I disagree. When AAA is approached with a solid ending, no monetization beyond a full expansion for less than retail, and good story, I can enjoy them just fine.
See: God of War, Death Stranding, Horizon (not the racing), the Jedi: Survivor series, Persona, Dead Space, Cyberpunk, etc.
Totally. As I said, I don’t disparage well made games and enjoyed literally every title you listed except Persona (never played).
But like lets be real. AAA game industries have generally become bloated, increasingly prioritizing profit over product quality. Lots of exploitation of developers and gamers alike.
I am very confused about what you’re saying there. So AAA produces great games but also is bloated, exploitative and low quality for the sake of profit.
So which is it? I mean, it can be both, but then I’m not sure where the “AAA needs to die” thing comes from. Presumably AAA should make more good games and less bad games, which seems like a completely different thing to say.
So hold on they prioritize profit over quality, but the result isn’t “low quality”?
I mean, charitably I could separate design quality from technical quality and accept you were only talking about the latter, but it’s a big concession.
“Needs to die” and “needs to change” are very different things, and we’re all estabilishing that there is a lot of worthwhile stuff coming out of that side of the industry right now. If you think you’re being misunderstood I’d happily hear what the correct interpretation is supposed to be, but I’m going to politely say maybe it’s because you presented your point in an imprecise, hyperbolic way for effect, not because we’re twisting what you said.
For the sake of discussion, why (from the player’s perspective, or heck, from the developer’s perspective) do those games need to be or benefit from being produced by a AAA publisher?
It has been finished and done for at least two years now, with a solid expansion to boot, so the “garbage at launch” argument doesn’t hold much steam for me anymore.
The game played like a beta on underpowered consoles, but the PS5 versions were complete and were able to be finished with no DLC needed. They did the work, turned it around, and the game runs and plays fantastic now 5 years after launch. On top of that they did it in less than 3 years.
Not understanding how it doesn’t qualify under my original statement.
At Launch the game was heroically broken on ps4, literally unplayable.
PS5 was buggy but doable.
PC was hit and miss, i had a reasonable time with it though.
Agree about the turnaround, like a faster no mans sky, which i would hope with the difference in budget.
Not understanding how it doesn’t qualify under my original statement.
I wasn’t addressing your original post, but i can give my opinion i suppose.
Your original criteria of “AAA done right” were:
“solid ending, no monetization beyond a full expansion for less than retail, and good story”.
So the comment:
Releasing a broken beta version for full retail price is not “AAA done right”
Doesn’t so much point out how cyberpunk doesn’t fit your proposed criteria, but rather that “baseline release quality” should also be in the list.
Which i agree with, I’d go as far as to say “should be a playable, functional game at launch” is a baseline requirement for any type of studios that wishes to be considered “Doing things right”.
I realize now you are not the person who originally commented on my top level comment, so my reference to my original point was moot. Have a great day!
Neither would Mass Effect or DA:O, those had purchaseable cosmetics and preorder bonuses. So did Dead Space, incidentally. In fact there were some cross-brand cosmetics between Dead Space and Mass Effect, IIRC. Definitely Jedi Survivor. Persona games often have small cosmetic DLC, too.
Often with this stuff, “AAA” becomes “games I didn’t like” more than anything else.
Huh, I… Acquired Jedi Survivor so all connectivity shoving monetization must not have worked. I haven’t played the 2nd one, but at least in the first one I didn’t remember there being DLC packs and whatnot.
Also to be completely honest I haven’t played Persona, so if there is DLC in it I am mistaken.
There is a deluxe edition with some cosmetics that you can buy as a bundle or as a separate pack.
It’s not much, but hey, I don’t mind cosmetics in general, so you tell me where you draw the line. It’s mostly horse armor, but I thought that was a bad thing.
The persona games get weird, because they typically get at least one re-release and it’s hard to keep track of what is availble where. I can tell you if you google “Persona 5 DLC” there are people explicitly asking how to avoid cashing in the bundled DLC items that trivialize chunks of the game by being overpowered, though.
Just too bad AW2 is locked in Epic Store, but that’s not related to the quality of the game.
Arkham Knight had quite a disasterous launch with the performance issues tho, but can’t recall any gameplay bugs - even though I do have my gripes with that game. The performance issues are (now) fairly non-issue as gpu/cpu/storage performance has risen noticeably since launch.
Arkham Origins I couldn’t even play 15 minutes without it crashing, no idea what’s happening there.
I disagree. When AAA is approached with a solid ending, no monetization beyond a full expansion for less than retail, and good story, I can enjoy them just fine.
See: God of War, Death Stranding, Horizon (not the racing), the Jedi: Survivor series, Persona, Dead Space, Cyberpunk, etc.
AAA can be done right.
Totally. As I said, I don’t disparage well made games and enjoyed literally every title you listed except Persona (never played).
But like lets be real. AAA game industries have generally become bloated, increasingly prioritizing profit over product quality. Lots of exploitation of developers and gamers alike.
I’m not saying AAA can’t produce good games.
I am very confused about what you’re saying there. So AAA produces great games but also is bloated, exploitative and low quality for the sake of profit.
So which is it? I mean, it can be both, but then I’m not sure where the “AAA needs to die” thing comes from. Presumably AAA should make more good games and less bad games, which seems like a completely different thing to say.
deleted by creator
So hold on they prioritize profit over quality, but the result isn’t “low quality”?
I mean, charitably I could separate design quality from technical quality and accept you were only talking about the latter, but it’s a big concession.
“Needs to die” and “needs to change” are very different things, and we’re all estabilishing that there is a lot of worthwhile stuff coming out of that side of the industry right now. If you think you’re being misunderstood I’d happily hear what the correct interpretation is supposed to be, but I’m going to politely say maybe it’s because you presented your point in an imprecise, hyperbolic way for effect, not because we’re twisting what you said.
For the sake of discussion, why (from the player’s perspective, or heck, from the developer’s perspective) do those games need to be or benefit from being produced by a AAA publisher?
Releasing a broken beta version for full retail price is not “AAA done right”.
That’s my biggest gripe. Games being released in an unfinished state. I’d rather them be honest, call it an early release and charge accordingly.
My second biggest gripe rides off the back of the first… how the people who make and play games are exploited.
Devs getting worked to death and thrown under the bus for executive decisions.
Gamers’ loyalty being taken advantage of including the declining value of Pre-orders.
It has been finished and done for at least two years now, with a solid expansion to boot, so the “garbage at launch” argument doesn’t hold much steam for me anymore.
Luckily “garbage at launch” isn’t a phrase used to indicate something is bad “right now” so no steam need be held.
The game played like a beta on underpowered consoles, but the PS5 versions were complete and were able to be finished with no DLC needed. They did the work, turned it around, and the game runs and plays fantastic now 5 years after launch. On top of that they did it in less than 3 years.
Not understanding how it doesn’t qualify under my original statement.
At Launch the game was heroically broken on ps4, literally unplayable.
PS5 was buggy but doable.
PC was hit and miss, i had a reasonable time with it though.
Agree about the turnaround, like a faster no mans sky, which i would hope with the difference in budget.
I wasn’t addressing your original post, but i can give my opinion i suppose.
Your original criteria of “AAA done right” were:
So the comment:
Doesn’t so much point out how cyberpunk doesn’t fit your proposed criteria, but rather that “baseline release quality” should also be in the list.
Which i agree with, I’d go as far as to say “should be a playable, functional game at launch” is a baseline requirement for any type of studios that wishes to be considered “Doing things right”.
I realize now you are not the person who originally commented on my top level comment, so my reference to my original point was moot. Have a great day!
Mass Effect, WoW, Skyrim, Dragon Age: Origins, Witcher 3, Baldur’s Gate 3, Bioshock…
2012, 2005, 2011, 2009, 2015, 2023, 2011.
Mostly agree, but WoW wouldn’t qualify for the no monetization part.
Neither would Mass Effect or DA:O, those had purchaseable cosmetics and preorder bonuses. So did Dead Space, incidentally. In fact there were some cross-brand cosmetics between Dead Space and Mass Effect, IIRC. Definitely Jedi Survivor. Persona games often have small cosmetic DLC, too.
Often with this stuff, “AAA” becomes “games I didn’t like” more than anything else.
Huh, I… Acquired Jedi Survivor so all connectivity shoving monetization must not have worked. I haven’t played the 2nd one, but at least in the first one I didn’t remember there being DLC packs and whatnot.
Also to be completely honest I haven’t played Persona, so if there is DLC in it I am mistaken.
There is a deluxe edition with some cosmetics that you can buy as a bundle or as a separate pack.
It’s not much, but hey, I don’t mind cosmetics in general, so you tell me where you draw the line. It’s mostly horse armor, but I thought that was a bad thing.
The persona games get weird, because they typically get at least one re-release and it’s hard to keep track of what is availble where. I can tell you if you google “Persona 5 DLC” there are people explicitly asking how to avoid cashing in the bundled DLC items that trivialize chunks of the game by being overpowered, though.
Control and Alan Wake 2 also, Remedy flying the AAA banner while holding their artistic head high still.
I haven’t played them but I from what I hear the Batman Arkham games and Insomniac Spider-Man games also count as worthwhile and well-made AAA games.
Just from PC-perspective:
Just too bad AW2 is locked in Epic Store, but that’s not related to the quality of the game.
Arkham Knight had quite a disasterous launch with the performance issues tho, but can’t recall any gameplay bugs - even though I do have my gripes with that game. The performance issues are (now) fairly non-issue as gpu/cpu/storage performance has risen noticeably since launch.
Arkham Origins I couldn’t even play 15 minutes without it crashing, no idea what’s happening there.
I’m not sure persona actually fits as AAA, it’s more like AA.
Jedi was alright, others on that list, meh…