How well funded do you prefer your games to be?

Here is another poll provided by Lackblogger and this is the text accompanying it:

I have deliberately omitted an "I don't care" option, because that's a cop-out lie spoken by people who aren't aware of their own personal taste, or, worse, are in complete denial of their taste. I think we all know what a triple A is and there's no shame in naturally preferring the most spend for you buck. However, some people just get put off by the glam and everything associated with that, but still like games to look as if they were made by highly professional teams, that kind-of back-up AAA game that isn't on the front-row of the marketing bulge. Perhaps you prefer the games that are made by quality developers, but with the more double A budgets, just a few mill to tidy up some edges and ensure some nice graphics.

Moving into the definitely indy area, do you prefer indies, but are then very snobbish with your indies, putting your faith in people who can always deliver with very specific but attainable limited budgets, or perhaps you prefer the strugglers, for which you don't expect everything to be great but you just love the concept of finding the new genius or the fun of finding the diamond in the rough. Or maybe you're one of those people who simply gets more fun out of laughing at the poorer games, quantity vastly outweighing quality, variety is the spice of life after all.

In the perfect world, I would say more funding the merrier, but in the real world it doesn't quite work that way. I'm quite disappointed at AAA companies spending large proportion of funding improving cosmetics above all else. Don't get me wrong, I do like pretty games too but I value core aspects of game more than the visuals.

It would depend on each individuals what is the core aspect of the game but I think most of gamers will agree those are combat/encounter designs, UI, and writing rather than visual aspects. I think indie developers been focusing on these aspects more than AAA companies of late and I'm guessing with far less funding as well. In saying that, the developer still need reasonable amount of funding to achieve their goals effectively, so I've chosen *fairly well funded*.

I think it's really a balance thing - I believe people can achieve the best with some restrictions rather than with too much resources - seem to let them stray off their goals too much

This is kinda hard to answer.

I play a few AAA games (mostly BioWare and Bethesda games), but I'm not a fan of the trend of "watering down" the gameplay and cherry picking features from other games. I mostly stick with them because I like the lore.

I've been enjoying my Kickstarters very much in the last few years though, but the budget for that is all over the place. I also like the Spiders games and that's not AAA either.

I guess I'll go with fairly well funded. It's like an average.

I voted on megabucks AAA+.

I don't play only games from that level, in fact most of those I refuse to buy and am always using some of those as an example of modern games industry decadence where eyecandy boredom like Destiny sells in millions and gets advertised daily but small indies that are ways more fun than it get barely mentioned.

I still buy and enjoy every little gem, but that doesn't mean I have to like small funds.

I agree with Joxer as I prefer megabucks AAA+, but will play any game If I'm interested in playing it. All the recent indie and Kickstarters have feed my RPG craving for now.

The problem for me is that the poll options are too stratified; my choice would be fairly well-funded and upwards, but not fairly well-funded in preference over AAA.

Making computer game requires a lot of man-hours and multiple talents, and being properly funded is generally a good idea. I don't care too much what the budget is, so long as it's sufficient to realise the game properly.

Missing the option: "Sufficient funds for the project at hand". I really don't think funding amounts are a universal thing. The one thing I can't stand however? An incomplete project - this includes Early Access.

I don't like them to be too well funded because then the devs typically change the base game by creating ludicrous "stretch" goals. I would love to see stretch goals disappear altogether. I believe Original Sin was a much better game prior to them changing it beyond all recognition with poorly thought out add-ons.

I like well funded as the more money available to make the game better .. the better. But not available as an option is what the money is spent on. If it is well funded but much of the money goes to marketing and expensive voice overs so that in the end less money is spent on the game itself compared to an okay funded game where almost all the money goes to the game so the two are equivalent ... well then okay funded is an option.

Also throwing money at something doesn't mean it makes it better. But in general terms, and not trying to over-analyze too much, I think having plenty of money to pay for all the people needed to produce and make an AAA game is my preference.

I tend to like more niche games. I guess I'm a pen an paper player at heart, and since I only play very rarely in real life, I want my computer games to be as close as possible to this sort of experience. I'd not vote for AAA money, because most of those games tend to have weak rpg mechanics, and are action RPGS, and those aren't things I particularly like as they are very far removed from pen and paper type rpgs. Still, I personally seem to enjoy projects with midsized teams, like Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2, and Might and Magic X, and Shadow Run: Hong Kong over very small projects (Maybe Underrail is my one exception in the last few years). I love Paper Sorcerer and Lords of Xulima, for example, but they sure could have profited from increased funding. Paper Sorcerer desperately needed a decent soundtrack, and Lords of Xulima could have profited from better writing and graphics.

Prefer? Well, I prefer full VO, high end graphics, complex AI, deep combat mechanics and so on. so I guess I'd prefer mega bucks AAA+.

In reality though it doesn't really matter, I've played excellent games in all funding tiers and I've also played stinkers in all funding tiers. Amount of money ( within reason) doesn't matter, how it's spent does.

I prefer my RPGS free, open source and to be big community collaborations worked on for generations by 1000s of people

I have also voted for fairly well funded. I've tried my best to attempt no end of AAA games over the last decade and not one of them has been what I'm really interested in. I'm sure there's reasons for this that extend way beyond personal prejudice. I've also tried many extremely low budget games and find that they can only really be enjoyable despite their flaws rather than just going through the game oblivious to design issues. The games I've mostly preferred over the last decade have been games where they don't look cheap, but there's still a distinctly traditional PC vibe to the UI and in-game activities, and likely 2D graphics, such as more the idea of sprites than 3D polygonal characters, of which these tend to be made for a mill or two as far as I can gather.

I rarely like megabucks AAA games anymore. They just don't speak to me, personally, and are made for a different group of people that I can't relate to.

So, I'm happy with a cheap little RPG that has all the nerdy elements I dig it, a hand-crafted feel and gameplay displayed first and foremost over story/graphics/cinematics/production values/extra fluff.

That is my ideal choice.

Personally, any game that requires the Origin or Ubisoft platforms are anathema to me, so that rules out most triple a projects. I would pick that they have the funds required to fulfill the premise of the game, as is usually stipulated long before the arrival time. Quite honestly, developers that choose or prefer to NOT go triple a are more likely to receive my money anyways.

SirJames said:

I prefer my RPGS free, open source and to be big community collaborations worked on for generations by 1000s of people

Click to expand...

Fluent said:

I rarely like megabucks AAA games anymore. They just don't speak to me, personally, and are made for a different group of people that I can't relate to.

So, I'm happy with a cheap little RPG that has all the nerdy elements I dig it, a hand-crafted feel and gameplay displayed first and foremost over story/graphics/cinematics/production values/extra fluff.

That is my ideal choice.

Click to expand...

Why repeat what others have said best?

I would go one further and say that companies should spend 95% of their animation and graphic money on more intricate and complex gameplay systems, but that's just me.

I voted noticeably well funded, but fairly well funded is just as ok.

Nearly of the rpgs I've enjoyed the most fit in these two categories. That is games like Morrowind, Arx Fatalis, Gothics, Risen 1, Vampire bloodlines, Witcher 1 & 2, Divinity orginal sin, Wasteland 2 DC, Pillars of eternity, Baldur's Gates, Torment, Deus ex 1, Divinity orginal sin.

There are definitely real AAA gems like Witcher 3, Both Kotors, Fallout New Vegas, Dragon Age Orgins, Deus Ex HR, Mass effects and ofcourse Skyrim, but often big AAA budgets don't translate into great games. There are quite many examples of this.

Fairly well funded, I guess. (But like all things, "it depends").

It's true that I am generally disappointed with AAA RPGs, but I don't know if that means it is necessarily because of their budget. In some cases, the problem may be the case of "too many cooks spoil the broth"; AAA games tend to have huge team of people working on them and perhaps this inevitably leads to a lot of filler content... Since all the writers / designers can't realistically offer input on every quest, you end up with a collage of mediocrity rather than something that seems to really flow together.

Then again, I think the main reason I don't care for most AAA games is that I'm not the target audience... They're trying to appeal to mainstream gamers, and make them dumbed down, accessible, and designed for consoles- not "old school" CRPGs.

I'd love to see what some of the mid-size / indie RPG developers could do with a AAA budget. I like nice graphics, but it's just not as important as gameplay, story, and everything else.

I think the best scenario is when you get a really successful studio, and a parent company that has complete confidence to give them a free hand. That's the case with Naughty Dog and Sony - there is an non-interference policy, and as long as the devs present Sony with a great game every couple of years, everyone's happy. It seems like the complete opposite to Bioware and EA.