Your opinions on the state of modern AAA games?

[Wolfe]

@Northstar -- The real offender there is neither the developers nor the consumers, but the publishers. They're the ones who hype gamers up on graphics, squeeze developers for time, and decided to push DLC in lieu of raising the price of games.

@Luminis -- When someone says "modern gaming", they could just be referring to the archetype of a high-profile AAA game in the 2010s, rather than the totality of gaming today. There are still games that aren't gritty dudebro war/crime simulators, but they aren't the face of gaming. And anything light-hearted or cartoony is marginalized under the pretense that those aren't "real" games for "adults" to play, like how the industry and media have been trying to sweep Nintendo under the rug for the past two years.

There are certainly options around, but that doesn't mean things haven't changed.

 

[JR98]

Since we were talking about what classifies as AAA I have thought of a neat system to classify them.

AAA - Big budget blockbusters that sell in the millions, if not billions, e.g. Grand Theft Auto V
AA - Medium budget games that sell well but aren't overwhelming, e.g. Valiant Hearts (This could be classed as A, I can't think of a recent game that just sold well off the top of my head)
A - Low budget indie games that are made by smaller studios, e.g. FTL: Faster Than Light

 

[Imari]

And anything light-hearted or cartoony is marginalized under the pretense that those aren't "real" games for "adults" to play, like how the industry and media have been trying to sweep Nintendo under the rug for the past two years.

To be fair, this isn't just limited to games in the West. It's media in general. If it's for adults, it's expected to be either gritty and hardcore, or tongue in cheek with plenty of stereotypes and meta-humour.

With a few notable exceptions like Pixar and Disney (which are still strongly viewed as kids media, but somehow OK for adults to enjoy), media for adults has pretty well defined boundaries of what is acceptable. Just as what hobbies are deemed acceptable for adults have boundaries, it's OK to like cars or guns or getting wasted and getting into fights, but if you're into Lego you'll get funny looks.

Culture. It's mostly bollocks that people make up so that they can judge other people for not liking the same things. If stuff was legitimately fun when you were ten, it's probably still fun when you're thirty, or eighty.

 

[Luminis]

@Luminis -- When someone says "modern gaming", they could just be referring to the archetype of a high-profile AAA game in the 2010s, rather than the totality of gaming today. There are still games that aren't gritty dudebro war/crime simulators, but they aren't the face of gaming.

Don't you think that generalizing isn't very helpful when discussing this sort of topic?

Either way, I think it's somewhat important to distinguish between modern gaming in general and AAA gaming in particular, because just looking at AAA gaming gives of such a wrong impression of what the gaming industry has in store. Might be that people are using the term modern gaming just as you suggested and if I misinterpreted someone's post because of that, I'd like to apologize for doing so.

And anything light-hearted or cartoony is marginalized under the pretense that those aren't "real" games for "adults" to play, like how the industry and media have been trying to sweep Nintendo under the rug for the past two years.

And that is the result of generalizing things

I have to say this, though: I, personally, can't say that I've experienced any negativity towards light-hearted games myself. People who aren't into games have generally been more positive towards games like, I don't know, Rayman Origins than Crysis 3. People who aren't into games tend to give me more of a funny look for playing a game that's about killing things and splattering blood all over the screen than for enjoying a game that's a bit on the childish side in terms of presentation.

Then again, it might depend on the age of your peers.

There are certainly options around, but that doesn't mean things haven't changed.

I'll be the first to agree that things have changed and, in the case of the big budget titles, for the worse. Not keeping those options in mind is a bit of a shame, though; not so much because of what one might think of gaming, but because one might miss out on extremely good games that are overlooked purely because one's not willing to look past the crappiness of the bigger titles.

 

[LeMansAid]

If you're just going to treat AAA as purely quality, you're not talking about the same thing as the OP and everyone else in the thread, and so your contribution is of extremely limited value.

I think I may just need to get over it..... and over myself.

but...

What does this have to do with anything? You're the only person that I can see having used the word "verse" in the entire thread.

I can't see myself using something quite as distorted as the way "the kiddies" have misunderstood and skewed that one.

and....

Since we were talking about what classifies as AAA I have thought of a neat system to classify them.

AAA - Big budget blockbusters that sell in the millions, if not billions, e.g. Grand Theft Auto V

I won't be excusing big budget flops from the AAA category if I start using the term in that way. I really don't think that actual sales (as opposed to expected sales) should factor.

Leads me to the question, is/was Duke Nukem Forever a AAA title?