Companies need to start focusing on making good games not big budget games

Over the past while it seems that most companies just break the bank on their games then come out with stuff that is relatively good but just not as good as it should be, mainly because they try to cater to too many people or try to be flashy to sell of the game but drop it in actual gameplay and it just doesn't work, frankly it's getting annoying, especially now that this gen (atleast the ps3) is going to be around for awhile and big name companies can't sell on that "shiny" factor anymore, so many companies ignored gameplay and just focued on their game looking good and ended up a success (AC1 majority of gameplay was tedious, prince of persia forgotten sands sold on flash and brand name, Crysis 2 ect.) and I think it would be better for everyone if companies/developers just picked a sub-genre and made it great and appeal to the people who like it on a budget, Demon souls proves how sucessful that strategy can be, a million seller on a budger is better then a 3 million seller breaking the bank

Gamers demand big budget games though. Demon souls sold well by its standards but not by general console standards.

same could be said for movies, but parent companies look for maximized profits, and this is what we get.

I have no idea what the record might be, but Square spent $32.3 million on Final Fantasy X, and had a team of 100 people working on it.

Who knows if BioWare or Blizzard has topped those figures - anyone know?

Sorry but big budget = more in return.

Not saying thats the reality, but thats what companies always think.

Sorry but big budget = more in return.

Not saying thats the reality, but thats what companies always think.

ChubbyGuy40

Any reason why they can't be both?TheMoreYouOwn

Because big budget games need a lot of sales. A lot of sales generally means a casual target audience. There are plenty of great casual games, but there are plenty of bad ones as well.

How big was Demon Souls's budget?TheAcountantMan

[QUOTE="TheMoreYouOwn"]Any reason why they can't be both?Twin-Blade

Because big budget games need a lot of sales. A lot of sales generally means a casual target audience. There are plenty of great casual games, but there are plenty of bad ones as well.

I have no idea what the record might be, but Square spent $32.3 million on Final Fantasy X, and had a team of 100 people working on it.

Who knows if BioWare or Blizzard has topped those figures - anyone know?

topsemag55

GAT4 cost and WoW was rumored to have cost $100 million. SW:ToR is rumored to have passed $150 million and it's still in development.

Here's some other 'top cost' games http://blog.knowyourmoney.co.uk/index.php/2008/08/10-most-expensive-video-game-budgets-ever/

[QUOTE="TheMoreYouOwn"]Any reason why they can't be both?Twin-Blade

Because big budget games need a lot of sales. A lot of sales generally means a casual target audience. There are plenty of great casual games, but there are plenty of bad ones as well.

Sorry, but there are plenty of both low and high bugdet games that are good and don't warrant devs, across the board, slashing budgets. Its the market, in the end, that determines dev costs, and high budget games are turning a profit. Once they don't, then pricing/costs will be adjusted.

When a dev can put huge amounts of money into a game they can overshadow lesser titles with ease, and make people care less about other titles.

If you want less big budget titles then support the low budget titles, and quit supporting the big budget ones. Also, try to convince the 20 million people buying CoD to think the same way as you :P

GAT4 cost and WoW was rumored to have cost $100 million. SW:ToR is rumored to have passed $150 million and it's still in development.

Here's some other 'top cost' games http://blog.knowyourmoney.co.uk/index.php/2008/08/10-most-expensive-video-game-budgets-ever/

Mazoch

Oh man at the number of $60 DVDs that would need to be sold.:o

[QUOTE="Mazoch"]

GAT4 cost and WoW was rumored to have cost $100 million. SW:ToR is rumored to have passed $150 million and it's still in development.

Here's some other 'top cost' games http://blog.knowyourmoney.co.uk/index.php/2008/08/10-most-expensive-video-game-budgets-ever/

topsemag55

Oh man at the number of $60 DVDs that would need to be sold.:o

When a dev can put huge amounts of money into a game they can overshadow lesser titles with ease, and make people care less about other titles.

If you want less big budget titles then support the low budget titles, and quit supporting the big budget ones. Also, try to convince the 20 million people buying CoD to think the same way as you :P Raymundo_Manuel

I agree but people demand cutting-edge graphics and you can't have everything.

Sometimes you need a bug budget to make a good game.

Look at Assassins Creed or Red Dead Redemption.

Over the past while it seems that most companies just break the bank on their games then come out with stuff that is relatively good but just not as good as it should be, mainly because they try to cater to too many people or try to be flashy to sell of the game but drop it in actual gameplay and it just doesn't work, frankly it's getting annoying, especially now that this gen (atleast the ps3) is going to be around for awhile and big name companies can't sell on that "shiny" factor anymore, so many companies ignored gameplay and just focued on their game looking good and ended up a success (AC1 majority of gameplay was tedious, prince of persia forgotten sands sold on flash and brand name, Crysis 2 ect.) and I think it would be better for everyone if companies/developers just picked a sub-genre and made it great and appeal to the people who like it on a budget, Demon souls proves how sucessful that strategy can be, a million seller on a budger is better then a 3 million seller breaking the bank

momentum_god

Oh c'mon, were you born yesterday? How is our predicament any different from the movie industry?

How many movies are made in a year? Too many

How many were good? A few

How many were big budget ones but sucked? Loads of 'em

Not every dev is like Valve or Blizzard. Not every director is like James Cameron or Nolan.

Sometimes you need a bug budget to make a good game.

Look at Assassins Creed or Red Dead Redemption.

JLF1

[QUOTE="momentum_god"]

Over the past while it seems that most companies just break the bank on their games then come out with stuff that is relatively good but just not as good as it should be, mainly because they try to cater to too many people or try to be flashy to sell of the game but drop it in actual gameplay and it just doesn't work, frankly it's getting annoying, especially now that this gen (atleast the ps3) is going to be around for awhile and big name companies can't sell on that "shiny" factor anymore, so many companies ignored gameplay and just focued on their game looking good and ended up a success (AC1 majority of gameplay was tedious, prince of persia forgotten sands sold on flash and brand name, Crysis 2 ect.) and I think it would be better for everyone if companies/developers just picked a sub-genre and made it great and appeal to the people who like it on a budget, Demon souls proves how sucessful that strategy can be, a million seller on a budger is better then a 3 million seller breaking the bank

jhcho2

Oh c'mon, were you born yesterday? How is our predicament any different from the movie industry?

How many movies are made in a year? Too many

How many were good? A few

How many were big budget ones but sucked? Loads of 'em

Not every dev is like Valve or Blizzard. Not every director is like James Cameron or Nolan.

[QUOTE="momentum_god"]

Over the past while it seems that most companies just break the bank on their games then come out with stuff that is relatively good but just not as good as it should be, mainly because they try to cater to too many people or try to be flashy to sell of the game but drop it in actual gameplay and it just doesn't work, frankly it's getting annoying, especially now that this gen (atleast the ps3) is going to be around for awhile and big name companies can't sell on that "shiny" factor anymore, so many companies ignored gameplay and just focued on their game looking good and ended up a success (AC1 majority of gameplay was tedious, prince of persia forgotten sands sold on flash and brand name, Crysis 2 ect.) and I think it would be better for everyone if companies/developers just picked a sub-genre and made it great and appeal to the people who like it on a budget, Demon souls proves how sucessful that strategy can be, a million seller on a budger is better then a 3 million seller breaking the bank

jhcho2

Oh c'mon, were you born yesterday? How is our predicament any different from the movie industry?

How many movies are made in a year? Too many

How many were good? A few

How many were big budget ones but sucked? Loads of 'em

Not every dev is like Valve or Blizzard. Not every director is like James Cameron or Nolan.

The movie industry is pathetic in their standards right now and I just don't want gaming to go down that way

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

Sorry but big budget = more in return.

Not saying thats the reality, but thats what companies always think.

momentum_god

[QUOTE="momentum_god"][QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

Sorry but big budget = more in return.

Not saying thats the reality, but thats what companies always think.

DragonfireXZ95

Where really good movies, like Sucker Punch, get piss-poor score from these so-called "critics" while movies about Facebook get perfect scores everywhere?

Sounds like the current gaming industry, except some reviewers like GS have common sense and can rate accurately (Except certain games like Nier, Darkside Chronicles, and Sniper Ghost Warrior....oh and SC2. perfect 10 for that game.)

[QUOTE="JLF1"]

Sometimes you need a bug budget to make a good game.

Look at Assassins Creed or Red Dead Redemption.

momentum_god

AC2 and Brotherhood are amazing and far from tedious.

Well if you want good and innovative games with low budgets you will find them on handhelds.

honestly, some companies like bethesda need to test their games for bugs, fallout new vegas is almost unplayable because of it....

i really cant play any fps's anymore, they all feel like the same game to me these days one might have a nanosuit (just one example) but hell its still the exact same as every other fps, il wait until the next gen comes before i decide whether im giving up on gaming :((not pc though as that still gets some original and complex games)

They put to much focus on graphics, but the games keep getting better and better so im not complaining.

[QUOTE="momentum_god"]

[QUOTE="JLF1"]

Sometimes you need a bug budget to make a good game.

Look at Assassins Creed or Red Dead Redemption.

JLF1

AC2 and Brotherhood are amazing and far from tedious.

There are many non big budget games that still sell for $60...Deathtransit

More then you think, but they don't get advertised as much or as well received despite often being better then the big budget games

i really cant play any fps's anymore, they all feel like the same game to me these days one might have a nanosuit (just one example) but hell its still the exact same as every other fps, il wait until the next gen comes before i decide whether im giving up on gaming :((not pc though as that still gets some original and complex games)

icyseanfitz

[QUOTE="jhcho2"]

[QUOTE="momentum_god"]

Over the past while it seems that most companies just break the bank on their games then come out with stuff that is relatively good but just not as good as it should be, mainly because they try to cater to too many people or try to be flashy to sell of the game but drop it in actual gameplay and it just doesn't work, frankly it's getting annoying, especially now that this gen (atleast the ps3) is going to be around for awhile and big name companies can't sell on that "shiny" factor anymore, so many companies ignored gameplay and just focued on their game looking good and ended up a success (AC1 majority of gameplay was tedious, prince of persia forgotten sands sold on flash and brand name, Crysis 2 ect.) and I think it would be better for everyone if companies/developers just picked a sub-genre and made it great and appeal to the people who like it on a budget, Demon souls proves how sucessful that strategy can be, a million seller on a budger is better then a 3 million seller breaking the bank

momentum_god

Oh c'mon, were you born yesterday? How is our predicament any different from the movie industry?

How many movies are made in a year? Too many

How many were good? A few

How many were big budget ones but sucked? Loads of 'em

Not every dev is like Valve or Blizzard. Not every director is like James Cameron or Nolan.

The movie industry is pathetic in their standards right now and I just don't want gaming to go down that way

I would like to look at it as a 'supply and demand' thing as well. Standards for AA and AAA games are all based on what is available, and what is exceptional from the rest. If every game was say....AAA quality, we would automatically adjust our standards such that a regular AAA game becomes AA, and only the exceptional AAA will stay as AAA. That's why when we look at our games today, almost all of them would be AAA quality 10 years ago, but not now. Our standards change. Just like how nature approaches equilibrium, we will always have definitions for 'normal' and 'good' games. And that definition gets updated over time. If Gears 1 came out now, would it still get a 9.6 or 9.5? I think Oblivion would get a 9.0 at best if released now. There will never be a time when 75% of games are AAA. If that time hypothetically did arrive, we would consider them as mediocre and adjust our standards so that only the top 10% of the games in terms of quality deserve AAA.

[QUOTE="momentum_god"]

[QUOTE="jhcho2"]

Oh c'mon, were you born yesterday? How is our predicament any different from the movie industry?

How many movies are made in a year? Too many

How many were good? A few

How many were big budget ones but sucked? Loads of 'em

Not every dev is like Valve or Blizzard. Not every director is like James Cameron or Nolan.jhcho2

The movie industry is pathetic in their standards right now and I just don't want gaming to go down that way

I would like to look at it as a 'supply and demand' thing as well. Standards for AA and AAA games are all based on what is available, and what is exceptional from the rest. If every game was say....AAA quality, we would automatically adjust our standards such that a regular AAA game becomes AA, and only the exceptional AAA will stay as AAA. That's why when we look at our games today, almost all of them would be AAA quality 10 years ago, but not now. Our standards change. Just like how nature approaches equilibrium, we will always have definitions for 'normal' and 'good' games. And that definition gets updated over time. If Gears 1 came out now, would it still get a 9.6 or 9.5? I think Oblivion would get a 9.0 at best if released now. There will never be a time when 75% of games are AAA. If that time hypothetically did arrive, we would consider them as mediocre and adjust our standards so that only the top 10% of the games in terms of quality deserve AAA.

My problem is though the big budget AAA games just aren't that good to begin with, they try to do so many things and do very few well, reviewers give them slack since they're hyped so much and they do so many things but games that do less can do them better but reviewers don't give them the same slack because they aren't objective and if they aren't a fan of the genre they give it a bad score unless it's advertised to hell so while you say AAA is the highest quality it really isn't and it's a really crappy term

I agree but people demand cutting-edge graphics and you can't have everything.

nameless12345

Witcher 2 has cutting edge graphics and that game cost like what 6 million to make?

I agree but people demand cutting-edge graphics and you can't have everything.

nameless12345

No they don't. They demand games that hold their hands.

If they demanded cutting-edge graphics CoD would sell 10 copies.