The "Great Games"- AAA titles, easy brand recognition- are what everyone pushes. But sometimes you need a "just average" game.
With life, work and other hobbies, I confess I'm not the gamer I used to be- lack of time being the main culprit. But RPGs- specifically Fantasy Fantasy- are the type I've always loved. Since then, hack-n-slash (I'll keep calling them this name!), action-adventure... I've enjoyed them too.
Given those genres, I'm sure you can think of big-name titles that are excellent. Cool. That's not what this is about. I should also add, I'm going back two generations with this, to the PS3.
You may have heard of a game called Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning. It's never been called a bad game, but phrased as "it's definitely a dungeon crawler". It's certainly NOT a big name game. And yet... I've been putting in TONS of hours to it recently. For a game that isn't one of the Big Names (I actually do have Final Fantasy and many other Big Name games), I'm finding it to be massively fun. I'm wondering if because it's a relatively uncomplicated game- and I admit I also chose Casual mode.
Meanwhile, I also got Monster Hunter: Rise on Steam- it was on a MASSIVE discount. This is DEFINITELY a Big Name game... and Holy Shit. Barely an hour into the game, and it just throws so much at you at once. Granted, playing it on PC rather than Switch is probably also a factor. I wouldn't describe it as complicated... more like, it gives you hundreds of options right from the start, and it feels very overwhelming. And that seems to be the case with games that have been around for a while and are well-known: they give you tons of options early-game. For some people, that's probably awesome- I suppose those with lots of time could easily spend hours working on it. But for someone who has limited time? It almost feels like too much.
Or in other words: those of us with not so much time, having fewer options to worry about is a better things. And that seems to be something only found in "not great" titles. I get that gamers want tons of options- been there, done that- but I find myself wanting fewer things thrown at me now.
I take your overall point, and mostly agree with you, but Kingdoms of Amalur was absolutely a AAA game. 38 Studios had over 400 employees at the time, and was backed by EA who advanced $28M towards the game's development. With the game ultimately ending up costing over $30M, which is similar to Mass Effect 3's budget (released the same year, for comparison). And the game also had a bunch of huge names behind it (Curt Schilling, Ken Rolston, Todd McFarlane, RA Salvatore, etc). But it also unfortunately flopped in terms of sales, lost money, bankrupted Schilling and 38 Studios, and everyone at Big Huge Games was laid off shortly after its launch.
That's the main reason it's not really considered a "big name game" these days... not because it wasn't AAA. It was AAA in terms of its scale, the name recognition behind the project, and its cost. But it simply failed so has largely been forgotten about since then.
Ah, I didn't realize this, that there was a TON of manpower and development... only for it to ultimately flop.
For the most part these days, I don't buy anything new (with one or two exceptions)- too many disappointments, and the meme of "NEVER pre-order a game". Which means I tend to judge games based on what secondhand stores are selling them for. The AAA titles are maybe $10~15 cheaper than new copies. But I distinctly remember Kingdoms being close to $10 at the time I bought it used- mind you, this was probably also about 8 or 9 years ago. Being that cheap... well, as you pointed out: despite the tram behind it, it was unpopular. When I normally think AAA titles, I assume they're going to be a massive success.
Yeah, Amalur was kind of a big deal at the time. I still remember the crazy amount of marketing behind it. And also remember how big the news was when it flopped, and the studio went bankrupt so soon afterwards. IIRC the game also went on steep discount almost immediately after launch too (which is almost unheard of in the AAA world) as a last ditch attempt to stave off the bankruptcy and pay off their debts.
Despite flopping, I personally thought the game was pretty good though. The combat was great, but did get a bit repetitive after a while. However, considering how much emphasis they put on RA Salvatore writing the story in their marketing, that aspect of the game felt super hollow and almost like they tacked it on at the end. TBH, I couldn't even tell you anything about the story now, that's how little of an impression it had on me.
I'm kind of the opposite of you though. I buy and play a LOT of Early Access games, and preorder and Kickstart games all the time. E.g. I recently preordered Frostpunk 2 to get access to the Alpha, and also just bought Manor Lords... Neither of which I regret. I don't care about that "NEVER preorder" meme at all. ;)
As an addition to your point, Amalur is far from "average" too. In my opinion, it's a game that falls short of greatness, but still comes close. I get the argument about not investing in long or hard games, but the opposite of those isn't "average", but short or easy (or easier). Amalur fits that criterion.
I don't think everything there correlates. MH, for instance, I would say is both kinda a "big name" but also not, which is why it gets away with how it is. MH is a famous series, sort of, but it's also a very niche one. It has very die hard fans, especially in Japan, and thus it has a long lineage and big shoes to fill in with every installment.
It's famously an unforgiving series for beginners to get into - it can be that way because it's not trying to be a game for everyone. It's okay with being an AA series with a niche audience.
On the other hand, truly big name games, and many "great games", are very accessible. Games like the Last of Us, for instance, I really think if you're not completely new to games you can just autopilot through and enjoy the story. You don't even need to know all the mechanics - they're not designed to be that kind of game.
The more you get into super high budget, broad audience games, the more you should find what you seek - those are the games which are designed for people with little time on their hands, who may never have played another video game. It's the more unknown games that are more niche, and more hardcore.
Ok, so full disclosure- I am actually living in Japan, so that's why it feels to me like Monster Hunter is a Big name game. Heck, the city where I live is actually doing a collaboration with it- the biggest reason why I bought it (besides the discount).
That said... would you put FromSoft games under Big Name branding? And maybe Elden Ring? Elden Ring, the Soulsborne games, are precisely infamous for their "throw you into the meat grinder from the get-go" playstyle. And yet, I also hear about them pretty much everywhere... online, at least.
I think at Elden Ring's release they're a "Big Name", but they're also the exception that proves the rule, no? What does anyone think when they think of "FromSoft" - difficulty.
It's so rare that a mainstream game is as difficult as the Dark Soul's series is that it has become the dominant perspective on the games, beyond any other aspect of the game. "The Dark Souls of X" is a much memed phrased ascribing that something is particularly difficult, e.g the "Dark Souls of platformers" would be a very hard platformer.
All that when none of the dark souls games are actually that difficult. They're surely challenging by mainstream standards, but there's an endless number of niche games which eclipse their difficulty by severalfold. La Mulana, for instance.
That says a lot about how hard the normal mainstream game is. And there's nothing wrong with that, as you described, it's what many people want.
It's a huge IP... but not in the west. It's like Dragon Quest. It may seem like a niche little RPG here but it's a cultural phenomenon in Japan. To the point that the series comes out on a Friday in Japan instead of Tuesday so it doesn't disrupt the work week. Some successes are indeed localized.
That’s really a story from a bygone era. Non-mobile gaming in Japan is in major decline. MH:Rise sold 5m in Japan, for instance. For modern Japan, that’s quite high! But it’s not exactly world rending. It’s dwarfed by something like Genshin in Japan.
It’s more popular for sure than in the west, but that’s not a high bar. And actually, the majority of MH sales have been global - it’s why Capcom is investing in the foreign scene with games like World.
It's still absrudly high for a 3rd party platform exclusive game. Japan has a small fraction of the Western population, being about 1/3rd of the US population alone.
I wouldn't call 2022 a bygone era. Even if it can feel that way in 2024 after all that's gone on.
sure, there are more phones (and PCs), the game is "free" and every freeloader is amortized by whales spending thousands on the game , consistently. Meanwhile, every sold copy of MH Rise is $60 at most.
And even among that we're talking about the best selling Chinese game in an Asian population. I see that less about the state of the console market and more about the state of mobile gaming in Asia. Again, whales. For some reason, Japan specifically has an absurd attach rate to mobile games. So even if only 1% of them spend money on mobile games, the biggest whales make it worth catering to.
Given the aformentioned population issue, that's an incredibly high bar. It's like dismissing The Office for being popular only in the US and not the rest of the West. I'm sure any company would kill to have such mindshare of an entire country like that, be it 100m or 300m people. It seems a bit myopic to ignore an entire culture's tastes just because it's not universal.
And it's worked well. But Capcom isn't "abandoning Japan" for that reason alone (compared to say, Sony/Playstation). On the contrary, they are simply expanding what works to more people. We can remember Resident Evil 5 if you recall a true attempt to "invest in the foreign scene".
This is why I bought Steam Deck. I want to play those AAA titles that I got years ago in some discount. Or replay agame that I played in the past. Currently I'm playing Witcher 3, a 200 hours game (for me). It is great to be able to play anywhere and anytime you want (or rather have the chance). You play a few minutes here, a few minutes there and you've done two hours in a day without even realizing it.
If I didn't have Steam Deck, I wouldn't finish so many games in past two years.
The ability to pick it up and continue where you left off at any time is priceless along with "pause + suspend" at any time.
I've finished more games on the SD than any other platform in 10 years just because of the convenience.
For me, there's a clear distinction between a short game and a game that can be played in short bursts. As much hate as the "Ubisoft" formula gets online, there's a very addictive, rewarding, and easy gameplay loop. I finished Watch Dogs Legions and Far Cry 6 this way. I am usually able to play the game in 30-60 minute bursts. In this time, I can do a mission (or more) and level up. Each time there's some sense of accomplishment. It's easy because most things are already marked on the map. The formula is just fun. I don't have to think much to have fun.
FYI, this reminds me that I should play Amalur again. Awesome game!
I feel this so hard. I recently finished Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora, and it took me so much effort to actually finish. At the start I was able to play the game for a few hours at a time, but by the end the amount of time I wanted to be actually playing just kept shrinking and shrinking. Yet somehow, despite loathing being in the game (the word "loathing" simultaneously being too strong and not strong enough at the same time), I kept wanting to get back into it.
It's not all bad. The world is beautiful, the art serene, the music great, and the story serviceable. The gameplay itself it pretty simple, having a few movement options (running and sliding is fun, even though it's not the fastest way of getting around) and some variation in weaponry when it comes to combat. The mini-challenge of clearing facilities without being spotted made me engage with the stealth mechanic more, the Batman vision is very helpful, and the gear crafting ties into the resource collection with an encyclopaedia that has fun little lore and world building details right alongside the gameplay info you need. It's good, but at the same time I just can't bring myself to recommend it.
I loved Assassin's Creed: Mirage more than any other modern AC game for one reason: it was 30 hours instead of 100. I haven't had a similar feeling in games from other publishers, it's just Ubisoft. I still haven't quite pinned down why I keep coming back to this style of open-world game when I clearly have objections to it.
I like low end games because they don't focus on trying to look impressive as much.
Like some of these video games have so many pretenders cuscenes and so many hand holdy tutorials that I get bored before I even get to the gameplay part.
AAA games in particular really want to prove that their new Gen hardware and all the manpower they put in the game is worth it, so they really go hard in trying to showcase as much spectacle as they can, but really I just want to get to the action part. Graphics have been more than good enough for me for like 15 years at this point.
I feel this, but for slightly different reasons than you. I'm within that group of people with not a lot of time to play a lot of games, but I'm also kind of just picky - I:
As a result, I just don't play that many titles. Of the ones I'm interested in and end up playing, either I've completed them and none are AAA, or they're AAA and I haven't completed them. Some of my friends give me shit for this, lol.
I've just accepted that I play fewer games now, but it's kind of annoying sometimes that nothing catches my interest, because I'm still interested in games, I just don't want to play a lot of them. I also stopped competitive multiplayer games for my mental health, even though I'm, per my own description, the kind of person who gravitates towards them.
That being said, I find myself mostly playing roguelikes and some JRPGs. Mostly because those are the two genres that satisfy my criteria for "fun" while still being things I can play only every now and then. Hades, Slay the Spire, One Step from Eden, etc. Right now I'm playing Persona 3: Reload, which isn't exactly the most difficult game, but is fun as a story game with what's basically a roguelike+JRPG gameplay loop in some parts.
Anyway, that was more of a rant than anything. But I feel heard. 😆
I'm intrigued by this, because I would have thought that "I want to beat the game on highest difficulty" and "I need to completely beat the game" usually went together. Could you elaborate on that a little? (To be clear this is meant as "tell me more about your perspective" and definitely not "your perspective is wrong")
Sure, I'd summarize it as I like the feeling of overcoming a challenge. This isn't mutually exclusive with 100% completion, but those two things don't completely overlap by any means.
I briefly mentioned competitive multiplayer games - by my own description, these are the types of games that would appeal to me the most, because getting better to overcome a challenge is the entire point. There's no "100% completion" concept involved at all. Speedrunning is another example, and I do this sometimes.
An example where completion is involved might be "All bosses, highest difficulty". The point is more that beating a boss or two is hard, and so beating all of them is harder.
In contrast, I don't usually care about getting 100% of achievements or anything like that. You don't usually have to learn/challenge yourself to 100% a lot of games, you just have to be thorough. If there's a difficult challenge involved in getting that 100%, I'm usually just fine doing that part.
The AAA-hype train is definitely real, and it affects most people through marketing and social media osmosis. It affects me too. But there are a great variety of other games that are perfectly legit. I thought that was a given for everyone, so I was a bit taken aback by this thread, because I thought it went without saying. Especially considering there's a very thriving Indie game community.
What I'm trying to say is, I agree with your overall point (although I differ on some specifics). But it's not a wildly unpopular opinion. I think maybe you're realizing how much the AAA-hype has affected you, and that there are other ways of enjoyment. I say welcome.
I really like games sized like Orcs Must Die! or Orcs Must Die! 2. A complete experience, engaging loop, and nothing more than what it is, by which I mean no multihour grinds to pad the playtime, not unneeded logins or social, just some good, well-done fun. OMD2 co-op with my cousin has been some of the most fun gaming moments we've had, even though we've played plenty of the big-budget titles as well.