Random Gaming Thoughts II ~News Items Beware~

How about a couple of potential discussion points to kick this off then?

A couple of thoughts have been going through my mind today after spending dfar too much time complainging over smash bros. First I'm kind of getting bored of the big budget "AAA" games that seem to swamp places nowadays. Don't get me wrong I'm not exactly in to the whole retro revival scene either (never been a big fan of pre-n64 games outside sonic 2 and some random sidescrolling space shooter on the mega drive if I'm honest), but I'm just finding they don't keep my interest all that well compared to lesser games. Games I suppose you'd call "AA" games.


Also, anyone else kind of tired of the push for photo-realism in gaming? This has been something on my mind for a while actually, and it's that I feel this constant push for it is very possibly damaging the industry at this point. The big games cost so much to produce now, needing to sell millions simply to break even, frequently having to be rather limited experiences to even be producible, and all of the above seems to typically result in big games not really doing anything new with things such as gameplay mechanics.

Athrun888 wrote:

The big games cost so much to produce now, needing to sell millions simply to break even, frequently having to be rather limited experiences to even be producible, and all of the above seems to typically result in big games not really doing anything new with things such as gameplay mechanics.  

Yep, which is why indie gaming's had such a boom over the last five years or so. They can afford to price themselves at a lower price point and take risks because there isn't as much money riding on it. If a Call of Duty game ever drastically bombed then hundreds of millions is being shat down the drown - not the case with indie.

As someone who's only just now moving outside Nintendo, I'm not too bothered by triple a titles. That said, even I can't stand walking forwards simulators like COD.
That said, when AAA games step outside the norm, or just generally exhibit class, there's still worthwhile gaming to be found.

That said, I can fully understand why indie gaming and slightly more obscure stuff seems so much more interesting. I've got a lot more interest in Gang Beasts than, say, Batman even though I probably will pick the latter up.

I do love a bit of Indie as like you said Triple A is getting a bit boring now, but saying that I'm buying the new COD as it does look interesting this year but a few other's like AC I'm not bothered about at all. But I still want big blockbusters like a Uncharted 4 for instance but there done well.

I don't think there is a middle ground any more there's either small indies / downloads or big games, Capcom recently said if a game doesn't sell 2million at least now don't expect any more of them. So there unlikely to take risks in the first place to make sure they sell 2million.

For me, as y'all know, Triple-A means something a bit different. It's not CoD, GTA or Halo - it's Mario, Zelda, or Smash.

And I still prefer Triple-A and Double-A to most other things. Indies are a fun fix between games, but rare is the indie that manages to create a world, a sense of scale, to match the Triple-A-ers. (Guacamelee managed it, pretty much, but sacrificed length to do so.) And scale means a lot to me.

Incidentally, what would Xenoblade come under? Felt pretty production-value heavy on release.

As for photorealism, I've been sick of it ever since it was born. I must be terminal now.

Mario & Zelda are Triple A Balla, that's why SMASH brought up the who thing as it's a Triple A game along with COD, Halo etc I guess were looking at a industry as whole here not just Nintendo as it's rare we get sick of there games.

I did bring up downloads not just indie balla wouldn't you put Child of Light in same bracket as Guacamelee for you.

Also the better Triple A's seem to have longer dev time not a AC or COD which is yearly unlike a Uncharted or a Zelda which only get a proper one now again.

Yes, I would.  I didn't include it as it's made by a massive gaming behemoth, so it seems unfair to lump it in with Drinkbox's effort.  But both of those feel... probably single-A if I'm honest, due to their short lengths.

And it's difficult for me to look at the industry as a whole, which is why I needed the distinction in my post. Maybe if Nintendo released a 3D Mario every year, I'd be singing from a different hymnbook.

But length shouldn't matter really though surely it's better to have 5hrs of quality over 50hrs of muh.

I don't get the need to put games into silly catagories like that. I like good games and I hate bad games, don't care how much I have to pay/how much cashola went into it if I get my moneys worth out of it.

masofdas wrote:

But length shouldn't matter really though surely it's better to have 5hrs of quality over 50hrs of muh.

No offence to you, Mas, but this type of argument is... well... I won't say the adjective, but it's posing an "either/or" question where "and" is a perfectly viable answer. Example: the previously mentioned Xenoblade is an example of both length and quality.

Now, if we restrict the argument to indie developers, or even downloadables, then yes they will likely have to focus on one or t'other. But we're not: we're comparing all games across the board. And indeed, that "either/or" dilemma from indies is one reason I frequently prefer triple-As.

Agree with Andy and that's what I kinda meant about length as well balla. I don't care X long as long as it's a good experience that's one of the issues with skyward sword it's to long for instance but you wouldn't want to make Journey any longer than it is.

masofdas wrote:

...that's one of the issues with skyward sword it's to long for instance...

SS has many problems. In my opinion, that is not one of them.

Honestly xenoblade could've done with being a bit shorter and more pointed in my opinion.  Maybe not the main story so much, but the side stuff definitely could have been trimmed.  Exploring the world was cool but the side quests were all very bland and boring from what I saw, I only  bothered with some of them to unlock the monado armour ability because of how tedious they were. Less quantity and more quality is what those side quests needed.

Actually, yes, that's a good example. The quests were a bit MMO-like (something it has in common with Fantasy Life, incidentally) - some good 'uns buried in a heap of rubbish. Those quests could have pared down without sacrificing the overall scale, and you'd still have a 40h+ JRPG on your hands.

So there's definitely a balancing act to be done, but it can be done.

The issue with length in games is most of it is often unnecessary padding - fetch quests, shit sidequests, backtracking, roguelike elements... it can make a 12 hour game into a 30 hour game, but you're sacrificing the quality of over half the game to do so. Through the playthrough of Xenoblade I watched, it seemed like the sidequests were mostly "go here, pick up a thing or maybe kill 5 monsters", which to me is padding.

I felt with SS I don't know what Balla thinks is wrong with it but personally because there's only three locations which you visit a lot and you fight imprisoned 752 times just to make the game longer and pad it out a bit.

.........and the most over exaggerated award goes to................masofdas.

I liked the imprisoned idea and even though you fight it 3 times it never felt like padding to me because it works as it should, a constant evil trying to escape not to mention there's a lot of game time in between each battle.

For me, that mix of triple A and 'indie' games is great: you can play smaller, more personal experiences (Teslagrad, Child Of Light, Guacamelee!, Super Little Acorns 3D Turbo) alongside larger, more developed ones (Arkham City, Lego City Undercover, Super Mario 3D World, Bravely Default). The fact that most triple A games pass me by, as a Nintendo fanboy, is another issue.

Padding upsets me, unless it's sidequests. They can be taken or left - in the case of Bravely Default, mostly left!

Still quite fond of Skyward Sword. The motion controls put me in the game more than ever before and the huge dollop of series nostalgia made me smile more than once. It also had a (slightly) more involving story, for the first time in my experience (apologies if TP had this; I have yet to finish it). Its biggest downside was that you were shoved from location to location with little overworld to explore, but I traded that for the experience and had fun.

I will defend SS' motion controls to the Game Over. My main problems were the aforementioned lack of overworld and the recycling of environments and enemies. I wasn't too keen on Impy either.

TP remains my favourite Zelda, despite its "Zelda wants to look like Call of Duty" aesthetics.

No one has said they didn't like the controls balla but what you said about SS recycling is what I find is the issue and I think they did it to make it longer.

I don't know if looked like COD and we only had 1 COD before Twilight came out it was jut trying to be realistic fantasy like a LOTOR or you know a current then gen Ocarina of Time and after everyone and some still do moan about Wind Waker being all kiddy.

I do like that SS and Zelda U look like they've found a happy medium of the two styles.

I don't like the Skyward Sword motion controls.

Anyway I can see a clear distinction in the values between the 'big' games at the moment, If we look at Skyward Sword for instance it is very clear about what it wants to achieve. A single player experience, the length of which I feel is just right. What we see in some big games however is an indecisiveness, Assasins Creed could not implement what the game was about into multiplayer. It just didnt work.

At the other end of the scale we have the Big 'online' games, for me the experience and value is forever wavering. Simply because as a player you are reliant on the virtues of other players and when the playerbase is like COD wellll...

Sometimes anonymity and seperation of players on online Nintendo games may detract from a fun experience, but when you read through some Miiverse posts... perhaps we should be thankfull?

I don't like the Motion Controls either...
I'm also not keen on the linear nature of the game.
So in a way, I agree with all of you.

Therefore Skyward Sword is only "one of the best games of all time" as opposed to "the best game of all time".

Ahhh, I knew that someone could be counted on to provide the counterpoint.

Here's a random gaming thought inspired by this video (HIGHLY recommended - any video on gaming that quotes Samuel Coleridge gets a thumbs up from me) - can there exist a successful adaptation of a video-game?

Here's my thoughts from the YouTube comments: A linear game like a Call of Duty or such could work as a film adaptation, but that's because those sort of games strive to emulate the art of film in the first place. The whole "30fps is more cinematic" argument being bandied around as of late isn't helping advancing videogames as an artform as it's stating that videogames can't stand on their own merits.

Film to video-game adaptations work because you're adding something to the experience in player agency. You lose that going from game to film.

I've got no problem with a game being a 30fps if it's going for cinematic approach or more story driven as you don't really need 60fps which should be for a action game with stuff going on.

As if you look at The Last of Us the PS3 version is in 30FPS (PS4 version can be locked to it) and that title has been critically acclaimed & something you could show none gamers that think games are all about blowing shit up which isn't the case with such a story driven game almost film quality that's why I think the film of it will work.

So to the answer the question YES there can be but I think it has to be the right game to movie and then done right. COD would work from Mr Bay as he likes blowing stuff up and has that summer blockbuster feel but would I turn GTA into a movie no as the game has to many choices and options if you did it as gangster movie it would just be another gangster movie and likely a bad one.