• RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    5 months ago

    I love long complicated games, like breath of the wild, but I think the world also needs more concise games, those 20-40 hour masterpieces that keep you wrapped up without having to memorize 3600 pages of back story to remember where you left off.

    What the studios (especially Nintendo) don’t understand is you can’t charge the same ~$60 for both games. People don’t hate shorter simpler games, they just hate paying the same price for less content.

    Right now, Nintendo is selling the Switch version of Link’s Awakening for only $10 less than TOTK ($60 vs $70). That’s right, a remake of a 20+ year old game with a pretty limited story is selling for almost the same as the largest most complex and expansive game Nintendo has ever produced.

    I don’t know why they’re so fixated on matching prices between games that took orders of magnitude different amounts of effort to produce.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    5 months ago

    It has never been easier to make A Game. The only thing getting harder is meeting shallow expectations imposed by empty suits. What a small team can accomplish in a few months keeps expanding, and unless you chase some zillion-dollar trends, what they can do is plenty.

    Shareholder puppets like Microsoft should figure this out - they demand instant turnaround. They own enough studios to have several of them try cranking out six games in two years. If you want it to happen faster, use fewer people. I dunno, build a friggin’ pipeline for indie devs to slap together a killer idea that gets fixed-up, art’d, and polished by different teams. Then you can sell more things to more people for more chances to trip into a brand new trend. You don’t have to perform ritual sacrifice when a decade-long project makes a shitload of money! You can still get angry when the actual profits are less than the number you made up in your head! Just-- put money behind cool things that cost $20, instead of constructing situations where people have to spend $140 each or you lose. It’s like a fuckin’ Mad TV skit. Spend less, sell more.

  • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    5 months ago

    What he’s saying is that major studios are locked playing chicken with each other, and that the industry is going to remember the 1983 crash fondly in comparison with what’s going to happen.

    • Fitzsimmons@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      “I want shorter games with worse graphics made by people who are paid more to work less and I’m not kidding 😎”

      Indie games are kind of this, but it’s hard to make the “paid more” work consistently at scale. Largely because there’s a shitload of people making really good indie games and I can only play so many of them.

  • ringwraithfish@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    5 months ago

    There are too many breakout indie hits developed by one person or a small team that prove this isn’t true across the industry.

    AAA development may be that way because there are higher expectations, just like blockbuster movies invest heavily in special effects and A-list celebs. But at the end of the day gamers just want to be entertained.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I think that one could also say something similar about Hollywood, though there maybe I’d agree that scale is more important.

      Terminator II was, for its time, pretty expensive. I’d be sad to not have Terminator II – it was a pretty good movie.

      But Twelve Angry Men is a pretty good movie too. It has essentially no special effects. The costumes are mostly everyday business casual. Most of the movie takes place in a conference room, with a very small part in a courtroom and a bathroom. I don’t know what its budget is, but it has to be simply tiny in comparison.

      • ringwraithfish@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Exactly! I especially like your point about T2. I don’t think it’s wrong to put a lot of money behind a AAA game, but there needs to always be a balance weighted toward the creative/entertainment value (whether it’s innovative game mechanics or story driven).

        Once that balance shifts to the business side by focusing on recouping the investment is when a project is at risk for not being received well.

        I think all gamers are ok with studios making a profit on their games, but don’t try to fleece us.

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Among the games I’ve recently played and enjoyed:

    • Nova Drift
    • Rule the Waves 3
    • Dominions 6

    Those are all one- or two-man efforts.

    I also like some games with much larger teams, but I’m not sure that things are simply getting bigger.

    • mynachmadarch@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      They’re definitely getting bigger, but not with anything meaningful. I’m playing through Cyberpunk 2077 and it definitely feels like a lot of the side missions are unnecessary filler to pad out an excuse for the major names they got involved. I’m guessing other AAA are the same, “we need to do more than last time” whether it’s impactful to the story and experience or not.

      • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        You look at the credits to a lot of games these days and notice that the vast majority of people are in the various art departments or management with, like, 3 people programming it all and the same or fewer people in QA. And it can take upwards of an HOUR to get through all the credits because there are THOUSANDS of people working on it.

        Small teams deliver more concentrated quality, IMO.

        • tal@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I don’t know if I can reduce it to the programmers making the game, though. Like…yeah, the most-replayable games I’ve played rely heavily on the code, and less on the assets.

          But there are also games where the art is pretty critical that I enjoy. Like, imagine games in the Myst series without the art and sound. Like, none of the code is particularly impressive. The puzzles are…okay, I guess. You play a game like that for the art and sound.

          Or Lumines. I mean, yeah, they had to get the gameplay loop right, but technically, it’s a very simple game, just a falling-blocks game. But the audio and to a lesser degree, the appearance, is important.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bboWlUppp-s

          Rez is maybe a little fancier codewise, but it’s just a rail shooter. It’s really about experiencing the art and music.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZLHB5e90pU

          And I definitely did enjoy those. In the case of the latter two, those were not AAA games, didn’t have huge teams creating assets, but it was still really the assets that made the game.