
As we wrote in our review this month, Slitterhead is an inventive and original game. It’s one we thoroughly enjoyed, but it currently commands a Metacritic rating of 62. It’s one of the rare occasions where our 7/10 is actually higher than the critical mean.
And it’s started an interesting discussion on social media: do fans genuinely want lower budget, more original games?
Earlier today, Capcom confirmed that its PS5 and PS4 strategy game Kunitsu-Gami: Path of the Goddess had underperformed. It’ll follow the cheaper, more creative title with the hotly anticipated Monster Hunter Wilds – an enormously budgeted sequel expected to sell millions of copies.
Other lower budget titles this year that have failed include Banishers: Ghosts of New Eden, a largely critically acclaimed experiment that led to layoffs at dev Don’t Nod.
While we don’t have worldwide sales for Slitterhead just yet, we know it sold fewer than 10k physical copies on the PS5 in Japan at launch. This is such a small snapshot of the game’s overall performance that it’s difficult to infer anything of meaning from it, but it’s probably safe to say it won’t be a huge hit.
And Bokeh Game Studios, the creator of the game, took umbridge with an IGN article published over the weekend, arguing the way forward for the industry is smaller, more inventive experiences.
“Lovely article,” it wrote on X (or Twitter). “How about starting off by giving us a better rating?” The website awarded Slitterhead a 5/10, complaining about repetition and primitive presentation.
To be fair to IGN, its editorial about lower budget productions was written by a different author to its Slitterhead review. It also never argued that a smaller scale game should get good reviews by default; it simply pointed out that by reducing overall costs it might give teams more of a safety net should a particular title fail to live up to expectations.
We actually think Bokeh Game Studios is being a little outspoken by publicly sharing this statement, but we can understand where its frustration comes from. Fans are eager to say they’re willing to support smaller scale productions – there’s even a meme about it – but rarely show up to pay for such projects.
It raises the question then: do we genuinely want smaller scale projects with lower budgets? Or do we simply think it’s a good idea until our money’s on the line? What say you?
Do you want more lower budget, original games? (1,031 votes)
- Yes, I'll always support creative endeavours I find appealing
- Hmm, it depends very much on the type of game on offer
- No, I want devs to focus on big budget games in general
- I really don't know
[source x.com]
Comments 95
Yes because unlike a lot who say this line I actually buy these games when they come out. Don't get me wrong I love the big blockbusters like God Of War, Horizon, Ghost etc but I want more than that I want more games like Astro and some old school smaller adventure games (stuff like Kena: Bridge Of Spirits that game was an underappreciated gem) I DEFINITELY want more J-HORROR like Project Zero and Siren I also miss games like Genji and Onimusha. We need both of these big blockbusters and smaller stuff as they say variety is the spice of life and all that
I'm greedy and want the best of both worlds to be honest.
If we're talking graphics, it all depends on art direction for me. If you're going for realism, yes I want expensive looking graphics. But realism isn't a requirement at all.
If we're talking game length, I prefer longer games for the most part but it can depend on the gaming experience provided.
Mechanics and gameplay are probably the most important though. I don't know if they need to be big budget (whatever that means in this context) but they need to be quality.
I would love the big publishers, like Sony, to create indie-style publishing arms and use them as testing grounds for novel, out-of-the-box ideas in the A and AA space. Treat this publishing wing almost like the way sports leagues have farm teams: cultivate and nurture talent and, if they prove themselves, pull them into the big leagues and give them a bigger budget.
Sony kinda does this already with their China, India, and MENA Hero projects.
I don't need it to be lower budget, higher budget or something that's never been done before as long as I'm having fun. A good game is a good game.
Whether it's a Salt and Sanctuary or an Elden Ring, I'll play it to death if it's something I'm interested in.
I don't envy smaller games competing with juggernauts. It is tough to compete with games made by huge studios.
Slitterhead is good, but it's not without fault. I haven't exactly meshed well with the combat - having to fight multiple enemies at a time proves difficult for me for some reason.
But I like its originality and play it in small chunks. Plus, the story has me intrigued so far.
You can tell it was on a tight budget, but overall I haven't really encountered bugs. It's polished for what it is. I play on PC and get like 130-140fps at Max Settings at 1440p - so this isn't exactly pushing hardware, either. I hope consoles are able to lock at 60fps.
I think there is room for these kinds of games and I don't necessarily think actual sales numbers are a sole indicator of success. If the developer only sells 50K, but due to lower budget, actually makes a profit, I would call that a success.
When compared to something like COD or Monster Hunter, 50K sales is a flop.
The thing is, these smaller titles are going to cater to the absolute hardcore of gamers - which is significantly smaller than the total projected userbase.
As such, keeping budgets to cater to that is imperative to a studios growth.
this seems obvious but it has to be a good game with an interesting concept for me. it has nothing to do with the price tag, it just needs to be interesting and well made. i am not interested in any of the games mentioned here only because their concepts and gameplay do not look appealing to me
I want this very much so. The AA games are my favorite games to play. This would mesh my tastes. I want more creativity in games and better storytelling. Banishers is the sort of what I want out of games, to be honest.
I'm sick of the narrative that a 7 out of 10 is a disaster. 7 should mean very good as. It's 2 above 5 which is obviously the mid point and therefore average.
Too much stock is put in reviews too. Just because person finds a game brilliant or sh*t it doesn't mean that you will
Yes, smaller, more interesting and creative games please.
But!!!! They need to be good, of course. For example, I was looking forward to Flintlock this year as it had potential. But in the end, it seems to be generic and trying nothing new. So I'll play it someday, but not right now.
Currently playing Lies of P, which is a lower budget title. Really enjoying it, and I've tried out a lot of indie titles this year that I've really enjoyed.
@Loamy See, what annoys me about a game scoring 5 or 6 out of 10 when it's a smaller, less polished but still fun game with a reasonable budget and scope is that it's a 10 point scale people.
How on this earth is there more range for a game to be considered bad (1-5) than a game to be good (8-10).
Like how does that work? Is the more variety in how a game can be bad? Why is 7.5 the seemingly magic cutoff for good?
I'm always willing to buy and play smaller titles, but I always feel like if it doesn't look like a game I would enjoy big budget or not, I won't play it because I have how many other games I really want to play
I've never once considered the budget for a video game I've played. I have, however, considered the price. I don't think lower budget will lead to lower retail price so I really DGAF.
I hate the idea of choosing here. If I had to choose 1, I'd just quite gaming. AAA titles are just as important to me as indie titles and everything in between. I just dont play one type of game based on cost to produce. I like my Call of Duty Campaigns, but also enjoy indie rpgs like sea of stars. I like my AAA sports games like MLB the show and madden, but also enjoy puzzle games like picczle lines.
So short answer is, I support whatever I enjoy, regardless of who makes it and how much it costs to produce.
And just like that I don’t like this developer at all. Trying to shame IGN for not rating your small game higher because they write an opinion piece that the industry needs smaller games? How about simply make better games? IGN and many other review sites have given stellar reviews for plenty of small games, so it’s not like they had some agenda against Slitterhead. It just wasn’t well made enough to get a higher rating.
By reducing costs I would mean lower than 100 million cost but not lower than 30 or 50 million or whatever Slitterhead cost.
There is huge problem in identification of small games. You have about 5% to hit a good game. Around 15% it is bad game (extremly short or just unappealing) and rest 80% it is millionth copy of mobile game plagued with microtransactions.
I will play anything that looks good to me but end of the day just because you're a smaller game doesn't mean you deserve special treatment from reviewers and players.
I will say i heavily disagree that the AAA market is bursting. The thing that is bursting is the live service game, there's too many of them, most are too greedy and players are clearly fed up with it. It says a lot that the biggest hits this year are single player games with the one big live service game that is a success in Helldivers 2 being the one that offers something new and isn't MTX/P2W hell.
This is really difficult. In theory I want all the creative freedom for developers to try new things, make smaller interesting experiences that push the boundaries of creativity and potentially open up the next big IP.
But the truth is that 100 studios will close and maybe 1 of those games will break through. 99 will definitely shutter because hardly anyone actually buys them and when they do they complain about the lack of AAA features.
The boundaries of graphical fidelity keep getting pushed at great expense without any great gains while young gamers trend towards mobile, all in one devices.
So few games meet publisher expectations and that tells me that the profit margins are just not high enough and this applies to everyone bar Nintendo.
In short the industry just doesn't know which direction to pull in. The big publishers aren't supporting smaller projects and if they do they shutter the studio, when a big project bombs it costs the publishers hundreds of millions and the studio gets shuttered.
Things just cannot continue like this.
I want more RPG's that aren't Soulslike or trying to ape Persona. More stuff like Rayman Legends and Prince of Persia TLC. Perhaps a high-quality GTA alternative (not Saints Row). Native PS5 versions of the first 2 Dragon Age games, TES IV Oblivion and both Fallout games from the PS3 era. That's what I want.
I’m a fan of the smaller budget games. “Plucky Squire” was fantastic. I bought “Cat Quest 3” recently and repurchased “Castle Crashers” b/c I wanted to replay it with my family.
But it’s better when smaller budget games have a smaller cost like $30-$40. I’m not buying 12 hour Astrobot or 6 hour Lego Horizons for $60, even if people think they are AA or AAA. “Sea of Thieves” is $35, I’ll be picking that up once the dlc drops.
I’m still waiting on a Black Friday sale for GoW:R so I am admittedly cheap but I do like the variety that smaller games bring.
@rusty82 the idea that 5 is average is just not true.
There are loads of games that never get a review and the bigger, supposedly more polished games all get reviewed and rarely go below 7. A 6 for a AAA game is an absolute disaster. This skews the average significantly.
The major problem is that people only have so much time to game and if you have 10 games that score 8, 9 or 10 with the length of games now many people won't even finish those, so your average gamer will see a 7 and not give that game a second thought unless it has a hook for them personally.
Smaller budget games have to be actually good to play though, Slitterhead was a cool idea that was butchered and half assed in its approach, and its official Twitter acting like a spoilt child isn’t helping its case.
i find is baffling that horizon zero dawn cost 40 million and then forbidden west cost 200+ million. is forbidden west 5 times better than zero dawn nope why spend the money
why have the budgets expanded exponentially
There's definitely a place for AA games, but sometimes they need to contain their scope. I've enjoyed Slitterhead from what I've played of it, but it is very rough presentation wise.
ps4 gen AAA cutting edge sony games cost on average 50 million to make now they are 200+ million
they should go back to making 50 million AAA games
There are a bunch, they just never review high or sell like crazy.
Okay, let's clarify.
I want good, interesting lower budget games. Not janky or entirely unmemorable ones.
I have to actually want the game.
Doesn't matter what I say, the results (sales) speak for themselves.
I only support games that I enjoy at a price point I feel is fair/deserved. This is a hobby that I use to unwind and have some fun...and be snarky about sometimes. 😁
I don't belive in this rhetoric that we as gamers need to support games/studios for any other reason than giving us a product we want. I do wish that we got more low budget and creative games but in the end we are not investors and we don't owe developers a living.
Absolutely. But that doesn't mean every low-budget game is worth a buy. And that they exist doesn't change how companies tend to market AAA games more than others.
Nintendo's existence proves lower-budgeted games sell just fine. Just depends on quality, marketing, and how the consumer-base has been/is being conditioned.
@Gunnerzaurus I pre-ordered Astro and LEGO Horizon just to send my yelp of a message to Sony that these are the kinds of games I want more of. Still waiting for a good deal on Spider-Man 2.
I wouldn't be looking at the people of this site to show support, though. That's on the general audience. Gaming primary market.
If you're adamant on making low budget games you don't get to command high/standard budget prices. It's as simple as that.
I’m all for smaller games as long as there is a physical edition. I preordered Banishers but Slitterhead is only available as an expensive import and Path of the Godess is digital only. I vote with my wallet, give me a nice box for my shelf and I’ll buy any smaller, experimental game (as long as they’re good….)
Did I hear, more game like Stellar Blade. Yes please.
We want them. (Most that come to these sites)
But outside of enthusiasts, casuals don’t. They don’t want to drop £40 on something that doesn’t look good.
But then even among enthusiasts how often do you see- ‘I hope this joins plus/GP’ or I’m so glad I held off buying this’ when announced for a sub.
Subscription has hurt AA games. Plus cost of living etc.
Removed - trolling/baiting
Removed - unconstructive
I'd rather dev teams made smaller budget games so that can potentially not have to close down if something isn't a smash hit
@Oregondan what constitutes as a "woke" game? BG3 was considered as woke by some, but it was a roaring success. Where as games like SW Outlaws or DA Veilguard didn't fail because they were woke but due to deeper rooted issues within their very gameplay design.
Affordability is important. That said, my consoles and handhelds are long since discontinued, so looking for games is cheap for me. Except the damn Vita…..
I’m really not into all these new high budget extravaganzas that always come out anymore. Stellar Blade is a bit interesting to me. But I still like simpler games that don’t need flashy graphics to sell.
There should be a poll option ‘Yes, as long as the developers design the trophy list with trophy hunters in mind’. I have passed on literally dozens upon dozens of games simply because the developers shoehorned in horrendously poorly designed trophies.
AA games are pretty much dead.
Dev costs aren't exactly cheaper than AAA and you lack the marketing budget.
The industry kinda put itself in this corner.
@rusty82 sorry? Are you calling me an idiot or gamers who aren't enthusiasts?
Either way you are wrong.
Yes. If the game’s interesting then I don’t mind if it’s janky.
Yes. I'll take something like Slitterhead any day over a lot of the current 'AAA' slop.
I do buy these lower budget games like Slitterhead currently. Banishers not a great example as from a view not very appealing from a glance
@Oxy I love these smaller budget or indie games; but I will not buy a digital only game. Unfortunately, lower budget and no physical release, often go hand-in-hand.
Sometimes, I am lucky enough to get them at LimitedRunGames and similar places; but that only works for a handful of titles and only if I happen to know I want to play a game at the same time they are doing their print runs.
I mean I support them when they come around but I alone can't get a game to sell a million copies. If a game is gonna sell bad, it's gonne sell bad regardless as to whatever I do.
I smaller budget sure. But it needs to be a polished, cohesive and fun experience. If a smaller budget means a sloppy, ugly and poor performing game (not sales wise but literal game performance) then we are icing the budget for the wrong reasons. RoboCop did very well, Sea of Stars did very well. It can be done. Maybe Kunitsu-Gami doesn't scream approachable to the masses lol. Banishers is a sad one to see as that looked pretty cool.
I wouldn't say the bubble has burst, but I do think games should stop hiring big hollywood actors to appear in games as I imagine that is punting budgets up a fair amount.
Don't get me wrong I enjoyed Keanu in Cyberpunk but for some others it feels like they could have been voiced by anyone and saved some pennies.
@Medic_alert I'm calling anyone who thinks a 7 out of 10 means bad is an idiot.
That's my opinion so how can it be wrong? I'm not saying it's a fact, again it's my opinion.
Saying I'm wrong is therefore wrong as I didn't state what I was saying is fact, it's my view and unless you think it's not my view you can't say it's wrong
Last 5 games I bought? In no particular order, Bloomtown: A different story, Cyube VR, Max Mustard, Vampire Survivors, Arizona Sunshine remake.
Before that it was Astro Bot, which might be considered AAA, but the rest are definitely Indy or smaller games. I don’t think I paid much more than £20 for each of them. They were all well worth the money.
The next game I’m excited for is the next Yakuza game. That’s a half game really, and even the mainline games are without huge budgets, but the series is my favourite of all time.
I would love to see something like Dark Cloud make a comeback or a new Dragon Quest Builders it doesn't have to be expensive it has to be fun and polished not a trainwreck. I don't want a terribly optimised indie aswell just a fun game that works and looks fine.
Yeah not everything can be a 100 million dollar + budget game that needs to sell millions just to break even cuz more money does not mean a game will be fun
@thedevilsjester Same here digital only no thanks I'll wait it will eventually end up on LRG.
AAA games have been underwhelming for years (with some obvious exceptions) truth is the gaming media give overly favourable reviews to big budget games and now it’s caught up with them. Western game devs are in real trouble rn so they definitely need a new approach
@rusty82 I didn't say anyone thought 7/10 was a bad score just not a score that breaks through in a crowded market.
The over generalisation of everyone who doesn't think like you is an idiot is wrong.
Opinions can and are wrong all the time when not in line with actual facts.
@Medic_alert an opinion cannot be wrong by it's very definition. It's a view someone holds. To suggest you think that they don't believe that is pure arrogance.
You can change or challenge someone's opinion but to say it is wrong implies you are of a belief that they don't know their own mind
@rusty82 I get what you say about 7/10.
But issue is not enough reviews review and critique strong enough.
There’s plenty of games that are a mess but still score 7/10, rather than a 4/5 for instance.
I find it disingenuous you're asking this question while framing it using the sales of a game that, while surely a smaller budget game, didn't review all too well in a crowded market.
I think what the general market always wants is, above all else: good games. I'm sorry, but I rarely have the time, money, or patience to put up with a 6-7/10 game, unless it's dirt cheap and I buy it on a complete whim. (Or because it's very niche and that niche happens to be in my personal sweet spot.)
I think there's a HUGE opportunity for A-AA titles (and even "lesser ones!) IF the expectations are in check. Banishers looked fine. It did not look full-price fine to me, though. So I'm waiting on a sale. Simple as.
I'm a frugal shopper. I'm not going to spend $70 (or whatever full price is) on damn near anything. Ever. If a company wants that of me, they better be providing me extraordinary value for my money.
In regards specifically to this hobby, the issue is that while I'd certainly love to play the next big AAA game every time one drops, I simply know I don't have to because my backlog is a mile long (and growing) and I can grab loads of great stuff on sale ages after release.
A $70 AAA blockbuster doesn't compete 1:1 with everything else. It competes 1:5-10+ sometimes because of how many things I can grab on sale. No one game has ever been better than 5+ games, collectively. My tastes are too broad for that.
Nintendo are a good example showing how low budget but quality output can be done.
Feel like we need more low budget and smaller titles mixed in with the massive AAA especially now those are taking longer to make.
The likes of Journey, Grow Up, Child of Light spring to mind and from Sony these could be new entries in wipeout, sly cooper, gravity rush etc.
Instead of generic "AA" souls type games or the plethora of rpg's, how about tapping some AA love into the other genres that i believe are still available (Platformers, Arcade Games, Fun Racing Games not boring simfests, Shoot Em Ups, FPS's, etc etc) For reference look at how successful the xbox360 xbla days were (variety)
I just want creativity regardless of budget and them coming out sooner, regardless of length, just better gameplay/prssentation.
Don't expect high sales then Bokeh, vets but want high sales still XD It's called audience, comfort/open to things, preferences , etc.
Bokeh like others, vets to follow up a successor aka Yooka, Callisto, Bloodstained, etc. take or leave or go further of ideas aka NMS/Nightingale.
7th gen blended graphics/presentation with the same great 6th gen gameplay. While still offering its own. 8th gen was 7th cut back more. Besides creative cut back. 9th is slop further. 8th is successful 7th gen but more bland ones continued in some cases. Because I prefer ambitious left behind games in 'certain areas'. Whether marketing/too weird audiences respond.
Tell creativity/further prototyping then modern safeness, nostalgia & lack of time & care for Indies. Some Indies are really good, they have more modes, more details & put the effort in regardless of how long it takes they know they want to make a quality product & they show it.
Vs desperate for money/modern safe pass. Some play it safe as nostalgia sells/can trace. Tracing types then good artists to compare.
Not games made for casuals so basic of worlds, boring dialogue and whatever values/simple gameplay.
Fine with some being there for casuals, ease them in, don't take much. But when so many are you start to wonder money over creativity, standing out as a product that's actually competitive not competitive in a trend/safe sense.
Using items/moves/level design, pacing. Less skill trees. More effort in presentation, better level design, mechanics more then basic things any character can do.
Good secrets/level design challenge that doesn't have to be hard or generic, pulling off interesting moves in combat, puzzles, platforming, racing.
If I want to play as a generic human in an errand simulator, I'd go outside. If I want to play as an animal I play a 5-7th gen platformer not generic movesets Indies
Or fewer modes games, when I have more ideas then the Dev staff do. Not safe Indies.
They just make safer games, safer design, worse gameplay it's ever been for fair story, culture, eh world recreations, or safe fantasy/SciFi worlds.
Too much garbage dialogue/basic gameplay for eh values/safer design for casuals to profit off of. Because gamers know what they want, they either seek nostalgia or genuine design & look deep & go yep I know that's creative enough. They don't have to be a collector but know good, bad, gems.
Accessible is one thing, a good thing, to make for the lowest audience and easily understood is another and boring.
You don't have to be a family/kids game to be creative yet it almost feels like they have to be if taking risks not trashy safe ones/eh themes/skill trees for adulrs. XD Oh it's too easy but ramps up or is that just old games and why I prefer their presentation being for kids but still hard skilled testing the player in a fair way. But optional or 100% completion for those seeking it.
Fewer modes yeah I don't care about length/repetition then value, give us creativity, more effort put in. Not taking things away as if I don't notice & play old games, one offs, series, care less about graphics & more garbage game design pushed in our face
No interest in RPG like length & eh quality. No wonder people ask length if the presentation sucks/people love filler for some reason & bottom of the barrel design.
Games like Little Big Planet, ModNation Racers and of course Motorstorm spring to mind when people say AA.
Budgets weren't overblown but they were creative and fun.
@rusty82 nope, that's a thing people say to hide behind saying things that are factually incorrect.
Some people are of the opinion that the earth is flat, they are wrong.
Your characterisation of 'gamers', simply by virtue of being so broad sweeping as to include all people who believe this is also wrong. You can call it what you want the statement is false.
I'm not at all saying a person doesn't know their own mind I'm saying opinion can be in opposition to objective fact and is therefore wrong.
Anyway, this is well off topic and I'm out.
I voted yes but if there's an option to vote "i want good & creative games for both AA and AAA" then i will choose that.
This year alone i bought a decent amount of small / AA games like Huntdown, No More Heroes: Travis Strike Again, Dragon Blaze, Tengai, Gungrave GORE, Vampire Survivors, or Kunitsu Gami but only bought 1 AAA game (RE4 Remake). All are solid games that i had a lot of fun with. Sadly, my economic situation isn't as good as last year or i would buy more AA + AAA games including Slitterhead.
And Bokeh Studios statement for IGN feels like they're just half joking. But if they really serious then i really understand their frustration since todays reviewers especially from western site like IGN doesn't have the skill nor knowledge to review games properly while has strong bias for modern game design. They tends to gives low scores for AA games just because the game is linear or had some janky control / animation.
I still remember how IGN gave amazing game like God Hand a 3/10 and that was the day i don't trust IGN reviews anymore.
Here's a thought for future original AAA IP's.
Start with a ~10-12 hour lower budget game - a chance for new ideas to be explored at lower risk. Smaller length also means more time for overall polish.
If the title gets the right amount of attention, demand and profit, only then make a bigger budget sequel.
The second game will have the first one as a solid base to stand on (reduced risk), gamers would know what to expect, so they'll be more open to preorders and retail purchases.
If there are no shady BS tactics involved along the way, it would be a Win-Win for everyone.
I just don't want to wait years for a game that ends up being 100 hours long because of repetitive side quests and unnecessary grinding mechanics. Make it shorter, more action-packed, unique and, most importantly, FUN.
First two options in the poll are the same.
Honestly, part of lower budget titles is you have to accept some will flop, it’s low budget and low risk.
Also are we really saying “well you didn’t buy this handful of games so do you REALLY want this?”? Aside from one being free on Game Pass which obviously cuts into sales, it’s not like you can’t point at the huge AAA titles that flopped and ask the same thing.
I'd have slitterhead already if it were physical.
Lower budget or not, I won't be duped to give up any consumer rights for any game over 20€ by buying digital.
The shallow explanation that big budget titles use for this "wait and see how many fomo into buying digital before we go retail" tactic used by the like of Alan wake 2, Wukong and Baldurs Gate 3 is annoying. These are all AAA examples, but even the most obscure indies still end up in retail somewhere in the world. The only question is how much do I care to import it.
@PorkChopExpress This! why can’t it be both??
I was & still am perfectly content with 7th generation games, aside from the necessary resolution and FPS improvements of more modern games & hardware , i really don’t get why the hell games need to be so “big” . i like AAA games, its virtually all i play aside from multiplayers, but if all these years, money, and storage space is just being wasted on graphics and open-world bloat , then i’ll just continue to dig through older games & hidden gems.
PS360 games were probably like 15-25 gigs MAX & offered way more than modern games do now.
@Medic_alert well that's your opinion 🤣
@PsBoxSwitchOwner I think the publishers are to blame they hold payments from Devs if games don't reach a desired metacritic rating which gives the impression anything lower than 8 is a disaster.
Days gone is a good example of a game that reviews at the time painted it to be a 7 max, but people read it as a 4 or 5 as that's how a 7 seems to be seen by many. And in the case of days gone 7 was probably right (but a real 7 not a disaster 7)
@tangyzesty sorry, which games are trying to ape persona? Only atlus is making that type of game.
Prince of Persia on the other hand - while a great game - is a metroidvania, which is a genre that is absolutely packed with games, similar to souls likes.
I actually don’t even have a problem with souls likes in terms of the mechanics (the Jedi games are soulslikes to a degree, paired with some metroidvania). I am just tired of all these dark grotesque looking games, as if it’s Halloween season all year around. Give me more colorful and fun games like Astrobot. Luckily I got a Nintendo switch that is full of such colorful games.
I fully get why guerilla went for something colorful like Horizon, but there we somehow now got too many third person adventure/RPG games from Sony.
Fortunately, some here in the comments already mentioned it:
We want FUN!
Many AAA games lack it, because they are based on safe, schematic gameplay mechanics.
Many smaller games lack it, because their world building is not well fleshed out.
Repetition is no fun for most of us.
@tatsumi “ I am just tired of all these dark grotesque looking games”
such as ?
I want the games to follow the PS3 era of games:
I want a 15ish hour singleplayer with a tacked on multiplayer like Uncharted 2 for 60ish dollars.
I want a 13ish hour singleplayer game for 40$ like Ratchet and Clank.
I did my part. Bought smaller games this year. Including Slitterhead
As usual, people don't understand. It's not about the budget, it's about the developer. What we need is real developers making good games. That means not worrying about pandering to mouthy idiots or executives. The budget of the game does not determine how good it is or isn't. Making an ignorant and broad assumption that the problem is too much money is causing a failure is as dumb as saying a small budget game will be amazing.
Did my part and bought Slitterhead! Haven’t played it yet though..
So many people "claim" they want to see less murder and would never kill anyone, yet each year hundreds of thousands of people all over the planet are brought to grizzly untimely ends. Clearly these people are all just lying.
See? It's a childish nonsense rhetoric.
I bought both Kunitsugami and Slitterhead. But that doesn't mean anything. There's millions of people in the games market who apparently weren't interested. I assume for a infinite myriad of reasons. I bet a lot of the "five games a year. One of which is CoD, another is Assassins Creed and two are free to play" crowd never even knew those games existed.
That doesn't mean the people who say they want a more sustainable industry with smaller cheaper games don't mean what they're saying. It just means that the countless people who weren't saying it weren't won over.
Also no one is obligated to buy a game just because it conforms to some philosophical ideology. If you're not into body horror or tower defense then the two above games wouldn't be for you regardless of their scale or budget.
My personal golden age of gaming was all the creative AA stuff on PS2.
So yeah.
Spiders makes cool games, hint hint.
Firstly there are PLENTY of brilliant indies filling the lower budget tier of games, that isn't the problem area. It's the middle tier 'AA' games that are struggling to find a large enough audience.
Personally YES I want more smaller lower budget / AA original games on paper, and I suspect many other gamers do too. But are we enough? And do we ACTUALLY buy them in enough numbers? The facts are we don't. It's a similar problem in movies whereby it's easier to see ROI on low budget OR high budget entertainment, it's the mid-budget stuff in the middle that is really struggling. Unless enough people buy into that middle AA tier it's going to be hard to get people to finance those games.
But it's a tough sell. A lot of these fall into the 7/10 - 7.5/10 range which may end up being one of YOUR favourite games if you actually play it. But with so many other games on offer rated higher or potentially worse AAA games with known IP sucking up people's time, there are not enough buying AA and we see a lot of studios folding in that area. Sad to see, but the numbers don't lie. We simply aren't buying them enough to make them worthwhile.
I'm so burned out by AAA games.
Everytime I boot one up it just feels incredibly bland, boring and like I played that game a million times already.
I just can't get through what many people consider to be classics (H:ZD, GoW, TLoU). There are very few exceptions, like Returnal.
But other than that, my most enjoyable games on the PS5 have been indies.
@OmegaStriver
I want single player titles that are at least 30+ hours with no funding going to some tacked on multiplayer. If you are going to make a multiplayer game, make a multiplayer game, if you are going to make a single player game, make a single player game; and if I am spending $60-$70 for a game, I want 30+ hours worth of entertainment out of it.
The industry is so divided because we are so divided. Different players with different tastes want a different experience which are often opposing or mutually exclusive experiences so if you make group A happy, it angers group B, and vise versa.
@thedevilsjester you talk about division but advocate for multiplayer to be separate from single player as if the two modes can’t co-exist in one package as a full game like it used to be & very much worked.
that’s what people (used to call) full games - when there was more than one mode to play AKA content. the advent of live service has created a warped perception of multiplayer. i remember in the early days of the ps4 era people used to call live service games lazy & half finished.
@OmegaStriver couldn’t agree more
@nomither6 I disagree. The two modes co-existing has never "worked" imo. Mathematically resources (time, money, etc...) used on one aspect, are resources not available to the other aspect (with very little overlap). Even if you manage a decent game with a split resources, it just means that the game (either half) could have been so much better if it were the only focus.
With that said, if I am being honest, my desire for separation is in part (a big part) because I abhor multiplayer, and I don't want to be forced to play it to get the trophies for a single player game, and I am bitter about it.
@thedevilsjester
1. Assassins Creed 4 & Brotherhood
2. GTA 4 & 5
3. Ratchet & Clank 3
4. Red Dead Redemption 1 & 2
5. Mass Effect 3
6. Halo 1-Reach
7. Several CODs
8. MK11 & SF6
9. Gears of War 1-3
10. Borderlands 1/2
11. Uncharted 2
12. TLOU
13. Elden Ring
i could go on man, these are all highly rated games. i hardly scratched the surface and didn’t even mention games from the ps2 era with couch co-op too.
“ if I am being honest, my desire for separation is in part (a big part) because I abhor multiplayer,”
ah , there it is.
@nomither6 I don't agree with your list; however I could show an equal list of games that were terrible that had both modes, so cherry picking some that happen to work doesn't really prove anything.
Its irrelevant anyway; because I didn't say that there are not good games that have both modes, just that if the resources that were split between both modes, were given to a single dedicated mode that the game would better.
I am not trying to argue with you about your tastes or what you think works or what you want, or that what you want is wrong and what I want is right. My entire point was that we have different opinions, and they can often be mutually exclusive so its difficult for developers to decide who they are going to listen to.
@nomither6
" and didn’t even mention games from the ps2 era with couch co-op too."
I could have been clearer in my original post; but, single-player being just multi-player with bots, or multi-player being just single-player but co-op; are not games I classify as having different multi-player and single-player modes for the purpose of split resources (since the overlap in resources in developing these games is quite high)
I actually enjoy these types of games, and think the extra effort either way is actually worth it.
I have bought all three titles mentioned in the articles and astrobot mainly to support AA gaming.
@thedevilsjester “ if the resources that were split between both modes, were given to a single dedicated mode that the game would better.”
i strongly disagree . theres plenty of multiplayer only games that are trash & many that shutdown , and also plenty of trash single players like days gone & biomutant
but yeah, lets agree to disagree . i’m glad that you at least enjoy co-op experiences
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...