Opinion - The Best Games Aren't From Big Studios

I don't like to place all AAA studios in one category and all indie studios in the other category (dislike/like). I don't think that's fair.

Truthfully, I've enjoyed many games from AAA studios. It just so happens that most games that I'm more likely to play nowadays are made by indie developers, as they often veer in a direction I'm likely to be going myself. But there's a certain fondness for indie studios too - people like to root for the little guy. I think we've all been there before.

It's safe to say that a lot of AAA studios have lost their way and attempt to play it safe rather than push the creative boundary, but that's not the case for all of them. AAA studios are capable of releasing some gems too, and I don't think it's fair to automatically dismiss them as being incapable of doing so.

I do think indie studios are in a more creative space as a whole right now, but I also believe it's part of their nature to be, too. Admittedly, the games I've put the most amount of time into during the past 10 years (by a large margin) are designed by indie studios. I think they are more focused on what I want from games these days.

Innovation is over-rated in gaming.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Personally, I value a design philosophy or mechanic done well over innovation.

You don't have to be innovative to make a successful game. Actually, sticking to a tried and tested formula, with some exploration, a good story, and a robust combat system is enough for me.

TomRon said:

EDIT: Standard definition of the word gamer for clarification:
"A person who plays video games .

Click to expand...

And not vid products. All video games are vid products, not all vid products are games for games are about gameplay.

rjshae said:

Did I say "innovative"? No, I said take bigger risks. Innovation is over-rated in gaming. Larger businesses weren't interested in the isometric style of BG2; they'd moved on to 3D graphical glorification. Releasing a AAA game in that old niche style would be a big financial risk.

Click to expand...

Brilliant. It would be a big financial risk for larger businesses so it is for crowdfunding devs. The same devs who operate with money delivered up front, thin as thin obligations to deliver a product and can deviate at will from the pitch they sold their crowdfunded project.

The thing is that those projects are avoided by big companies not because of the non risk attached to them but because they are not rewarding enough. Big companies still prefer to take more risks to earn more.

Even the supposedly sticking to old formula is more risky than a crowdfunded project because there is nothing like sticking to the old formula, it is all about improving on established foundations, bringing new elements so that customers feel they are not eating the same soup without unsettling them.

I've been seeing plenty of games with microtransactions but I haven't felt the slightest desire to actually buy any of them.

Ragnaris said:

I don't like to place all AAA studios in one category and all indie studios in the other category (dislike/like). I don't think that's fair.

Click to expand...

The whole classification has gotten crazy. In this article, a game by or through one of the "big" publishers is AAA. Otherwise, the game is indie. Never mind the production values. Never mind how dependent they are on some third party to publish. Those "B" studios are all indie now.

While I'm sure you never cared about microtransactions, many others, especially those who are easily manipulated into scams and buy dick stretching pills over internet, did.

The whole problem is that with microtransactions, and it's big studios who are pushing that junk, games got worse.
Want an example? Shadow of War. Initially it was a tedious grind so a weak mindset would not refund the game but buy damned "grindsavers" whatnot.
After Warner noticed people mostly stopped paying for scam as whales moved elsewhere, they pretended to suddenly shift into an ethical company and removed fraudulent parts of the game. Easy, right? The solution is to just remove microtransactions and the game is good?
No. They also rebalanced everything. No, the balance wasn't bugged. The game, due to stalling your progesss just because so you pay for microtransactions, simply wasn't fun. With removal of "winning" microtransactions, noone in ther mind would care about wasting time on annoying crap thus the game needed rework.

In case my previous post wasn't clear. The problem is not with the studio size, but with unregulated predatory monetizations. The market didn't want to regulate itself, companies pushed it to such extremes there is practically not a single videogame on phones any more only scams, well screw all those scum CEOs who should be incarcerated for life, laws will now deal with "surprise mechanics".
Not as fast as I would want, sadly.

ChienAboyeur said:

And not vid products. All video games are vid products, not all vid products are games for games are about gameplay.

Brilliant. It would be a big financial risk for larger businesses so it is for crowdfunding devs. The same devs who operate with money delivered up front, thin as thin obligations to deliver a product and can deviate at will from the pitch they sold their crowdfunded project.

Click to expand...

Not true; larger companies have more financial resources, so the risk is significantly reduced. They could afford to deliver niche products with thin margins, but they're conservative and avoid the risk. Indies can't compete with the big companies, so they release niche products that the larger companies won't publish. But if an Indie fails, it very easily can go under. That's a bigger risk for them. EA can release sub-par games for years, yet they keep making more because it's a well-trodden road that they know how to follow.

There are great games from big studios, obviously.

They're rare, though. But great games are rare no matter the source.