheap money accelerates the process

 

[Nebell]

I agree. 20 yeas ago I was able to play all popular games.
Today I look at it, put it on my wishlist on Steam then forget about it for years. I recently cleaned my wishlist on Steam as the amount of games surpassed 100 and some I added back in 2018/2019.
I still haven't finished The Witcher 3 main story, lol. But I really like that game. The problem are MMORPGs. I'd rather play those and have limited time.

 

[Sumanji]

There are simply too many games that cancel each other out.

The quantity problem is real... I sit down with a little bit of time and want to play an FPS, I have to thumb through tens (hundreds?) of options available across my Steam library, PSN collection etc.

Same issue with Netflix and other streaming platforms is solidly affecting gaming too.

 

[Lamont]

It's WAAAAAAAY over-saturated.

https://80.lv/articles/game-industry-leaders-2024-will-be-the-year-of-closures/

 

[Comixbooks]

It's WAAAAAAAY over-saturated.

https://80.lv/articles/game-industry-leaders-2024-will-be-the-year-of-closures/

Palworld

 

[chameleoneel]

I agree. 20 yeas ago I was able to play all popular games.
Today I look at it, put it on my wishlist on Steam then forget about it for years. I recently cleaned my wishlist on Steam as the amount of games surpassed 100 and some I added back in 2018/2019.
I still haven't finished The Witcher 3 main story, lol. But I really like that game. The problem are MMORPGs. I'd rather play those and have limited time.

20 years ago, some of us were also teens with way more free time to play.

Simply working a full time job to pay rent, is a gigantic suck on your life and time.

 

[peppergomez]

View: https://youtu.be/h1VXzW_zIu0?si=getOeHxwqFlcvdQX

Reinforces my feeling that AAA games are becoming increasingly inferior to indie games

 

[Lateralus]

View: https://youtu.be/h1VXzW_zIu0?si=getOeHxwqFlcvdQX

Reinforces my feeling that AAA games are becoming increasingly inferior to indie games

I like that guy's content (what I've seen so far) and I agree very much with your feeling.

I've had way more fun with indie titles lately. Many of those studios are knocking it out of the park (or at least coming up with new and fresh ideas rather than slapping a fresh coat of paint on last year's sequels) while the big games and studios have increasingly disappointed. It's not 2012 anymore where people can just dismiss all indie games as janky 2D trash and be taken seriously. Heck, indies are the ones driving innovation in many cases because they aren't under an oppressive umbrella being hamstrung by corporate politics and bean counters.

 

[Executioner]

Old fart here @68 yrs old, and sorry for my dumb question, but what are indie games? The last "new" game I tried playing was Doom Eternal. I liked the first 30 minutes or so of the game, but it got into too much jumping and did not feel like a Doom game. Most of my games I still have on CD/DVD and will replay them.

 

[Axman]

Old fart here @68 yrs old, and sorry for my dumb question, but what are indie games? The last "new" game I tried playing was Doom Eternal. I liked the first 30 minutes or so of the game, but it got into too much jumping and did not feel like a Doom game. Most of my games I still have on CD/DVD and will replay them.

Made by "independent" game studies. Like indie movies, generally they're low-budget, with a small pool of resources, and a focus on art or otherwise a passion project, and nothing but a hope and a prayer that they will be critically or commercially successful. The opposite of AAA or blockbuster games.

That doesn't mean an indie game can't go mainstream. Myst, Bastion, Braid, Torchlight, those were indie titles.

 

[ZodaEX]

Another similar issue I noticed is there's way way too many books in my local library. So many of them are about the exact same topics too, it's such a waste of everybody's time to have so many books available to read.

 

[Mchart]

Another similar issue I noticed is there's way way too many books in my local library. So many of them are about the exact same topics too, it's such a waste of everybody's time to have so many books available to read.

Where else am I going to get my Bigfoot porn?

 

[jbltecnicspro]

My favorite gaming genre is adventure. That's what I grew up with, particularly Sierra adventure games. But I'm not really a fan of LucasArts games, and that's where I started to lose interest in the genre, though that's where most modern adventure game fans got interested.

One of the complaints often brought up with Sierra games were that they had tons of moon logic, red herrings, dead ends, and that people hated dying.

But to me, that killed the genre. If you look at LucasArts games, they're almost all comedy. With Sierra, they had comedy such as Freddy Pharkas, Leisure Suit Larry, and Space Quest. They had gritty reality such as Police Quest. They had hard Sci-Fi such as Manhunter. They had historical drama such as the Conquests series and Gold Rush. They had mystery with the Laura Bow series. They had fantasy with King's Quest. Etc. You just can't have a game like Police Quest anymore, because Police Quest requires risk & reward. Want to shoot a criminal? You should be able to, but you should also immediately lose the game if it's just a random traffic stop.

Oh boy you're taking me down a nostalgic path. My favorite PC game is still probably Laura Bow: The Colonel's Bequest. I have yet to "Super Sleuth" it. Still have my MT-32 that I whip out every now and then to just fire these old classics up.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

View: https://youtu.be/h1VXzW_zIu0?si=getOeHxwqFlcvdQX

Reinforces my feeling that AAA games are becoming increasingly inferior to indie games

In the end though, does it matter? I'm just after a good gaming experience. I could care less where it comes from.

 

[GoldenTiger]

In the end though, does it matter? I'm just after a good gaming experience. I could care less where it comes from.

How else will we justify our rtx xx90 cards?!

 

[M76]

Reinforces my feeling that AAA games are becoming increasingly inferior to indie games

Unpopular opinion: Most indie games suck, even the ones that have a good idea behind them end up falling short due to lack of resources. And most of them aim low to begin with. I don't believe indie games can ever match a good AAA experience.

I think people use an extreme double standard when they judge indie games, much more is forgiven in an indie game than in AAA. Even the highest budget most complex indie games would fall far short of AAA if we would actually be objective like the video suggests. Not that it is possible to be completely objective when judging games, but indie games are always given more leeway for clunky mechanics, worse animations and graphics.

I have never played an indie game that would be up there with the best of best AAA games. There were a few I enjoyed, but those were strategy and simulation games, not story driven action RPGs or immersive sims, or even just a simple FPS.

And Yves Guillemont was always out of touch,but there are still good games being made elsewhere. And even if AAA completely collapsed tomorrow and everything coming from them from now on would be absolute trash, that still wouldn't make indie games any more appealing to me.

 

[flegg]

Unpopular opinion: Most indie games suck, even the ones that have a good idea behind them end up falling short due to lack of resources. And most of them aim low to begin with. I don't believe indie games can ever match a good AAA experience.

I think people use an extreme double standard when they judge indie games, much more is forgiven in an indie game than in AAA. Even the highest budget most complex indie games would fall far short of AAA if we would actually be objective like the video suggests. Not that it is possible to be completely objective when judging games, but indie games are always given more leeway for clunky mechanics, worse animations and graphics.

I have never played an indie game that would be up there with the best of best AAA games. There were a few I enjoyed, but those were strategy and simulation games, not story driven action RPGs or immersive sims, or even just a simple FPS.

And Yves Guillemont was always out of touch,but there are still good games being made elsewhere. And even if AAA completely collapsed tomorrow and everything coming from them from now on would be absolute trash, that still wouldn't make indie games any more appealing to me.

I'm confused about what you are trying to say? Are you saying almost all Indie games are bad or that they can't be as good as the best AAA games? Kind of different statements there. You don't have to play every indie game you can wait for good reviews. Have you never played Hades? Not many action RPGs in general are any good. POE started as an indie game. Minecraft started as in indie game (i don't personally like those last two but you can't deny their popularity). There's also games in between indie and AAA like Subnautica. For FPS - a mod but Natural Selection was as good as any AAA game.

I'll go as far to say as I enjoyed Valheim more than any of the best AAA games in the last few years.

 

[M76]

I'm confused about what you are trying to say? Are you saying almost all Indie games are bad or that they can't be as good as the best AAA games? Kind of different statements there.

I'm saying both. Can I only make one statement in one post? I didn't know about that rule

You don't have to play every indie game you can wait for good reviews.

Due to the bias I mentioned more often than not well reviewed indie games still won't be better than many AAA games with mixed reviews.

Have you never played Hades?

No.And from the looks of it, I'm not really intereested either.

Not many action RPGs in general are any good.

If we count all the nameless indie attempts, then absolutely.

POE started as an indie game. Minecraft started as in indie game (i don't personally like those last two but you can't deny their popularity). There's also games in between indie and AAA like Subnautica. For FPS - a mod but Natural Selection was as good as any AAA game.

Popularity does not equal quality. And frankly I think free to play mmo-s are the lowest form of gaming. What I'm looking for in games is quaility story telling, good mechanics, and graphical fidelity that pushes the boundaries of technology. Indie games usually skimp on at least two of these three, or all to various degrees. But they get away with it due to their indie status, which is fine, there are enjoyable indie games, but in a head 2 head they are no match for AAA.

I'll go as far to say as I enjoyed Valheim more than any of the best AAA games in the last few years.

Sorry, but online and multiplayer games are not my shtick. I only care about single player story driven games. The best indie game like that I played was Hellblade, and it was still a far cry compared to average AAA games I played since or before that.

 

[Dan_D]

Unpopular opinion: Most indie games suck, even the ones that have a good idea behind them end up falling short due to lack of resources. And most of them aim low to begin with. I don't believe indie games can ever match a good AAA experience.

I think people use an extreme double standard when they judge indie games, much more is forgiven in an indie game than in AAA. Even the highest budget most complex indie games would fall far short of AAA if we would actually be objective like the video suggests. Not that it is possible to be completely objective when judging games, but indie games are always given more leeway for clunky mechanics, worse animations and graphics.

I have never played an indie game that would be up there with the best of best AAA games. There were a few I enjoyed, but those were strategy and simulation games, not story driven action RPGs or immersive sims, or even just a simple FPS.

And Yves Guillemont was always out of touch,but there are still good games being made elsewhere. And even if AAA completely collapsed tomorrow and everything coming from them from now on would be absolute trash, that still wouldn't make indie games any more appealing to me.

Well said. This echoes my thoughts and experiences as well. If indie games were all that was available to me one day, I'd probably stop buying new games and allow my PC to pass into total obsolescence and spend my money elsewhere.

 

[Lateralus]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMRTOovSgzA

Lot of good points in that video.

Games don't have to have huge production budgets to be great or fun, and there is an increasing demand for something other than the typical formulaic AAA fare. Seems like an incredibly narrow and limiting viewpoint to say one would just stop gaming altogether if AAA games didn't exist, especially when they heavily contributed to the current flawed state of the industry.

 

[LukeTbk]

Lot of good points in that video.

Lot of arguable, movie budget are never shared with the public, movie earning are never shared with the public, sometime there a leak or a trial with discovery, sometime there some public tax break benefit that tell us part of spending in a state that can access them, but it is not a rule or habbit, they keep secret everything they can.

With how many games we could list that had a release date change I am not sure how true it is the case that they are not moveable and for most things like that, an absence of deadline would make finishing them almost impossible.

 

[Lateralus]

Lot of arguable, movie budget are never shared with the public, movie earning are never shared with the public, sometime there a leak or a trial with discovery, sometime there some public tax break benefit that tell us part of spending in a state that can access them, but it is not a rule or habbit, they keep secret everything they can.

With how many games we could list that had a release date change I am not sure how true it is the case that they are not moveable and for most things like that, an absence of deadline would make finishing them almost impossible.

This is not at all what I was referring to.

 

[LukeTbk]

This is not at all what I was referring to.

It was just not to reput the whole video in there, lot of good points (not sure which you meant obviously has you do not point which one?), a lot of misinformed points as well....

 

[Mr Evil]

Unpopular opinion: Most indie games suck, even the ones that have a good idea behind them end up falling short due to lack of resources. And most of them aim low to begin with. I don't believe indie games can ever match a good AAA experience.

AAA games are by definition high-budget, so they will always at the very least look better than indie games, but they are also very conservative, targeting established markets and producing very little that is new. Indie games on the other hand span a wide range from Babby's First Gaem with literally 0 budget, up to games from well-established developers with relatively large budgets that compare well to AAA games. They frequently stray far from the beaten path, which means a lot of failures, but also some great successes.

I think people use an extreme double standard when they judge indie games, much more is forgiven in an indie game than in AAA. Even the highest budget most complex indie games would fall far short of AAA if we would actually be objective like the video suggests.

Take a game like a pet shop after dark. It's poorly drawn, has barely servicable writing, and is very short. Nonetheless it has gameplay that you will never, ever see in an AAA game. It's a game that made me smile all the way through. That's not a double-standard, it's judging it by how much I enjoyed it.

And there are quite a few indie games that can be compared more directly with AAA games. For instance, I think Trepang² is a better single-player FPS than most AAA games. While not quite as pretty, it looks good enough, and it's a full-sized, smooth experience.

In the end, I think if I was forced to choose between only ever playing AAA games or indie games, I would choose the indie games because they are so diverse, while most AAA games are just more of the same.

 

[LukeTbk]

AAA games are by definition high-budget, so they will always at the very least look better than indie games, but they are also very conservative, targeting established markets and producing very little that is new. Indie games on the other hand span a wide range from Babby's First Gaem with literally 0 budget, up to games from well-established developers with relatively large budgets that compare well to AAA games. They frequently stray far from the beaten path, which means a lot of failures, but also some great successes.

I think it depends on the definition of indie, Star Wars Phantom Menace was an indie movies, someone rich could make a game of very large budget, specially if they own an ip that lower the risk.

And what can tend to matter of producing something that is new or not, is the possibility for a single individual to do something that is considered a bad idea by most people, it can be harder in large game studio, but we can imagining someone with a track record gaining enough power among the system to do it, like an Hideo Kojima, a bit like what a James Cameron-Christopher Nolan-Tarantino get to do inside a movie studio system large budget constraint, not total freedom but the large budget end up having them making movie way closer to what their dream in their heads that what an indie production could ever do.

Unpopular opinion: Most indie games suck,

I think this will be a near 100% consensus, obviously the vast majority of the 10,000-15,000 indie games made every year are bad, the question would be more does 95%-99%-99.9% of indie game suck than most. 2% of indie game turning good and we have a good indie game released every day.

Same goes for movies, 10,000-15k movies a year, the bad small one are just fully unkown any impression that the average large budget movie is not head and shoulder above the average small budget movies would be sampling, there a lot of curating that happen on smalls movies and just the small minority of the best get ever any attention and seen, while the giant bad movie get theater release, marketing campaign and people know about them, same goes for bad big games.

 

[M76]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMRTOovSgzA

Quite funny that the thumbnail for the video that laments the end of AAA gaming contains two of the best games I ever played.Cyberpunk 2077 even in its launch state was a great game that I enjoyed very much, and now after the release of Phantom Liberty I enjoy it even more, I put 200 hours into the game recently, which is very rare for me. And The Last of Us 2 is only ever mentioned for how bad supposedly the story is. Everyone ignores that it's a technical marvel, the animations are far ahead of anything else I've played. And for a console game even the mechanics are amazing, it is the only console game where I actually enjoyed the gameplay and wasn't cursing the controller to hell and back all the time.

So if those are your best evidence for the AAA industry killing gaming, boy you have an uphill battle ahead of you to convince me.

Lot of good points in that video.

10 minutes in there were only two points made so far:

1. Release dates are set in stone, which is immediately false, as both CP2077 and TLOU2 were pushed back before they finally released.
2. Familiarity is bad. Which I vehemently disagree with, if I loved a game I want more of the same. If anything there is a lack of familiarity in games today, instead of giving fan service (a form of familiarity) they are pushing all kinds of agendas in games.

And I'm waiting for more points, but he is just ranting jumping from topic to topic without articulating a clear point. He brings up something then immediately debunks his own point. Like saying it's bad that SONY focuses on story driven exclusives, but then says story driven games are good.

Oh now it all makes sense we have a bona fide Kojima fanboy here. No wonder he doesn't make coherent points. Anyway moving on his remaining points were:

3. Games need to be shorter, 20 hour games are too long. Do I even need to comment on this nonsense? First 20-30 hours had been the de facto standard for at least 25 years. Who would feel satisfied with 5-8 hour games that he suggests? If they are good that's just a kick in the nuts getting so little. Phantom Liberty, the expansion for CP2077 is twice the length he wants full games to be. Everybody would be up in arms and rightly so if AAA games were only a couple of hours long.
4. Games need not care about graphics fidelity. He seems to have an axe to grind with those who judge games based on graphics. Of course graphics is not the only ingredient of a good game, but it does matter. If AAA games suddenly went back to 2010 graphics to be cheaper who would buy them? No, I think the clear way forward is more automation, more store assets and AI to manage development cost and not going back to the model T.
5 Shorter games with lower budgets can be great. Yes, you just described indie games, LOL AAA industry needs to remain the AAA industry.

This video needs an EFAP takedown, but I tried to cover the major bullet points.

Games don't have to have huge production budgets to be great or fun, and there is an increasing demand for something other than the typical formulaic AAA fare. Seems like an incredibly narrow and limiting viewpoint to say one would just stop gaming altogether if AAA games didn't exist, especially when they heavily contributed to the current flawed state of the industry.

Smaller budget games can be fun, but they are not the same quality as big budget games. The current flawed state if we want to call that is due to out of touch investors and execs with too much sway on game direction, not due to big budgets.