High end vs next gen: how creators will survive "the death of triple-A"

I've only recently entered the world of Xbox 360 games -- in middle age of all things. And it surprises me to learn that developers seem to build so much of these AAA titles -- or any titles -- from the ground up, so to speak. I'd imagined that some computer-aided design software might have long since made the process quite streamlined -- that the main delays and complications would only arise in the crucial creative choices and not in cobbling together the physical mechanics or the visual integrity of the games. Might someone develop a master software that provides for every developer a quick and dynamic framing-out of any game's architecture and cinematics?

Welcome to the forum, Dobs - nice first post. Did you pick up an Xbox for any particular games?

As far as streamlining development goes, it entirely depends on the game. Some of them are built using more user-friendly or simply better-understood middleware, like Epic's Unreal Engine or the Call of Duty/id Tech 3 platform. Generally speaking, though, even adapting software to serve a new concept is costly, and then there's the marketing spend to account for.

As a matter of reference... how much more expensive is a AAA xbox 360 game to make than a AAA original xbox game?

If it is double the cost then we have proof that the industry can survive the upgrade. Also, the customer base has increased dramatically over the last 7 years which makes it even more likely to survive.

I like AAA games and think most people on the forum agree... there was a poll a month or two ago showing that people buy AAA games. This means that the developers will surely survive. I think they're making a bit of a fuss to be honest.

how much more expensive is a AAA xbox 360 game to make than a AAA original xbox game?

I'm not sure, but probably by an order of magnitude. Agreed that there's a precedent for the industry surviving this kind of transition, but the odds seem to be stiffer nowadays. So many studio closures...

As Ed says it doesn't bode well that so many well respected studios are closing as we approach the end of this cycle, but we've also seen a lot a new studios (particularly Eastern European ones) spring up in the last few years and quickly build strong reputations.

I think the switch to new generation will probably bring something similar to what we are seeing in retail: Companies that can forge a new identity and move with the times will thrive whilst the ones that can't will go the way of HMV. Strange as it sounds I can't shake the feeling Acti may well be one of them. Just like most of the fallen high street giants they have come to rely more and more on fewer and fewer products, and both CoD and WoW have seen a drop in customers this year. New consoles are the time people try new things, meaning they risk losing market share to newer FPS and the 14 year olds who buy one game a year probably won't be early adopters of new tech so poor old Activision may suddenly find themselves in a more competative market without the old safety net and, more importantly, having closed the very studios that they could have looked at to develop new IPs.

If activision were smart they would have been investing the millions and millions they get from call of duty and skylanders but you're right, I can see them sticking all their eggs in one basket and if it doesn't work for them they could crash.

It maybe would have been better for them had modern warfare not been as successful.

We could potentially be heading for another industry crash. Companies such as EA rely on making higher profits every year, which is simply unsustainable.

We've already had numerous failed MMOs with everyone trying to copy WoW. Free to play and mobile gaming are a big gamble, which usually fail to pay off.

People are getting wiser to money-grabbing shenanigans, and with a huge number of 'living room based entertainment devices' coming out this year, there aren't enough customers to go around, and each platform will have far fewer players than the current generation.

Welcome to the forum, Dobs - nice first post. Did you pick up an Xbox for any particular games?

Thanks for the warm welcome. Truth be told I was relentlessly cajoled into the purchase by my older brother, who hoped to combine our forces in either MW3 or Black Ops 2 online -- aided by his fearless 7 yr. old son/my nephew. Frankly, the only title I was familiar with even by name at that point, a scant six weeks ago, was the Assassins Creed franchise, and only by virtue of its many eye-catching advertisements over the years -- with their panoramic visuals and dramatic combat scenes.

Ironically, Assassins Creed 2 was then the second game I returned to the store -- after MW3 -- as I found the initial AC 2 missions tiresome and the fighting mechanics underwhelming. It's thus been a steep learning curve, as I've acquainted myself with the AAA titles via online reviews such as those provided here and by watching parts of other's gameplay videos.

I find myself gravitating toward older, less expensive games that remind me of the simpler ones I enjoyed as a teen. An intense Smash Court 3 match, however primitive it might appear next to a Mass Effect 3, for example, nevertheless grants me a challenging, "honest" game world that doesn't seem as far removed from reality as an FPS or an RPG, my two least favorite "cheat" genres thus far. (The former "cheating" mainly for its merciful health recoveries and its often endless ammo; the latter, mainly for its one-attacker-at-a-time, polite melees and its encyclopedic inventories)

In fact the only two AAA titles that have so far genuinely enthralled me are Red Dead Redemption and Bioshock (if the latter qualifies.) Extensive care and much thought were manifestly invested into both worlds. And both are grounded in a sense of reality's limitations -- the former title in every way possible, the latter at least in its graphic, philosophical revelations concerning the limits of human progress.

I therefore wouldn't consider it a great loss if fewer AAA titles were created for the next generation of consoles. More effort ought to be brought in giving the games deeper, more distinctive settings with starker rules of reality -- no more two-second health recoveries or magical time-outs for quick inventory scrolling. "These kids today..." seem to want the rules bent too far in their favor, rather than exploring disciplined game worlds, proving themselves honestly, and in the process learning something more about the real world around them.

Dobs your post has me wondering if the problem might be the fact that since many of the games released these days are all about the instant gratification, maybe people aren't enjoying them on some subconscious level. Sure we buy them because we think they look fun, but then we realize how easy and/or simple the game is and we start avoiding either that title's sequels or the publisher entirely. Then they escalate by throwing more money in to production to try and lure us back and we just keep repeating the cycle until something breaks. Like...the industry? I do have to agree though, reading this article had me thinking of all those fun games I played as a kid. I still fire up Super Mario Brothers or the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Arcade game (that last one was a multiplayer fest at New Year's no less!), and really, if they made more games like those, I would totally buy them. Maybe I wouldn't pay $60 or 120 pounds or whatever the conversion is, but I'd definitely be willing to pay something to see games like that again.

Wow Dobs, great second post. I'll second Edwin's welcome and hope you stick around as judging by your wordy analytical post you'll fit in perfectly round here.

Sorry you didn't enjoy AC2 as it's one of my favorites, but good call on Red Dead and Bioshock two of the best games on 360. As a newbie try looking at our reviews thread and Best Games of 20X threads for suggestions of others you may like. I'll throw in my personal recommendations for Batman:Arkham Asylum and Mass Effect 1 as both are great games that really offer a rewarding experience for anyone willing to put in the time. If you like a certain amount of realism you'll probably enjoy ME1 more than it's later sequels due to it's lack of recharging health and greater reliance on health packs but the richness of the universe makes everything within it feel real and genuine, and whilst Batman does offer recharging health it doesn't kick in until after a fight ends so you still get a realistic experience of Batman's vulnerability.

And if you like cheaper and "old school" check out Xbox Live Arcade as many of the games on there, even newer ones, deliberately try to evoke a more retro ethic than most of the AAA games.

Didn't metro 2033 have a dlc thing for hardcore mode with no hud etc?

Otherwise it's all horses for courses really and what I would like you might not. Fallout 3 has probably been my fav on xbox, along with AC2 and mass effect 1.

Maybe max payne for it's fairly simple but effective gameplay.

"that damaging obsession with countering pirates and demonising the pre-owned market."

Damaging obsession from preventing non-content owners from getting a free ride?

And if you like cheaper and "old school" check out Xbox Live Arcade as many of the games on there, even newer ones, deliberately try to evoke a more retro ethic than most of the AAA games.

I keep forgetting about the arcade. Good idea...

Well from what Ive heard , The next gen isn't going to need any upgrades to be made internally for developers , The games arent going to be massively different to what they are now,

Unless we have all been lied to and Xbox Loop is going to be a super computer with a 50ghz 8 core processor things will be OK,

In fact its a lot better for them this time round , I cant see why it was such a big thing last time ,The only reason i can think of is because they was tight asses for years without upgrading and preparing for something i would say was easy to predict,

Next gen games need more work and better equipment to develop them on , That is something a baby should be able to realise

Dobs your post has me wondering if the problem might be the fact that since many of the games released these days are all about the instant gratification, maybe people aren't enjoying them on some subconscious level. Sure we buy them because we think they look fun, but then we realize how easy and/or simple the game is and we start avoiding either that title's sequels or the publisher entirely. Then they escalate by throwing more money in to production to try and lure us back and we just keep repeating the cycle until something breaks. Like...the industry?

Drainwater, I think you've deftly described my typical response to games of this generation. It's a very similar story in the movie theaters: Explosions of shallow CGI/graphic light and sound -- very little underlying substance. It's funny that it wasn't until I started delving further into video games that I became a little less disdainful of today's blockbuster CGI movies, as I could now appreciate that, at the very at least, they were fantastic cut scenes of a sort.

Honest and compelling jeopardy is what's missing today -- the kind of stakes I felt while playing games as a kid. But this requires first creating scenarios wherein we vicariously confront our own vulnerabilities. (What could be more humbling than playing an Italian plumber or an armed turtle?) All of the exotic armor, fearsome artillery, godlike magical powers, and instant health regeneration bestowed upon gamers today only robs them of that underlying sense of shared vulnerability and legitimate jeopardy -- substitutes for these instead a false fleeting sense of limitless ego and virtual invulnerability. And for older gamers like myself, who no longer feel very invulnerable -- or even wish to do so -- this difference is perhaps more obvious.

Wow Dobs, great second post. I'll second Edwin's welcome and hope you stick around as judging by your wordy analytical post you'll fit in perfectly round here.

Sorry you didn't enjoy AC2 as it's one of my favorites, but good call on Red Dead and Bioshock two of the best games on 360. As a newbie try looking at our reviews thread and Best Games of 20X threads for suggestions of others you may like. I'll throw in my personal recommendations for Batman:Arkham Asylum and Mass Effect 1 as both are great games that really offer a rewarding experience for anyone willing to put in the time.

Thank you for the compliment (you'll note I'm ducking that "wordy" backhand (!)) and your seconded welcome, CunningSmile. And thanks as well for your many recommendations. I'm leery of Mass Effect -- and of many RPG's -- as I'm loathe to play any game that actually hobbles natural abilities at which I excel in real life -- like holding simple conversations and making contextual choices. This deconstructing of our natural, real-life functionality strikes me as a step backward, not a great leap forward. It's equivalent to designing for me a flashy racing game and then taking off one of my arms.

True, I want a game that forces me to face my underlying vulnerabilities and limitations -- but not one that imposes arbitrary or crippling ones. Perhaps if Microsoft were to incorporate Siri or some other voice-commanded intelligence into their next console, I wouldn't feel so put off by the artifice -- so forced to humor an awkward, primitive story-branching device. Then the conversations and their consequences might approach or even exceed what we already experience in real life. (It may well arrive with the Xbox 1440.)

It's a similar knock on the FPS's: There's a bit of tunnel vision with most of them. An angle at the periphery that we enjoy in real life is excluded from the character's perspective at each shoulder. I'd trade all the weaponry and armor in a given game for a fish-eye lens perspective. So I prefer the TPS (back again to older titles) where if anything I have a slightly broader perspective than in real life -- and, with it, fewer valid excuses for being ambushed. I'm thus fairly and honestly put on the spot without being denied any of the natural abilities that give me a fighting chance in real life. That's the right formula for teaching me something.

As for Arkham Asylum, I'll take another look. But I'm afraid that I'll find the combat system a bit like AC 2. Perhaps it isn't possible to simulate the reflexes one possesses in real life within the context of hand to hand combat -- until Xbox 1440 that is. But as I indicated above, I'm turned off by combat melees wherein I always seem to be generously granted the time to attack one enemy at a turn among what seems an unusually polite hoard. I've never been to prison; but I've heard that the rules there are a bit contrary to this. And this lack of basic innate realism -- this immunity from being overwhelmed all at once -- diminishes for me the sense of jeopardy that creates suspense and drives drama. It undermines the "willing suspension of disbelief" required both of readers of good fiction and of a certain "wordy", often sarcastic, middle aged gamer.

You obviously know what you like but it honestly doesn't sound like you enjoy games that much. Unless you want to play something like arma or something completely realistic then you don't want to know but most games aren't realistic because they're games. Complaining the combat isn't as it should be in batman, a game in which a man glides around a city and uses x ray vision, defeating enemies made of clay or immortals.

Not saying you should like these games, just think complaining about games not being realistic is usually a daft argument.

As regards the Arkham series, Dobs, the "lack of basic innate realism" in combat makes more sense than it does in some other titles. It's basically a question of carrot over stick - about how extensively you "experiment" with your opponents using different attacks and gadgets and thus, how quickly you earn the unlockables.

Reading your thoughts on jeopardy, I suspect you'd take well to Dark Souls... http://www.oxm.co.uk/34515/features/how ... ay-primer/

You obviously know what you like but it honestly doesn't sound like you enjoy games that much.

Not saying you should like these games, just think complaining about games not being realistic is usually a daft argument.

You're absolutely right, FishyGinger, I find now that I'm not as excited to explore these games as I would have been when I was younger: hence my very demanding, grumpy old standards. But the other half of the equation is not so much that I am daft, though that undoubtedly has its effects, but that I last played video games when the player was only given three lives with which to complete an entire level, no saves. And that strictness, and the fact that such games weren't advanced enough to bestow great powers upon the player, ironically established a deeper sense of dread, excitement and ultimate accomplishment than do many of today's games -- for me.

One other factor is that there are so many more similar titles to choose from today -- and with them so many repeated mechanics and borrowed ideas -- the Gears of War cover system, for example. "Back in my day..." every new game was a revelation, a revolution. Now it takes a Red Dead or a Bioshock to grant me that same sense of wonder and excitement again. Just another shooter or RPG with a weapon or plot twist won't get me there.

But I'm glad for those who find any in new game an exciting opportunity for exploration and discovery, irrespective of its flaws or borrowing. That's as it should be, really. With the prices of AAA titles as high as they are, I sadly can't afford to be so generous of mind. Thus I buy only a few AAA's and many more bargain bin older games that remind me of the simpler, stricter ones from my youth. (Smash Court 3, Lost Planet, etc.) Maybe it's unreasonable to hope that this upcoming generation of games will prove both more demanding and yet more rewarding, like a well written book. Maybe even a little daft...

As regards the Arkham series, Dobs, the "lack of basic innate realism" in combat makes more sense than it does in some other titles. It's basically a question of carrot over stick - about how extensively you "experiment" with your opponents using different attacks and gadgets and thus, how quickly you earn the unlockables.

Reading your thoughts on jeopardy, I suspect you'd take well to Dark Souls... http://www.oxm.co.uk/34515/features/how ... ay-primer/

Thank you, OXM ETboy, for your astute consideration. I was, as a matter of fact, contemplating buying Dark Souls upon my next visit to the video store. I ran a search of the hardest games on Xbox 360 and of course this one almost always appears.

At its negligible price I'm also tempted to buy Ninja Gaiden 2 -- though I hear it would be distinctly masochistic to do so. Nevertheless, if I could successfully hone my latent ninja skills there, perhaps the new Xbox 720 might allow me to port the character over to Arkham City, where, for all time, we might settle the matter of which combat system is the more formidable.

I'd buy Dead Rising as well; which is another title often included in lists of the hardest games; but I fear I've already had my fill of zombies for this century.(Spoiler: try striking them in their heads.)

Hopefully this next generation of games will augment not only the graphics engines but the versatility of challenges as well.

I liked dead rising but it wasn't that hard. The controls were a bit awkward making the psychopaths in it a right nightmare but not because they were fairly hard, more annoying. The time constraints were the only other thing and it annoyed some people you couldn't do everything in one playthrough.

I don't think it's you though, think someone already pointed out games need to make money so are aimed at a wider audience and therefore easier. Also with there being too much choice (maybe not a bad thing, maybe it is...) it's impossible for every game to feel new when big titles seem to be coming out once a month so I understand the gripe with the lack of fresh titles but it was inevitable.

Anyways, my recommendation for a fairly hard game is stalker, sadly not on xbox though.