Once in six months, Kurt leaves his natural habitat of his house to interact with another human being. So fortunate that they caught it on camera for us to witness and enjoy
@@alexwalters35ofc you can have both but introducing obtuse/abstract UNPROVEN concepts/ways to play into your 9 FIGURE project only for it to flop...rich figures @ the top can't stand it which is why you don't see it. Death Stranding, as mentioned in the video, is the only recent outlier and @ launch was not received well if we're being honest but you could see the ambition
@@alexwalters35they are doing both as putting money into a project and shipping it out to market is always risky. Although some projects are riskier than others.
Not all indie games are taking the medium forward, some of them are just souless copies of other indies or retro games, even from AAA games too. So I would say that both things are great about the industry as a whole. The only thing that should disapear are the games as a service and all the empty DLC and lootboxes/microtransactions that are rotten to the core.
I'd say games like Dead Cells and Chained Echoes which were mentioned are just as safe as anything in the AAA game. They're iterations/takes on classic, well established formulas
i agree, looking at the VAST majority of indies is a sea of metroidvanias and platformers and copies of what other, especially better indie games, have done and just added a graphic filter or a slight change in profile camera for instance.
Lucy is a regular on Friends Per Second and Tamoor is a frequent guest on that podcast. Also features Jake Baldino from Gameranx (Before You Buy guy), Ralph from SkillUp and Jirard (the completionist)
A developer can get as innovative as they want. The main question is: “Is this fun to play?” A game can be made as deep and thought provoking as they want to make it, but if I’m spending more time answering life’s questions than having fun, then it’s a waste.
Pushing the medium is not only a question of game design and mechanics, last of us part 2 maybe didn’t push those, but they pushed story telling, immersion through realism, with graphics, sound, accessibility, character interaction and animation and many more. So yes, LOU part 2 very much pushed the game industry decades forward in that regard. Still today I’m waiting for a game stepping up the standards this game established. The things you are asking are not always in service to the purpose of a game, the message it is carrying. Finally It’s easy to take risks when there very little financial risk. Hence more risks taken in indies titles to detach themselves from the big budgets.
Exactly my thoughts. The Last of Us Part II pushed the boundaries of video games. It melded gameplay, interactivity, and storytelling like no other game before or since. This very reason is why I believe the TV show will suffer in its second season, it won't have the interactivity element of the game, which, for Part II's story, is essential and perhaps the entire point of it.
The thing about the 'low budget' aspect of indies is that a lot of them are a flop away from going under, or are born out of passion rather than an expectation to turn a profit. Even an indie title built in a AAA network has a better chance at success, because that means access to money, marketing, and knowhow.
Man, I feel like The Last of Us Part 2 was anything but safe narrative wise but okay lol Also, I kinda feel like it's a bit of a ridiculous ask that big developers need to reinvent the wheel and push the industry forward with each title they release
Control and death stranding are, for me, some of the most important games I've ever played. DS succeeded in driving cooperative asynchronous multiplayer, and Control was the first game that pulled me out of reality and into the world of the game, to the same degree as a masterclass piece of literature. I agree with this discussion on a number of levels, but especially with the idea that, while big-budget, blockbuster AAA franchises are praised when they "innovate," the reality is, those innovations are, more often than not, derivative, having recycled concepts and naarratives from less popular or less publicized titles. Gamers are as much at fault, if not moreso, but that's not to say that games should always be thought-provoking and deep or cerebral, just that we would have more to eat, if we didnt keep asking for comfort food.
Let us all be honest: we all need another "the very online show" with Lucy, Tam and Kurt. Just unvite another guest to each episode and things remaining fresh! I think it was the best show with topics that our "digital souls" hardly needed
On one level I fully agree with this; big budget games are way too safe. On another level though, large devs and publishers face a unique challenge: they’re large. If they start taking risks on $200 million games and some flop, sooner or later they’re looking at layoffs, probably large layoffs. It’s disruptive internally and externally. I wonder if this challenge has been motivation for studios like EA to create internal indie programs. I think Stray came out of that? So maybe there’s a road ahead here.
It really is disruptive internally. I work for a large financial company and I've survived being acquired from a smaller company as well as two major lay offs over the last decade (those layoffs due to the company taking risks and growing too quickly). As thankful as I am have to have survived those events, the layoff PTSD is real. Constantly worried new layoffs are on horizon even when everything appears fine. Or worry another company will buy us and gut us, etc. And my industry is far more stable than the games industry, I can only imagine the stress the devs and support folks (i.e., every company needs HR, Payroll, IT, WFM, etc.) must feel constantly working for the large studios.
I think having an internal indie division inside a large developer/publisher is a good template, especially if financial risk is the major aspect being considered. The indie division has the freedom to be as creative as they want on a game while not worrying about their jobs or survival in the industry. Moreover, any indie title developed inside a large company benefits from the stronger marketing & PR machine, too. So theoretically, a good indie game need not be loss making if it's marketed well and clicks with the public. Apple's strategy with their content on Apple TV is a good example - they've supported and released some really unique and well-made shows & movies that probably wouldn't be backed by a studio that needs every project to be profitable. Similarly, if a company has financial security then it can afford to & ideally should support the development of new, unexplored concepts.
It was: A) a huge risk, the budget could have tanked Kojima Productions, if it were not for the backing of Playstation Studios B) Licensed music from various artists, helping audiences connect with they may have heard of, or first time experiencing their sound. And it was all in game, as a reward for progression C) the use of physics, atmosphere, dynamic lighting, texture, exploration, and so much more utilizing real world places that connect to the in game world D) it was made with passion, soul, and vision. The friends made along the way inspiring ideas E) it was a game we needed F) Animal Crossing is another fun story I did not expect to connect with a Kojima Productions Similar idea, connect with others, help connect the world, build useful things, trade and help along the way
Kurt and Tam are spot on. Shame that those triple A games are the ones that get treated as if they’re revolutionary and not iterative. They’re not bad but like Tam said, very safe
Just watched a few of your Spot On vids and I have to say that your production on this format is always so great! The set, lighting, camera positions, editing.. all of that is spot on!
I agree as a whole and I understand horizon is a by the books open works game. But neither of those games are safe especially through their combat, world building, and story.
I play games since my childhood and I agree that triple A games all look like the same nowadays. It's rare to see a different game with new mechanics or crazy plot. On the other hand, indie games are always trying something new, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but they are trying. I guess big companies tend to stay in confort zone and do what they think will get them more money as possible.
especially since what we think of as indie titles have shorter dev cycles than AAA titles. indie dev often takes such a long time bc of funding hiccups. a AAA studio can pump out a 10 team 'indie experiment' in 2 years if they wanted to. if it hits, it hits. needle moved. if it doesnt, like tamoor said, they have the safety net.
Good job covering Indies and AA games as well. Ultimately a good AA title like Control can offer similar experience as big budget games for a fraction of cost. So at that level, taking risks has most potential.
That is an interesting discussion, here is my opinion: - The risk-return trade-off is more pronounced in big AAA studios than in indie developers. This is a common phenomenon across industries where smaller startups tend to be more innovative than larger companies. - Despite having the financial capacity, big companies are often hesitant to invest in creative ideas due to their aversion to loss. This is not only about financial loss but also includes potential damage to their brand reputation, as seen in the case of CD Projekt RED. - Small companies and indie developers, similar to startups, have less to lose and potentially high profit gains. While there's a risk of bankruptcy and loss of time, they have the opportunity to secure employment elsewhere. A potential solution to this issue could be for big companies to invest in small, "indie" game ideas. This approach has several benefits: - It makes the risk-return trade-off more appealing, similar to the scenario for startups and indie developers. - It allows big companies to leverage their experienced developers, project managers, marketers, and other professionals, thereby reducing risks compared to indie developers.
FACTS. Honestly I wasn't to into the first one. It was a pretty decent game at the end of the day though. But HFW was such a step up in pretty much every aspect. Story drew me in, in a way the first couldn't. The graphics are definitely the best ps5 has to offer. Everything about this game was just immersive. Easily 9.5/10
Arkane Studios take risk with literally every game they release and dont sell a thing. So i actually understand devs playing safe. And thats all our faults. People choose to buy Call of Duty every year instead of lets say Pray, Dishonored or Deathloop
The early days of Assassin’s Creed is another example of a risk that skyrocketed. Pub G defined the battle royal style games and Resident Evil started the survival horror genre but there have been games since that redefined that idea. Even Resident Evil has redefined it to a point.
I get what they're saying tho consumer are as much to blame as the publishers. Everyone sh*ts on EA for being formulaic but when they make a game like Mirror's Edge/Catalyst, few buy it. No wonder they're risk averse.
AAA games are just too expensive to take huge risks on, and that's just the reality. Indies and to some extent AA games will always be the origins of outside the box game design.
I actually felt kinda bad about enjoying Horizon Forbidden West as much as I did. I felt like they “steered into the skid” of bloated game worlds by throwing cash at it and creating enough content from enough different well-trodden ideas that if you paced yourself, you could cycle through them and stay engaged. I am the problem - I spend time and money on Horizon, God of War, Uncharted, etc - and get confused and frustrated by the ilk of Alan Wake,Control, Tunic, Dead Cells. I know I’m basic and on some level I’m not appreciating the medium at the depth that maybe some others are.
@@pixelcount350 I know, but I cite it as one of the reasons. Not saying there aren’t others, but it’s the one I want to cite, since it’s more an expected obligation nowadays.
@@akumakurosawa that’s not what I was saying at all, but that’s also an issue with the audience and maybe the marketing. Then again, I don’t have experience in marketing, so I don’t know for sure.
The idea of triple A studios taking up risky, innovative practices like the indies do is a double edged sword. On one hand, it can break the stagnation that big money often muddies itself in, but on the other, it can lead to situations where that innovation leads back to stagnation, like say, Warner Brothers patent squatting the nemesis system, or the constant exclusivity that Sony does.
Same as Disney churning out Superhero movies. When you spend 10s of millions on anything you don't take risks. This is a publisher descision not a developer descision. Publishers pay the money and want something known and safe. Also it's upto the players. If no one bought these games, they wouldn't be making them. Players need to take more risks. Play more indie and AA games.
Cool video. Amnesia is not survival horror, it’s a horror walking simulator, not saying it’s bad, but survival horror involves combat to some degree(maybe the latest amnesia qualifies here) and usually item management.
I was thinking about that recently, Sony spent 200 million on Horizon only for that game to end up as a superchargerd version of your run of the mill Ubisoft open world game
Part of the blame for developer playing safe is bad gaming journalism. There are some game journalists that thrash every shooter thats not call of duty. That bomb every game that experiments just for example death stranding, days gone etc etc. Specifically speaking its IGN 😅
roughly 200 million including marketing? Are you sure about that? Because that would put the actual development costs at about 50-100 million. Coz half the budget is marketing these days and for special projects that budget slice rises even further.
I wish devs would continue to build and evolve these games long after release with expansions or side stories and such. Keep enriching the world most of these are already pretty good visually. Just need more mechanics/depth to make them fresh again.
if you had made this argument maybe 15 years ago you would be right (ps3/x360 Era) but honestly seeing the quality of what is coming out lately i would say we hardly had moments with such quality. maybe only in the 90s
@@thaneros look I just tell you the recent titles elden ring- diablo 4 -zelda - final fantasy xvi baldurs gate 3 if you want i can continue for hours lol
@@mrhedgehog5493 look for example of these examples i gave which one of these sequels is the same as the previous one? elden ring which is an open world? diablo 4 which is a live service? final fantasy xvi which is the first action in the saga? look i tell you i would put my signature that only sequels of this quality would come out. maybe you forgot when they spent billions to release only shooters. (15 years ago ) since 2015 we are in a second golden era of games that I haven't seen precisely since 90s
@@mrhedgehog5493 the reply I sent you is for the message you deleted (as I have already said many times since I started playing (nes era) to today I don't remember a period with this quality and quantity of the offer if not only in the 90s early 2000s)
Deathloop is also a pretty good example of smaller studios backed by a larger company taking risks, Deathloop can be a lot to throw at someone with all its mechanics and the tedium of learning that world (loved playing detective myself with my own journal to try to keep it all straight but I imagine most don’t do that)
I dont see how The Last of Us Part II and Horizon Forbidden West are considered "safe". The Last of Us Part 2 especially is FAR from being "safe." The narrative and the gameplay are incredibly ambitous. Y'all are asking for miracles. Not everything needs to innovate the ENTIRE medium of gaming.
This is a dishonest argument & you should be embarrassed to have put it forward. Likewise, From Software has made very little changes in their games since Demon Souls. There are fewer games like HFW than there are those that resemble Dark Souls.
Maybe they would take more risk if people didnt buy their games. If enough people do it, it would make them realize that "oh s#it we play it too safe" Then they would begin to take more risks. Complaining about it will get us nowhere but by talking with our wallets will.
I always had been a AAA games fan. But recently I have the opportunity to try some indie games and its great. Right now I am playing dredge and it is a decent experience. The game is not mindblowing or anything but it is fun to play.
I couldn't disagree more with this . Games like the new Zelda , final fantasy . God of war has redefined games in recent years . There is Soo many small indie games that do the same over and over but you are picking on the ones that have done something special . At the same time indies barrow the ideas and inspiration from big games
redefined how other than Zelda games : open world clones with cell shading graphics because switch hardware was decades old when it released, final fantasy just another generic rpg, God of War a lot of focus and money on story telling but mediocre gameplay, oh yeah I now know who is redefining what, all they have in common is they were exclusive to their platforms and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on development and twice that amount on advertising
@@kleinerprinz99 Zelda has redefined what an open world exploration game can be by showing you don't need to hold a players hand plus the physics the game offer encourage players to think outside the box to find solutions . How about you tell me a game that has reinvented the wheel and it's not a product of inspiration by a AAA game
@@Vipus2501 Zelda is great and doesn't break all the standard you expect from and Open world I agree with you . But a game can't completely change everything that's not how pushing the genre works . There would be things that will still be the same . God of war took a big risk to incorporate a deep story and completely change what made it God of war so that in itself is a huge risk for an already established franchise. Final fantasy I would consider one of the biggest risk takers on rpg genre by reworking within every new entry . Might not be for everyone but it takes risk to change what people are used to
How has the recent God of War or Final Fantasy redefined games? Not saying they're bad, in fact I really like them, but you can't possibly say some big budget third person action games with bits of Uncharted and bits of crafting and bits of other RPGs and well known characters in it, all moving the story forward with highly polished cut scenes is redefining anything.
The larger the game, the higher the risk. Esp. In games where income only happens after x number of years of expense. Imagine failing sales in AAA 100s of people lose jobs vs indies
So true. Look at Nintendo putting half the effort in the so-called technical aspect of their games and still getting triple the sales by comparison. Talk about irony.
Totally agree. All big budget AAA games play the same these days. Open world area, action-y gameplay, beautiful vistas to look at, politically safe characters and story, but there's barely anything fresh and unique in them. It's the indie games that are doing the heavy lifting with fresh ideas. I got better enjoyment playing an indie made visual novel game than Hogwarts Legacy, strange but it's true.
@@Makiyura Maybe. But I remember getting the same level of enjoyment from older AAA games. Maybe it's just me getting old and my preferences has deviated from what the mainstream gaming industry likes. It just doesn't feel the same anymore.
Its the same as with movies, they cant afford to take the risk, cuz if the game/movie costs 300 million to make and its a big flopp then there very very screwd
GameSpot Aren't Taking Enough Risks | Spot On you should start covering and reviewing indie or AA games more often; I played Bramble, Bleak Faith and Wanted Dead, all of them better than most Big Studio products.
There's a little show on GameSpot called The Kurt Locker which has an entire videos dedicated to highlighting smaller games and off-kilter ones, including Wanted: Dead specifically.
I don't see anyone other than Nintendo doing any real innovation with their triple A games, Sony seem to be chasing trends and playing it safe with their big hitters, and Xbox are busy trying to turn game pass into the main place you will have to play games, so they aren't taking much risks. Thank God for indies is right I guess, and it's great that new technology is making it easier for them to be made.
big budget anythings are just bad return of investment with whatever outcame especially the creative or common good, at some point budget is just gonna be overblown and will lead to embezzlement, I could go on , but everyone knows that everything is run by business comitee now with blind greed and chase of the impossible profit as the motivator, PS: there might be one exception to the rule and it would be a project over centuries like we had in the past with building Cathedrals (althoug they went overbudget most of the time also) is he one thought experiment terraforming Venus. It actually makes more sense than Mars. But will never happen in capitalist society.
Sony just recently killed support for Dreams. A gem of a game that embodies innovation and creativity yet barely managed to sell 1 million copies. Meanwhile the first Spider-Man game is over 20 million copies sold. No wonder then another 2 Spider-Man games got greenlighted. Why on earth would Sony choose failure over riches? Mario Kart 8 is the best selling Switch game ever at over 50 million copies sold. Think Nintendo is interested in doing a new F-Zero when a re-release of a 2014 WiiU game keeps printing money for them? And the best for last. Final Fantasy 16, a game belonging to one of the few franchises in gaming that never sticks to a formula and tries to reinvent itself with every sequel. Yeah, that game got review bombed by people mad at the fact the game dared to stray even more than usual from what they expected. My point is simply that it sounds nice and dandy to say AAA publishers and developers should take risks. The problem is gamers never back up their words with their wallets and hate it whenever real change happens.
Will recent AI technological development help reduce the cost of development by, for example, helping generate level artefacts or fill transitional scenes that take a long time to do by developers?
Most Indie games are just as "safe" as triple a games. At the most they'll have like 1 interesting gimmick but for the most part it's just a generic 2D platformer/puzzle game/metroidvania. Plus safe =/= good. Death stranding didn't keep it safe imo, but it also wasn't very fun.
I’ve all but given up on AAA games. Currently playing Untitled Goose Game and having way more fun than I ever had with any PS exclusive. AAA only wants to focus on graphics and presentation, while cannibalizing gameplay that was successful before. I’m over those mechanics. I wouldn’t care if I never played another 1st or 3rd person shooter. Same goes for Souls like, because that gameplay is nothing more than a “Push Button at Exact Moment or Die” game. It’s lame.
Indie developer have a freedom for make games because their indie-pendency, big developer didn't. They have an investor that demand profit not risks, it just the way it's, not everyone want to lose money especially when they money on the risks
Impossible ask, no publicly traded company can afford to take a 4-5 yr., $200 million dollar risk for the "greater good". Their shareholders simply will not allow it. Indies will continue to be the innovators and the AAA studios will cherry pick the best ideas and implement them once those ideas have been proven finanically safe. Fun video, but the last comment is just naive.
All the best games are slept on because people have become addicted to the monopoly of micro transactions and the many people online that make it their business to promote it.
so strange to see Kurt not just, at his house lol. Great episode.
Once in six months, Kurt leaves his natural habitat of his house to interact with another human being. So fortunate that they caught it on camera for us to witness and enjoy
If your end goal is money rather than art, you're not going to take risks. This is seen throughout mainstream media.
@@alexwalters35ofc you can have both but introducing obtuse/abstract UNPROVEN concepts/ways to play into your 9 FIGURE project only for it to flop...rich figures @ the top can't stand it which is why you don't see it. Death Stranding, as mentioned in the video, is the only recent outlier and @ launch was not received well if we're being honest but you could see the ambition
@@alexwalters35they are doing both as putting money into a project and shipping it out to market is always risky. Although some projects are riskier than others.
Lucy James did great as always!
Not all indie games are taking the medium forward, some of them are just souless copies of other indies or retro games, even from AAA games too. So I would say that both things are great about the industry as a whole. The only thing that should disapear are the games as a service and all the empty DLC and lootboxes/microtransactions that are rotten to the core.
And some of them copy already exist system but making it much better or at least feels kind of same from the game they copied
I'd say games like Dead Cells and Chained Echoes which were mentioned are just as safe as anything in the AAA game. They're iterations/takes on classic, well established formulas
i agree, looking at the VAST majority of indies is a sea of metroidvanias and platformers and copies of what other, especially better indie games, have done and just added a graphic filter or a slight change in profile camera for instance.
Please have this guy on more! Maybe the 3 of you should do a gaming podcast.
You mean Lucy James? She's on there every episode!?!
Lucy is a regular on Friends Per Second and Tamoor is a frequent guest on that podcast.
Also features Jake Baldino from Gameranx (Before You Buy guy), Ralph from SkillUp and Jirard (the completionist)
A developer can get as innovative as they want. The main question is: “Is this fun to play?” A game can be made as deep and thought provoking as they want to make it, but if I’m spending more time answering life’s questions than having fun, then it’s a waste.
My god if I hear one more time that The Last of Us Part II didn’t push boundaries or move things forward in gaming my head might explode.
It didn't. Gameplay wise.
calling the last of us part II “safe” means that any expensive blockbuster is at risk of being blindly accused of that, what are we even doing?
They are referring to its gameplay elements not the story.
Pushing the medium is not only a question of game design and mechanics, last of us part 2 maybe didn’t push those, but they pushed story telling, immersion through realism, with graphics, sound, accessibility, character interaction and animation and many more. So yes, LOU part 2 very much pushed the game industry decades forward in that regard. Still today I’m waiting for a game stepping up the standards this game established. The things you are asking are not always in service to the purpose of a game, the message it is carrying. Finally It’s easy to take risks when there very little financial risk. Hence more risks taken in indies titles to detach themselves from the big budgets.
Exactly my thoughts. The Last of Us Part II pushed the boundaries of video games. It melded gameplay, interactivity, and storytelling like no other game before or since. This very reason is why I believe the TV show will suffer in its second season, it won't have the interactivity element of the game, which, for Part II's story, is essential and perhaps the entire point of it.
The thing about the 'low budget' aspect of indies is that a lot of them are a flop away from going under, or are born out of passion rather than an expectation to turn a profit. Even an indie title built in a AAA network has a better chance at success, because that means access to money, marketing, and knowhow.
Man, I feel like The Last of Us Part 2 was anything but safe narrative wise but okay lol
Also, I kinda feel like it's a bit of a ridiculous ask that big developers need to reinvent the wheel and push the industry forward with each title they release
Super bold actually
The point is about them pushing the industry forward AT ALL, not with literally every single release. Did you watch the video lol
I think they meant safe game design wise. The cinematic cut scenes, the combat and stealth systems.
Even the gameplay is very innovative. No other game has pushed enemy AI and character animations so hard. Even now there's nothing that comes close
Is this parody? Kurt as Lucy? 😅
Just put Kurt everywhere already🙏🏾 my man
Control and death stranding are, for me, some of the most important games I've ever played. DS succeeded in driving cooperative asynchronous multiplayer, and Control was the first game that pulled me out of reality and into the world of the game, to the same degree as a masterclass piece of literature. I agree with this discussion on a number of levels, but especially with the idea that, while big-budget, blockbuster AAA franchises are praised when they "innovate," the reality is, those innovations are, more often than not, derivative, having recycled concepts and naarratives from less popular or less publicized titles. Gamers are as much at fault, if not moreso, but that's not to say that games should always be thought-provoking and deep or cerebral, just that we would have more to eat, if we didnt keep asking for comfort food.
Let us all be honest: we all need another "the very online show" with Lucy, Tam and Kurt. Just unvite another guest to each episode and things remaining fresh!
I think it was the best show with topics that our "digital souls" hardly needed
On one level I fully agree with this; big budget games are way too safe. On another level though, large devs and publishers face a unique challenge: they’re large. If they start taking risks on $200 million games and some flop, sooner or later they’re looking at layoffs, probably large layoffs. It’s disruptive internally and externally. I wonder if this challenge has been motivation for studios like EA to create internal indie programs. I think Stray came out of that? So maybe there’s a road ahead here.
Well summed up
It really is disruptive internally. I work for a large financial company and I've survived being acquired from a smaller company as well as two major lay offs over the last decade (those layoffs due to the company taking risks and growing too quickly). As thankful as I am have to have survived those events, the layoff PTSD is real. Constantly worried new layoffs are on horizon even when everything appears fine. Or worry another company will buy us and gut us, etc. And my industry is far more stable than the games industry, I can only imagine the stress the devs and support folks (i.e., every company needs HR, Payroll, IT, WFM, etc.) must feel constantly working for the large studios.
And games journalists are the first to call publishers evil for layoffs.
I think having an internal indie division inside a large developer/publisher is a good template, especially if financial risk is the major aspect being considered. The indie division has the freedom to be as creative as they want on a game while not worrying about their jobs or survival in the industry. Moreover, any indie title developed inside a large company benefits from the stronger marketing & PR machine, too. So theoretically, a good indie game need not be loss making if it's marketed well and clicks with the public.
Apple's strategy with their content on Apple TV is a good example - they've supported and released some really unique and well-made shows & movies that probably wouldn't be backed by a studio that needs every project to be profitable. Similarly, if a company has financial security then it can afford to & ideally should support the development of new, unexplored concepts.
death stranding is honestly the perfect example
It was:
A) a huge risk, the budget could have tanked Kojima Productions, if it were not for the backing of Playstation Studios
B) Licensed music from various artists, helping audiences connect with they may have heard of, or first time experiencing their sound. And it was all in game, as a reward for progression
C) the use of physics, atmosphere, dynamic lighting, texture, exploration, and so much more utilizing real world places that connect to the in game world
D) it was made with passion, soul, and vision. The friends made along the way inspiring ideas
E) it was a game we needed
F) Animal Crossing is another fun story I did not expect to connect with a Kojima Productions
Similar idea, connect with others, help connect the world, build useful things, trade and help along the way
Sadly, not all game studios are run by a madman who no one can say no to.
@@fireaza so true, there is something within Kojima & his team. Anything is possible
Kurt and Tam are spot on. Shame that those triple A games are the ones that get treated as if they’re revolutionary and not iterative. They’re not bad but like Tam said, very safe
Just watched a few of your Spot On vids and I have to say that your production on this format is always so great! The set, lighting, camera positions, editing.. all of that is spot on!
Another great episode! Great job Tam as usual and we need to see more of Lucy too!
I agree as a whole and I understand horizon is a by the books open works game. But neither of those games are safe especially through their combat, world building, and story.
I play games since my childhood and I agree that triple A games all look like the same nowadays. It's rare to see a different game with new mechanics or crazy plot. On the other hand, indie games are always trying something new, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but they are trying. I guess big companies tend to stay in confort zone and do what they think will get them more money as possible.
Great job, ‘Lucy’ and Tamoor! 😂
Loving what Lucy has done with her hair.
especially since what we think of as indie titles have shorter dev cycles than AAA titles. indie dev often takes such a long time bc of funding hiccups. a AAA studio can pump out a 10 team 'indie experiment' in 2 years if they wanted to. if it hits, it hits. needle moved. if it doesnt, like tamoor said, they have the safety net.
Good job covering Indies and AA games as well.
Ultimately a good AA title like Control can offer similar experience as big budget games for a fraction of cost. So at that level, taking risks has most potential.
Control is a triple A game
@@caprise-music6722 it's budget is 1/6 of these games. So a smaller game. Call it whatever you like.
AA are underrated af, that people had trouble figuring what's inbetween indie and aa
Blasphemous and hollow knight are amazing games and sequels are upcoming
That is an interesting discussion, here is my opinion:
- The risk-return trade-off is more pronounced in big AAA studios than in indie developers. This is a common phenomenon across industries where smaller startups tend to be more innovative than larger companies.
- Despite having the financial capacity, big companies are often hesitant to invest in creative ideas due to their aversion to loss. This is not only about financial loss but also includes potential damage to their brand reputation, as seen in the case of CD Projekt RED.
- Small companies and indie developers, similar to startups, have less to lose and potentially high profit gains. While there's a risk of bankruptcy and loss of time, they have the opportunity to secure employment elsewhere.
A potential solution to this issue could be for big companies to invest in small, "indie" game ideas. This approach has several benefits:
- It makes the risk-return trade-off more appealing, similar to the scenario for startups and indie developers.
- It allows big companies to leverage their experienced developers, project managers, marketers, and other professionals, thereby reducing risks compared to indie developers.
I love the Spot On videos. Please keep making them. I would also watch a version that is 30-60 mins :)
Hfw is so slepted on
FACTS. Honestly I wasn't to into the first one. It was a pretty decent game at the end of the day though. But HFW was such a step up in pretty much every aspect. Story drew me in, in a way the first couldn't. The graphics are definitely the best ps5 has to offer. Everything about this game was just immersive. Easily 9.5/10
It deserves the sleep. Outside of graphics, the game is not that fun. Gameplay > Graphics
@@StrawHatGaminggna you need to go get some sleep and come back. The story and world building are the best I have seen.
I slept on Watch Dogs Legion
worked out great I picked it up for $8 the game's okay
GameSpot staff hate hfw. But praise Halo infinite. Says a lot about them
Arkane Studios take risk with literally every game they release and dont sell a thing. So i actually understand devs playing safe. And thats all our faults.
People choose to buy Call of Duty every year instead of lets say Pray, Dishonored or Deathloop
The early days of Assassin’s Creed is another example of a risk that skyrocketed. Pub G defined the battle royal style games and Resident Evil started the survival horror genre but there have been games since that redefined that idea. Even Resident Evil has redefined it to a point.
I get what they're saying tho consumer are as much to blame as the publishers.
Everyone sh*ts on EA for being formulaic but when they make a game like Mirror's Edge/Catalyst, few buy it.
No wonder they're risk averse.
AAA games are just too expensive to take huge risks on, and that's just the reality. Indies and to some extent AA games will always be the origins of outside the box game design.
I normally don’t like to comment on your appearance, but you look really nice this week Lucy
Isn’t old school AAA, kind of indie by today standards?
I actually felt kinda bad about enjoying Horizon Forbidden West as much as I did. I felt like they “steered into the skid” of bloated game worlds by throwing cash at it and creating enough content from enough different well-trodden ideas that if you paced yourself, you could cycle through them and stay engaged. I am the problem - I spend time and money on Horizon, God of War, Uncharted, etc - and get confused and frustrated by the ilk of Alan Wake,Control, Tunic, Dead Cells. I know I’m basic and on some level I’m not appreciating the medium at the depth that maybe some others are.
I don’t blame developers and these big companies. It just cost a lot of money to make games nowadays and it also takes time.
I’d say it’s the graphical obligations holding them down.
@@EmberTree25It's not only that.
@@pixelcount350 I know, but I cite it as one of the reasons. Not saying there aren’t others, but it’s the one I want to cite, since it’s more an expected obligation nowadays.
@@akumakurosawa that’s not what I was saying at all, but that’s also an issue with the audience and maybe the marketing. Then again, I don’t have experience in marketing, so I don’t know for sure.
@@akumakurosawasame with hollywood.
The idea of triple A studios taking up risky, innovative practices like the indies do is a double edged sword. On one hand, it can break the stagnation that big money often muddies itself in, but on the other, it can lead to situations where that innovation leads back to stagnation, like say, Warner Brothers patent squatting the nemesis system, or the constant exclusivity that Sony does.
Same as Disney churning out Superhero movies.
When you spend 10s of millions on anything you don't take risks.
This is a publisher descision not a developer descision. Publishers pay the money and want something known and safe.
Also it's upto the players. If no one bought these games, they wouldn't be making them.
Players need to take more risks. Play more indie and AA games.
Cool video. Amnesia is not survival horror, it’s a horror walking simulator, not saying it’s bad, but survival horror involves combat to some degree(maybe the latest amnesia qualifies here) and usually item management.
there is alot of indie games that are just roguelikes or meteriodvanias
Lucy's hair looks especially good today
Have to disagree on part 2 as a risk free game. Very divisive story and big time risk in execution.
I was thinking about that recently, Sony spent 200 million on Horizon only for that game to end up as a superchargerd version of your run of the mill Ubisoft open world game
Your standard open world is 50 - 200 million, RDR2 is about half a billion.
That is every open world game. It all plays the same.
And they still made their money back plus profit so what’s the issue again?
Part of the blame for developer playing safe is bad gaming journalism. There are some game journalists that thrash every shooter thats not call of duty. That bomb every game that experiments just for example death stranding, days gone etc etc. Specifically speaking its IGN 😅
I love y'all so much. Miss Lucy, but it was really nice to see Kurt ❤️
roughly 200 million including marketing? Are you sure about that? Because that would put the actual development costs at about 50-100 million. Coz half the budget is marketing these days and for special projects that budget slice rises even further.
I wish devs would continue to build and evolve these games long after release with expansions or side stories and such. Keep enriching the world most of these are already pretty good visually. Just need more mechanics/depth to make them fresh again.
if you had made this argument maybe 15 years ago you would be right (ps3/x360 Era) but honestly seeing the quality of what is coming out lately i would say we hardly had moments with such quality. maybe only in the 90s
What? lol Everything is a remake or sequel
@@thaneros look I just tell you the recent titles elden ring- diablo 4 -zelda - final fantasy xvi baldurs gate 3 if you want i can continue for hours lol
@@monikaguerra you can continue for hours giving examples of games that not so much different from their predecessors?
@@mrhedgehog5493 look for example of these examples i gave which one of these sequels is the same as the previous one? elden ring which is an open world? diablo 4 which is a live service? final fantasy xvi which is the first action in the saga? look i tell you i would put my signature that only sequels of this quality would come out. maybe you forgot when they spent billions to release only shooters. (15 years ago ) since 2015 we are in a second golden era of games that I haven't seen precisely since 90s
@@mrhedgehog5493 the reply I sent you is for the message you deleted (as I have already said many times since I started playing (nes era) to today I don't remember a period with this quality and quantity of the offer if not only in the 90s early 2000s)
Such a great and informative discussion. Thank you! :)
Deathloop is also a pretty good example of smaller studios backed by a larger company taking risks, Deathloop can be a lot to throw at someone with all its mechanics and the tedium of learning that world (loved playing detective myself with my own journal to try to keep it all straight but I imagine most don’t do that)
I dont see how The Last of Us Part II and Horizon Forbidden West are considered "safe". The Last of Us Part 2 especially is FAR from being "safe." The narrative and the gameplay are incredibly ambitous. Y'all are asking for miracles. Not everything needs to innovate the ENTIRE medium of gaming.
Agree, those aren't the best examples. Also especially sequels aren't good to make the point. You "could" take Hogwarts legacy for a recent example.
Enjoyed Kentucky. Limbo. Inside. Pentiment etc
This is a dishonest argument & you should be embarrassed to have put it forward.
Likewise, From Software has made very little changes in their games since Demon Souls. There are fewer games like HFW than there are those that resemble Dark Souls.
Maybe they would take more risk if people didnt buy their games. If enough people do it, it would make them realize that "oh s#it we play it too safe" Then they would begin to take more risks.
Complaining about it will get us nowhere but by talking with our wallets will.
We did get Way too Much Call of Duty and Battlefield obsessed where Evil West and Deathloop did try differently new aspects!
My ideal vision: Indie devs come up with the risks, triple A devs iterate on and polish them...
Love the shirt Lucy!
I always had been a AAA games fan. But recently I have the opportunity to try some indie games and its great. Right now I am playing dredge and it is a decent experience. The game is not mindblowing or anything but it is fun to play.
I couldn't disagree more with this . Games like the new Zelda , final fantasy . God of war has redefined games in recent years . There is Soo many small indie games that do the same over and over but you are picking on the ones that have done something special . At the same time indies barrow the ideas and inspiration from big games
redefined how other than Zelda games : open world clones with cell shading graphics because switch hardware was decades old when it released, final fantasy just another generic rpg, God of War a lot of focus and money on story telling but mediocre gameplay, oh yeah I now know who is redefining what, all they have in common is they were exclusive to their platforms and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on development and twice that amount on advertising
@@kleinerprinz99 Zelda has redefined what an open world exploration game can be by showing you don't need to hold a players hand plus the physics the game offer encourage players to think outside the box to find solutions . How about you tell me a game that has reinvented the wheel and it's not a product of inspiration by a AAA game
Zelda is the only one of those 3 titles with any actual innovation and, despite how much I'm loving it, it sill has a LOT of recycled content.
@@Vipus2501 Zelda is great and doesn't break all the standard you expect from and Open world I agree with you . But a game can't completely change everything that's not how pushing the genre works . There would be things that will still be the same . God of war took a big risk to incorporate a deep story and completely change what made it God of war so that in itself is a huge risk for an already established franchise. Final fantasy I would consider one of the biggest risk takers on rpg genre by reworking within every new entry . Might not be for everyone but it takes risk to change what people are used to
How has the recent God of War or Final Fantasy redefined games? Not saying they're bad, in fact I really like them, but you can't possibly say some big budget third person action games with bits of Uncharted and bits of crafting and bits of other RPGs and well known characters in it, all moving the story forward with highly polished cut scenes is redefining anything.
title should have been: ‘ large game companies need to take risks’, game devs have little to no input what gets green lit and what doesn’t lol
The larger the game, the higher the risk. Esp. In games where income only happens after x number of years of expense. Imagine failing sales in AAA 100s of people lose jobs vs indies
The problem with developing innovative games is that innovation does not guarantee success.
Agree with the main point of the video but TLOU part II was NOT safe.
Did Lucy do something with her hair? Looks nice.
So true. Look at Nintendo putting half the effort in the so-called technical aspect of their games and still getting triple the sales by comparison. Talk about irony.
TotK is a technical triumph. It's just a triumph of optimisation and efficiency rather than maximised resolution and fidelity.
@@ACuriousTanukican't agree more. Wish other developers could work as well with the Switch's hardware.
Totally agree. All big budget AAA games play the same these days. Open world area, action-y gameplay, beautiful vistas to look at, politically safe characters and story, but there's barely anything fresh and unique in them.
It's the indie games that are doing the heavy lifting with fresh ideas. I got better enjoyment playing an indie made visual novel game than Hogwarts Legacy, strange but it's true.
Isn't that more along to your tastes then, no everyone is going to feel that way.
@@Makiyura Maybe. But I remember getting the same level of enjoyment from older AAA games. Maybe it's just me getting old and my preferences has deviated from what the mainstream gaming industry likes. It just doesn't feel the same anymore.
Imagine a film industry where Tarantino and Anderson are indie filmmakers.
Remember when PlayStation released a super original and risky game like Dreams, and it flopped horribly?
Love the haircut Lucy
Its the same as with movies, they cant afford to take the risk, cuz if the game/movie costs 300 million to make and its a big flopp then there very very screwd
Lucy looks lovely in this video 🥰
TLOU P2 is not safe people hate it because of its structure but it plays into its story. HFW is a safe sequel. GOWR is a safe sequel...
Companies don’t like risk, it’s no more complicated than that.
Im okay with AAA studios not taking risk - leaves a market for indies like me who enjoy taking the risks :P
Kurt for president!
GameSpot Aren't Taking Enough Risks | Spot On
you should start covering and reviewing indie or AA games more often; I played Bramble, Bleak Faith and Wanted Dead, all of them better than most Big Studio products.
There's a little show on GameSpot called The Kurt Locker which has an entire videos dedicated to highlighting smaller games and off-kilter ones, including Wanted: Dead specifically.
Terrible examples actually, kinda out of touche really.
Lucy is looking extra fine this week.
Has lucy done something to her hair? she looks different.
I don't see anyone other than Nintendo doing any real innovation with their triple A games, Sony seem to be chasing trends and playing it safe with their big hitters, and Xbox are busy trying to turn game pass into the main place you will have to play games, so they aren't taking much risks. Thank God for indies is right I guess, and it's great that new technology is making it easier for them to be made.
big budget anythings are just bad return of investment with whatever outcame especially the creative or common good, at some point budget is just gonna be overblown and will lead to embezzlement, I could go on , but everyone knows that everything is run by business comitee now with blind greed and chase of the impossible profit as the motivator,
PS: there might be one exception to the rule and it would be a project over centuries like we had in the past with building Cathedrals (althoug they went overbudget most of the time also) is he one thought experiment terraforming Venus. It actually makes more sense than Mars. But will never happen in capitalist society.
Sony just recently killed support for Dreams. A gem of a game that embodies innovation and creativity yet barely managed to sell 1 million copies.
Meanwhile the first Spider-Man game is over 20 million copies sold. No wonder then another 2 Spider-Man games got greenlighted. Why on earth would Sony choose failure over riches?
Mario Kart 8 is the best selling Switch game ever at over 50 million copies sold.
Think Nintendo is interested in doing a new F-Zero when a re-release of a 2014 WiiU game keeps printing money for them?
And the best for last. Final Fantasy 16, a game belonging to one of the few franchises in gaming that never sticks to a formula and tries to reinvent itself with every sequel.
Yeah, that game got review bombed by people mad at the fact the game dared to stray even more than usual from what they expected.
My point is simply that it sounds nice and dandy to say AAA publishers and developers should take risks.
The problem is gamers never back up their words with their wallets and hate it whenever real change happens.
There's something about Lucy on today's episode. Can't quite put my finger on it...maybe she changed her hair...?
Love this show. Keep it up.🎉
12:32 Can you give me an example of move the needle?
Nice guys!
I opened this video ready to disagree, but less than half way through, I completely understand and agree with what you're saying!!
Will recent AI technological development help reduce the cost of development by, for example, helping generate level artefacts or fill transitional scenes that take a long time to do by developers?
I said this a while back, games like the last of us and god of war r basically the exact same game on paper
Gamers complaining about video games, huh? Find something else to talk about.
Your world must be so simple
Most Indie games are just as "safe" as triple a games. At the most they'll have like 1 interesting gimmick but for the most part it's just a generic 2D platformer/puzzle game/metroidvania.
Plus safe =/= good. Death stranding didn't keep it safe imo, but it also wasn't very fun.
This was spot on!
I’ve all but given up on AAA games. Currently playing Untitled Goose Game and having way more fun than I ever had with any PS exclusive.
AAA only wants to focus on graphics and presentation, while cannibalizing gameplay that was successful before. I’m over those mechanics. I wouldn’t care if I never played another 1st or 3rd person shooter. Same goes for Souls like, because that gameplay is nothing more than a “Push Button at Exact Moment or Die” game. It’s lame.
Indie developer have a freedom for make games because their indie-pendency, big developer didn't. They have an investor that demand profit not risks, it just the way it's, not everyone want to lose money especially when they money on the risks
Amnesia Bunker was short and ultimately not very satisfying.
Impossible ask, no publicly traded company can afford to take a 4-5 yr., $200 million dollar risk for the "greater good". Their shareholders simply will not allow it. Indies will continue to be the innovators and the AAA studios will cherry pick the best ideas and implement them once those ideas have been proven finanically safe. Fun video, but the last comment is just naive.
Project zomboid is an indie game that has been in development for 10 years. Blew my mind but it looks like the sims 1/2 lol
All the best games are slept on because people have become addicted to the monopoly of micro transactions and the many people online that make it their business to promote it.