Generic Game Syndrome, and Why AAA Games Are Always "Declining"
I explain why AAA is declining is not really a fair statement and attempt to bring in nuance into the conversation. Additionally I find what I believe to be the root of this cycle and best explains the cycle of games getting worse before new ones can begin to take their place. The primary focus is on the cause of this cycle but I attempt to give solutions to the root problem as well.
Research
https://www.statista.com/statistics/349038/employees-at-nintendo/
/*The closest I could find of a reference for employees sadly it does not distinguish between developers and other employees still illustrates a clear trend of increasing dev teams. Along with the fact that while Nintendo has employees outside of game development the vast majority are working on games there are only so many pokemon center locations and accounting that needs to be done. While I could track down their physical yearly reports and graph it myself it would be unnecessary to illustrate my point and a fact that should realistically be undisputed.
*/
https://www.escapistmagazine.com/aaa-games-have-stopped-innovating/
/*
People have been echoing this sentiment sense 2015 it's clearly not a new trend however. It seems more like it is easier to complain about what we have then acknowledge what we do have. Admittedly 2015 was a little bit of a lull in game innovation fuckall released for nintendo fuck all released on other generations. However just a month after this article siege released and at least to me that marks the following 2 years of major game titles starting with siege and ending with the start of the battle royal trends filling out with PUBG fortnite and not to mention the introduction of overwatch. This article has made me rethink this video instead of just focusing on the causes. I am now going to focus on why the perception is this way. Additionally focus on why games are always “Declining”. I have a theory that I am now going to research further that is . The article honestly provides minimal insight beyond making me realize my line of questions were misguided. It's not the cause its the cause of the cycle its not just games it cause of the industry.
*/
https://gamingbolt.com/amy-hennig-is-right-aaa-game-development-is-becoming-unsustainable
/*
Speaks about the declining and almost non-existence of AA games anymore. AAA games just aren't sustainable and that is why live service is the last thing holding games up financially. Games need to shrink costs but companies need to market the largest games of all time. It is a real paradox. They also bring in that the conversation that the japanese market is much more sustainable, likely because they have a much healthier mindset of the capitalist system than western companies.
*/
https://screenrant.com/microsoft-aaa-games-live-services/
/*
Microsoft views live service as the almost exclusive way to make money on AAA
*/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15554120211014151
/*
The death of the traditional big box release has massively increased the messiness of games valuation. They have moved from a commodity to an asset in financial terms. Unrelated did not know pubg started as an arma mod interesting. Ostevily creating more financial incentive for games to become subscription based and. Drawing conclusions has led to the games being incentivised to apply the mechanic of capitalism in which you provide only as much as is needed to maximize profit and minimize investment. Meaning the ROI on these games has to be maximized meaning features like looking for groups that are not as valuable to a game and are only used by a small subset of players are unnecessary and lead to being killed off in the same way you shed unprofitable investments. The focus on the monetization is harming the games artistic vision and desire to become the best game it can be.
*/
https://www.wired.com/story/how-it-feels-build-video-game-watch-it-die/
/*
Live service games are hard to get right many companies have failed causing further hardship in the AAA space further leading to a desire to stick to what is safe to keep these massive corporations afloat.
*/
/*
Not the most academic method of finding the information sure, however it answers the question quickly and easily the majority of the major multiplayer games in there time of existence have had multiple lead game designers. And lead changes. This makes sense as the vast majority are around or older than a decade old. Which is a long time in a rapidly changing industry and shows that due to the multiple leads the games get pulled in a more averaged direction there is not one person's vision the game is showing its showings a couple dozen. As remember the game lead is not the only one in charge the other leads under the game designer have major impacts as well and will change often even more frequently. The game decided by council meetings will always find the maximum appeal. But never find the maximum enjoyment. The game will apply to as many people as possible but the more appealing a game has the less enjoyment it will give to the specific people the game is targeted for if that makes sense.
*/
/*
1:37:00 - I watch the podcast because I’m an overwatch player but what was said here by flats is exceedingly applicable here. The vision of a game fails to continue when layoffs are frequent.
*/
https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedesign/comments/qymsts/what_do_you_call_the_asesthetics_of_games_like/
//Used for comment on art style
https://hawk.live/storage/post-images/deadlock-valve-full-version-available-10588.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/XDefiant_covert_art.jpeg