Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So far as i know a lot of the bigger old game series from EA and bethesda seem to be going extinct. Wolfenstein seems to get bad reviews from anybody that's actually played the game (basically being a looter shooter with connection problems between the co-op partners). EA is to game franchises like the asteroid was to the dinosaurs. Mass effect is pretty much dead. The last Battlefield game i know of did poorly. Overall there's probably only a few AAA game series that are any good anymore (anything from CD projekt red or the main xcom games). I'll let you guys fill in the rest of what you think is good or bad.

This is nothing new - think of all the AAA titles from when you were younger and consider how many are around today. Many are straight up gone, some have had revival through HD remakes and remastered editions, but still went on to die.

Some get brought back, others get changed into something else and might limp on as a name only.


In general this is the cycle of things. Also its good taht some big names step back, sometimes a series drawn out too long can weaken and weaken over time. Or it can end up like Dynasty Warriors games - each one basically the same with a few improvements here and there. Basically relying on a very solid core of fans to keep going in any form.


Also don't forget AAA games getting "worse" as times goes on is sometimes not always a product of the developers, but sometimes the gamers changing over the course of time and a game that once interested them no longer does in the same way. Or the developers take one development pathway that is different to how the person wanted the series to evolve. It doesn't mean its "worse" just "different" from what some wanted.


It's all perfectly normal and its why we get new AAA titles rising up.


The actual worst change I feel is the shift from big developers toward wanting more "MMO" type games with singleplayer focused AAA Titles. Ergo more online all the time; more things like micro transactions to get features or content - at its worst you get something like the latest Assassin's Creed where its singleplayer, but has experience boosters and material packs on the real money store side of things - for a singleplayer game. Meanwhile developers try and protect it by hobbling user created content (with tools released by the developer) to try and stop them getting too much experience or loot. Ergo real money grabbing moves.

For me the biggest issue is the death of RTS gaming or most of it anyway. How am i supposed to get my RTS fix anymore?

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
So far as i know a lot of the bigger old game series from EA and bethesda seem to be going extinct. Wolfenstein seems to get bad reviews from anybody that's actually played the game (basically being a looter shooter with connection problems between the co-op partners). EA is to game franchises like the asteroid was to the dinosaurs. Mass effect is pretty much dead. The last Battlefield game i know of did poorly. Overall there's probably only a few AAA game series that are any good anymore (anything from CD projekt red or the main xcom games). I'll let you guys fill in the rest of what you think is good or bad.

No. Regardless of whether people think they're bad or doing 'poorly', they're clearly making more of them.
More Doom, more Gears, more Call of Duty, more Borderlands, more Ghost Recon, more Watch Dogs, more Assassins Creed, more Dragon Age...

For me the biggest issue is the death of RTS gaming or most of it anyway. How am i supposed to get my RTS fix anymore?

Not sure of the relevance. That genre mostly died a decade ago, and very, very few qualify as AAA. (mostly just starcraft and warcraft)

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
How am i supposed to get my RTS fix anymore?

By playing the games you already have? I mean, this is why I'm not too concerned about genres "dying off". The big publishers already killed them off a long time ago by obsessively milking the cash cow with bland copies of the same game every year. What's the difference between Call of Battlefield 2019 and Call of Battlefield 2015? More loot crates?

 Peregrine wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
How am i supposed to get my RTS fix anymore?

By playing the games you already have? I mean, this is why I'm not too concerned about genres "dying off". The big publishers already killed them off a long time ago by obsessively milking the cash cow with bland copies of the same game every year. What's the difference between Call of Battlefield 2019 and Call of Battlefield 2015? More loot crates?

exactly, apart from a few very specific series. I don't really buy new games anymore. I usually just play the same 2 or 3 PC games, and then occasionally will grab something new on PS4 or Switch to play through with my wife.

I think RTS ran into two problems;

One the genre was too demanding to ever capture a wide audience. Too many people will simply never be any good at RTS games. This always limited the RTS genre's audience applicability, especially as games grew out of their teenage years in the 90s and early 00s when the RTS was in its heyday.

Two, the genre's most entertaining aspects have been cannibalized by other genres. DOTA and LoL, owe a lot to RTS, as do many other ARPGs. While nominally a 4x game series, Total War's real-time battles have always been a major draw for the series and people who like the "real-time" aspect but find managing a battle and an economy all at once too strenuous.

I think these two shifts in the market and general audience behavior have effectively reduced RTS to a secondary niche genre. When looking at making a new game, most people will look at a lot of other genres, simply because the pure RTS audience now simply isn't very large.

Whilst a 'crash' is fairly unlikely given the outrageous size of the video game industry I think the AAA market will shrink to the few dependable, usually Sport, annual(ish) rehashes

I'd like to think this would lead to folks exploring a wider range of smaller midrange titles (most likely wont be I can dream)

And personally it doesn't matter, digital means I can pick up older games as and when (of late finally completing Lords of Midnight some 35years after first playing it has been my recent gaming highpoint !)

I think RTS was also quite demanding - especially in areas such as the AI. many shooter or lane games can get away with pretty poor overall AI because most of the interaction is "in the moment" which AI is pretty good to better than people.

RTS however tends to shoot AI in the foot hard because it relies a lot on pre-planning and changing game states. A FPS might railroad the player into certain areas and the AI only has to react within those zones and patrol paths. RTS side an AI has to work out if the enemy has moved bases, if its got a heavy defence in one region etc... Sadly a LOT of AI in RTS tend to just build a pre-set base; build a lot of units and throw them at the enemy in a direct line - which means they will hit the same defensive barrier every time. The challenge is often that the AI builds "perfectly" and thus basically unit rushes the player or rushes with excess units as well because its not actually paying resources the same way (AI are notoriously bad at balancing finances).



As for the niche and difficulties and AI its interesting that RTS is on a downer when turnbased and 4* are actually on the up and yet the only real difference between the two is that one is turn based and the other real time. If anything you could argue that turn based has historically been more of a niche than RTS ever was; meanwhile I think the base-building side has got sidelined into games like Tropico and Skylines - ergo city builders.


Old games are great, but sometimes its nice to get something fresh and new. That takes a new direction or just presents some really awesome graphics by modern standards. Sadly it seems that the only big company in RTS is Blizzard with Starcraft 2. Though MS is getting a new Age of Empires made and I think there's one or two others kicking around. Petroglyph had a shot with Grey Goo, but the name and marketing failed on them and it never took off and since then they seem to be really suffering with half-bit attempts like their 8Bit games which are quirky but ultimatly not fun.



One big issue was that EA was going to make a new RTS MMO hybrid monster and that was to be the next big step; but it failed and for some reason they never reworked the engine to make just a straight game. They are now doing some remasters of the old classic games ;but otherwise CnC is also pertty dead in the water. Meanwhile Homeworld is held by Gearbox who don't seem interested beyond their remaster

Nope. They're just not as important as they used to be. Big companies just aren't very important in gaming, to me, anyway.

Had high hopes for Youngblood but non-functioning coop and turning the game into a watered down open world RPG shooter is not what a lot of folks wanted, especially not from a Wolfenstein game, which excels at linear levels due to the excellent combat and schlocky story telling. Makes me worry what Todd has in store for the upcoming DOOM sequel, probably not a lot of good.

 Melissia wrote:
Nope. They're just not as important as they used to be. Big companies just aren't very important in gaming, to me, anyway.

The age when they produced decent games has just passed, they rather all produce the next 0effort money Grab live Service or make children and gambling addicts suffer for their money.

Indy at this stage is better and often more innovative.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrookM wrote:
Had high hopes for Youngblood but non-functioning coop and turning the game into a watered down open world RPG shooter is not what a lot of folks wanted, especially not from a Wolfenstein game, which excels at linear levels due to the excellent combat and schlocky story telling. Makes me worry what Todd has in store for the upcoming DOOM sequel, probably not a lot of good.

I mean also that the og wolfenstein story works due to an established longstanding charachter.

But tbh for bethesda it's more relevant if the stupid microtransaction store works.

Rather, much like with Hollywood, the publishers / producers have in some cases too much say in what they think the target audience wants. There's also the other scumbag things they want in those games, but we already have a topic for that elsewhere.

 BrookM wrote:
Rather, much like with Hollywood, the publishers / producers have in some cases too much say in what they think the target audience wants. There's also the other scumbag things they want in those games, but we already have a topic for that elsewhere.

Indeed, yet you can't discuss the problem of terrible aaa games without nameing the source of the issue.

Atleast i deem it the source of the issue.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Nope. They're just not as important as they used to be. Big companies just aren't very important in gaming, to me, anyway.

The age when they produced decent games has just passed, they rather all produce the next 0effort money Grab live Service or make children and gambling addicts suffer for their money.

Indy at this stage is better and often more innovative.

Meh. Some serious nostalgia goggles there. AAA games are generally the same as they were twenty years ago in terms of focus and quality. The tech has changed, but not much else.
Though 'zero effort' isn't and hasn't ever been true. Game development on a triple A title has been a brutal thing for decades. Not many people have every really been joking when they talk about 'crunch time.'


Indy games... eh. To me its mostly the same ugly junk over and over. They look innovative due to singular standouts, then the hordes rush in to do masses of derivative copies that aren't worth spit.

The Mid tier (A or B as opposed to AAA or indies) developers are the solid meat and muscle of the industry. Though lines can blur after massive successes, failure or being bought/sold. I expect CD Project Red (one of the weird exceptions in the industry so far) will ride CyberPunk further into AAA territory, but crash out after a while, and studios like Obsidian to continue to fall as they juggle selling out to Epic right before the Microsoft buyout takes effect (Outer Worlds is their last game as an independent studio).

For myself, I’ve always been a fan of single player, story driven games. So as long as the single player mode is solid, I’m in a good place.

I also enjoy non-rts, like the Civilization games.

In that regard, I have 10 year old games that I replay for the joy of it. I also pick up “newer” games when they go on sale. Blood Bowl 2, for example, cost me very little compared to the original price. I’ve picked up the DLC for New Vegas and other games, like Diablo.

So I guess I benefit from being able to filter out the best gaming experiences (for me) by waiting till I’m willing to spend $5-15 on a title. It may take longer to get it, but I can wait.

Pokemon, mario, legend of zelda, metroid, castlevania.

Who is surprised that every surviving major property is a nintendo property or one that got it start on the nintendo?

That company does nothing that makes any sense to me and yet they are the only ones surviving.

 Lance845 wrote:
Pokemon, mario, legend of zelda, metroid, castlevania.

Who is surprised that every surviving major property is a nintendo property or one that got it start on the nintendo?

That company does nothing that makes any sense to me and yet they are the only ones surviving.

Perhaps they focus on quality or perhaps their market tends to be younger kids. I can't tell you since i stopped playing nintendo after gamecube. I think Twilight Princess was the last zelda game i've ever played.

 BrookM wrote:
Had high hopes for Youngblood but non-functioning coop and turning the game into a watered down open world RPG shooter is not what a lot of folks wanted, especially not from a Wolfenstein game, which excels at linear levels due to the excellent combat and schlocky story telling. Makes me worry what Todd has in store for the upcoming DOOM sequel, probably not a lot of good.

Don't forget the microtransactions and "boosters" you can buy.

Nothing says "We're trying to turn our FPS games into Live Service games!" quite like Youngblood.

 BrookM wrote:
Had high hopes for Youngblood but non-functioning coop and turning the game into a watered down open world RPG shooter is not what a lot of folks wanted, especially not from a Wolfenstein game, which excels at linear levels due to the excellent combat and schlocky story telling. Makes me worry what Todd has in store for the upcoming DOOM sequel, probably not a lot of good.

I'm actually more worried about Elder Scrolls after what happened to Fallout and Wolfenstein. I feel like fallout 76's failure would lead to Elder Scrolls sucking. I honestly don't see how they could mess up DOOM at this point in the same way they messed up Wolfenstein. It could literally be almost the same game and people would still probably buy it.

Well, Wolfers is done by a sub-studio and ES6 is still quite a ways off.

Starfield or whatever is the big one coming next from Bethesda, and most likely to take current cues. ES6 will probably build on its game design principles or be a reaction to the response from that.

Given the changes that are trickling into 76 (like... people and FO3 style dialogue), I think they picked up something of a clue.
On the other hand, given how many times they've resold Skyrim, I'm actually more worried that they'll stick to too many of the bad design decisions from there.

Not Online!!! wrote:

I mean also that the og wolfenstein story works due to an established longstanding charachter.

But tbh for bethesda it's more relevant if the stupid microtransaction store works.

OG Wolfenstein was a 2D game by Muse Software.



On a more serious note...

AAA games are always coming and going. Once upon a time, Wing Commander was a AAA game, with huge budgets for each game. But the Space Combat Sim market collapsed almost overnight.

Bethesda has struck me as a company that got *really* lucky. Their pre-Morrowind games had acquired interest and a cult following. But by and large, they didn't do very well (and some - such as Battlespire - were downright panned). Morrowind was a game changer for the company. It did quite well for them, and drew lots of positive attention. People seemed to like the follow-up, Oblivion, though I couldn't really get into it. Skyrim was fun. But imo, Morrowind is still the - admittedly dated - best game of the series. Pretty much everything else has sprung from their success with Morrowind. And I don't think anything that they've released since then has been as good.

EA is EA. They were a great publisher once upon a time (believe it or not). Initially, they didn't develop their own games, and instead only published games developed by other companies, such as Ozark Softscape (the company that developed MULE). But things change, and they began going down the path they currently follow. They develop their own sports games. And they acquire developers that look like they're making good games, and then run those developers into the ground. It appears that they've done it to Bioware. And decades ago they did it to Origin Software. It's not a new pattern.

CD Projekt Red is doing quite well at the moment. Hopefully that will continue. The fact that CDPR has its own successful retail digital game portal suggests that they've got a bit more cushion than would otherwise be the case. So a bad game won't immediately kill the company. But sooner or later they'll change. It's inevitable. Key people quit and go elsewhere. People who worked at the company want the opportunity to improve their career. Sometimes they can do that at the company for a time. But eventually, they have to go elsewhere. And their replacements have different views about games that aren't always what gamers are looking for.

There are a lot of other big companies out there. Activision (owns Blizzard, among other things), Ubisoft (owns the Tom Clancy line, among other things), Square-Enix (publishes Final Fantasy XIV among other things; also regularly polls players about what indy games they'd like to see SE publish), Capcom (they were doing poorly, but I think I've heard they've had some recent successes), etc... Some of those companies will eventually sink into oblivion. Anyone remember Titus? They used to own a number of companies, including Interplay. As the current big companies fade, they'll open up holes in the market that will be filled by other, newer companies. That's the way that the market works.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Pokemon, mario, legend of zelda, metroid, castlevania.

Who is surprised that every surviving major property is a nintendo property or one that got it start on the nintendo?

That company does nothing that makes any sense to me and yet they are the only ones surviving.

Perhaps they focus on quality or perhaps their market tends to be younger kids. I can't tell you since i stopped playing nintendo after gamecube. I think Twilight Princess was the last zelda game i've ever played.

Honestly, the straight answer is quality.

You can dislike Nintendo and their gimmicky systems, or their strict adherence to family friendliness, or their very gimmicky games even, but at the end of the day even Nintendo's most mediocre products have a certain quality of design. Nintendo doesn't just buy up developers to mill out games until the developer is burnt out and collapses. They don't release a new game in a franchise every single year with barely any changes just to charge another full price tag at fans. They don't rely on DLC to fix a lack of content or borked storyline.

Nintendo has standards. I feel like everyone should appreciate that in the current market even if they don't like the company itself or its products.

The Nintendo Seal of Approval used to be a joke, but they really clamped down on it over the last two decades or so again.

AAA games are always coming and going.

Agreed, franchises come and go. Some die out due to the fad being done and gone, others due to fatigue from the audience and some just die due to the developers making a big mistake somewhere along the way, looking at you Relic. Though Relic isn't the only one looking at the market and thinking "multiplayer / esports is the only way to go now" especially not with so many franchises out there making the hop to the Battle Royale game mode.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I'm actually more worried about Elder Scrolls after what happened to Fallout and Wolfenstein. I feel like fallout 76's failure would lead to Elder Scrolls sucking. I honestly don't see how they could mess up DOOM at this point in the same way they messed up Wolfenstein. It could literally be almost the same game and people would still probably buy it.

Micro transactions.

Voss wrote:
Well, Wolfers is done by a sub-studio and ES6 is still quite a ways off.

Starfield or whatever is the big one coming next from Bethesda, and most likely to take current cues. ES6 will probably build on its game design principles or be a reaction to the response from that.

Given the changes that are trickling into 76 (like... people and FO3 style dialogue), I think they picked up something of a clue.
On the other hand, given how many times they've resold Skyrim, I'm actually more worried that they'll stick to too many of the bad design decisions from there.

Honestly I think these games - F76, Anthem etc - being salvaged and becoming successful is almost as bad as if they were successful right off the bat. They need to die, they need to die hard and bloody and with finality, in order to prevent them becoming a new standard even more than they already are starting to. If EA and Bethesda can make some token tweaks and concessions that turn what are still fundamentally "live service"(and I now can't get the dumb Jimquisition pronunciation of that out of my head, damnit) experiences into a success, all the market will have taught them is that they need to camouflage their intentions a little better.

I can live with them recycling the less appealing aspects of Skyrim in new trad-Bethesda-style games, because just like with Skyrim we can fix the issues with mods. It would be nice to get a better experience right out of the gate, sure, but at least it can be fixed - if they spooge "live service" juice over everything, that will become impossible.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Pokemon, mario, legend of zelda, metroid, castlevania.

Who is surprised that every surviving major property is a nintendo property or one that got it start on the nintendo?

That company does nothing that makes any sense to me and yet they are the only ones surviving.

Perhaps they focus on quality or perhaps their market tends to be younger kids. I can't tell you since i stopped playing nintendo after gamecube. I think Twilight Princess was the last zelda game i've ever played.

Indeed, they don't really follow trends, but instead try to set them, sometimes better (wii) sometimes worse (Wii-U)
It is also undeniable that a Nintendo game has a great deal more polish to it then a Bethesda or EA title.
And whilest not particulary demanding graphically still a great deal of detail that is for lacking of a better term "lovingly" implemented.

They also don't tend to swamp the market with 1 type style game. And what is even more interesting, the first mariomaker got out with a development book on how level 1:1 was created, etc and the insights there were quite iluminating.

 BrookM wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I'm actually more worried about Elder Scrolls after what happened to Fallout and Wolfenstein. I feel like fallout 76's failure would lead to Elder Scrolls sucking. I honestly don't see how they could mess up DOOM at this point in the same way they messed up Wolfenstein. It could literally be almost the same game and people would still probably buy it.

Micro transactions.

You thought horse armour was bad - welcome to Eldar Scrolls "Skyrim 2" where we don't put ANY DLC into it, but we also don't put any content into it. Instead you'll have to buy your horse armour from 10001 user created modes, all paid for!

 Overread wrote:

 BrookM wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I'm actually more worried about Elder Scrolls after what happened to Fallout and Wolfenstein. I feel like fallout 76's failure would lead to Elder Scrolls sucking. I honestly don't see how they could mess up DOOM at this point in the same way they messed up Wolfenstein. It could literally be almost the same game and people would still probably buy it.

Micro transactions.

You thought horse armour was bad - welcome to Eldar Scrolls "Skyrim 2" where we don't put ANY DLC into it, but we also don't put any content into it. Instead you'll have to buy your horse armour from 10001 user created modes, all paid for!

Remember fallout 4s DLC pass, and the price jak up.

Whilest 3 - 5 DLC were mostly building related and not really worth it?
Or how the modding tools were not realeased until all of these building DLC were out?

There's a soft-ball interview Todd Howard did with... I wanna say IGN... could'a been Gamespot.

Anyway, in that he talks about the longevity of Skyrim and the fact that after all these years people are still playing it. But the crux of what he says (beyond all the corporate speak) is that he hates that Skyrim is its own package, and that Bethesda has no way to engage with Skyrim fans.

What he's saying is that they cannot monetise Skyrim, and that he hates that.

The next Elder Scrolls game is going to be the shell-i-est shell of a shell game you ever did see. A Live Service to end all live services. Hell, access to the graphics options menu might end up being DLC. The only way to change the volume in the game might be something you need to pre-order. Expect at least 4-8 different types of currency, with at least half of them being premium currency. Remember the character creation screen from the start of Skyrim? That'll be replaced with an in-game store.

Voss wrote:
Indy games... eh. To me its mostly the same ugly junk over and over.

To which I reply: AAA games... eh. To me it's mostly the same ugly junk over and over. And yes, most of them are pretty ugly, with utterly lazy graphical design.

Frankly, I'll take Stardew Valley, or Terraria, or Reigns, or RingRunner, or Risk of Rain, or Magicka, or Pony Island, or La Mulana, or Kingdom: Two Crowns, or Hotline: Miami, or FTL, or Factorio, or SUPERHOT, or Dead Cells, or Into the Breach, or Cook Serve Delicious, or Papers Please, or Raft, or Sunless Sea, or Space Pirates and Zombies, or Stardrive, or Starsector in terms of graphics over your average Call of Duty. Don't mistake graphical FIDELITY for quality. Anyone with enough money can have high fidelity "ultra graphics!" Doesn't make it actually good graphics.

And that's to say nothing of the "medium"/non-AAA publishers/developers like Paradox, or Kalypso, or Eugen, or Egosoft, or Firaxis, or Creative Assembly, or From Software, or Digital Extremes. Granted some of the "medium" publishers are guilty of similar sins (hello, Paradox), but they still have a lot more freedom to develop games they're passionate about as opposed to just Designed-by-Committee games developed after IntenseFocusTesting (tm).