Yes, but Obsidian put out Tyranny and Pillars II in the meantime, too...
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
I am worried about the development of next gen titles.
- Thread starter DanteLinkX
- Start date
Yes, but Obsidian put out Tyranny and Pillars II in the meantime, too...
Saying we got 1.5 Uncharted games is kind of a disservice to Lost Legacy which is its own title and the best Uncharted game
Pillars of Eternity II and Tyranny both exist
They did not.
Videogame development peaked with Pong and it's been all downhill since then.
Since you wanted a dev to put your mind at ease, I'm going to try concisely detailing what's easier going into the PS5/Scarlett transition.
First of all, the asset creation side of things is nearly identical. We're still using PBR because, well, you can't do better than physics. We have better refractive materials, subsurface scattering, and other things which are difficult to do well without hybrid ray-tracing, but those are all just as easy to author as they are now. This is in stark contrast to PS3>PS4 where we shifted from diffuse/specular/gloss to PBR materials and many of us had to learn how to do materials 'from scratch' with new tools. But now we can hone those skills with much better balance on the rendering side of things.
Speaking of rendering, it's no longer required to manually set up light probes, and better global illumination means that the film-inspired lighting setups we've been using this generation will now have their full effect. In that sense, aside from the fairly straightforward work of transitioning to hybrid ray-tracing, it will actually be easier than ever to light a photorealistic scene. On the engineer side, many renderers already support voxel-based GI and will only need to implement rays for materials above a certain smoothness threshold, while this also gives access to improved shadows and ambient occlusion. It's important to note here that many rendering improvements you'll see have been researched heavily in recent years and were just out of the reach of current-gen consoles; full-fat ray-tracing isn't the be-all and end-all here.
Of course, there is a demand for higher fidelity artwork, but most games with high-end visuals already use detailed sculpts where a straightforward subdivision + displacement would get most of the detail people are hoping for. With respect to environments, the new CPUs give us tremendous flexibility with draw calls. RDNA also allows for much more graceful and performant tessellation which makes way for more automated LOD systems. Current tile-based approaches will work fine, of course, but this is one way of making development of open worlds simpler for both artists and engineers. More dynamic environments will be a big challenge, but it will also be much more achievable with such well-balanced hardware.
In terms of character artwork, more detailed hair and cloth with proper animation (especially for wrinkling) is a major challenge, but we can use more sophisticated tools already available for film. That's another major advantage going into this new generation- recently updated 3D creation tools are easing many aspects of asset development. It's never been easier to create a complex character and make iterative tweaks as you go along. It's also important to remember that most current-gen characters are based on either photogrammetric or CG-quality source files. Many artists transitioned to high-fidelity artwork along with their transition to PBR, whereas the audience was more forgiving of substandard visuals on the PS3/360. So for those of us who improved, next-gen is a welcome opportunity to flex our skills and show off the full glory of our source artwork.
This post is getting a bit long in the tooth, so I'll wrap it up by tempering your expectations. I may have made next-gen sound like a cakewalk, but developers' deep familiarity with the workflow going into it means expectations will skyrocket. That's not just from the audience, but our expectations of ourselves. Now that photorealism is actually achievable, there are many opportunities to get carried away and waste time, but that will be born out of the flexibility and ease of development going forward. High quality visuals are now accessible to all developers, not just technical powerhouses like Capcom and Naughty Dog. We have yet to see whether developers take this opportunity to speed up development and target reasonable budgets, or to chase the end of the rainbow.
First of all, the asset creation side of things is nearly identical. We're still using PBR because, well, you can't do better than physics. We have better refractive materials, subsurface scattering, and other things which are difficult to do well without hybrid ray-tracing, but those are all just as easy to author as they are now. This is in stark contrast to PS3>PS4 where we shifted from diffuse/specular/gloss to PBR materials and many of us had to learn how to do materials 'from scratch' with new tools. But now we can hone those skills with much better balance on the rendering side of things.
Speaking of rendering, it's no longer required to manually set up light probes, and better global illumination means that the film-inspired lighting setups we've been using this generation will now have their full effect. In that sense, aside from the fairly straightforward work of transitioning to hybrid ray-tracing, it will actually be easier than ever to light a photorealistic scene. On the engineer side, many renderers already support voxel-based GI and will only need to implement rays for materials above a certain smoothness threshold, while this also gives access to improved shadows and ambient occlusion. It's important to note here that many rendering improvements you'll see have been researched heavily in recent years and were just out of the reach of current-gen consoles; full-fat ray-tracing isn't the be-all and end-all here.
Of course, there is a demand for higher fidelity artwork, but most games with high-end visuals already use detailed sculpts where a straightforward subdivision + displacement would get most of the detail people are hoping for. With respect to environments, the new CPUs give us tremendous flexibility with draw calls. RDNA also allows for much more graceful and performant tessellation which makes way for more automated LOD systems. Current tile-based approaches will work fine, of course, but this is one way of making development of open worlds simpler for both artists and engineers. More dynamic environments will be a big challenge, but it will also be much more achievable with such well-balanced hardware.
In terms of character artwork, more detailed hair and cloth with proper animation (especially for wrinkling) is a major challenge, but we can use more sophisticated tools already available for film. That's another major advantage going into this new generation- recently updated 3D creation tools are easing many aspects of asset development. It's never been easier to create a complex character and make iterative tweaks as you go along. It's also important to remember that most current-gen characters are based on either photogrammetric or CG-quality source files. Many artists transitioned to high-fidelity artwork along with their transition to PBR, whereas the audience was more forgiving of substandard visuals on the PS3/360. So for those of us who improved, next-gen is a welcome opportunity to flex our skills and show off the full glory of our source artwork.
This post is getting a bit long in the tooth, so I'll wrap it up by tempering your expectations. I may have made next-gen sound like a cakewalk, but developers' deep familiarity with the workflow going into it means expectations will skyrocket. That's not just from the audience, but our expectations of ourselves. Now that photorealism is actually achievable, there are many opportunities to get carried away and waste time, but that will be born out of the flexibility and ease of development going forward. High quality visuals are now accessible to all developers, not just technical powerhouses like Capcom and Naughty Dog. We have yet to see whether developers take this opportunity to speed up development and target reasonable budgets, or to chase the end of the rainbow.
Last edited:
Why do you want more games my god? Here I am already drowning in backlog.
To be fair while the games have become complex the tools have become simpler and efficient. It's just that the it takes lot of time to put everything together.
Also gamers demand more content per game which obliviously pushes the teams to fill the game more and more. Just the other day, people were complaining about Luigi's Mansion being only 13-15 hours for a 60 dollars game.
To be fair while the games have become complex the tools have become simpler and efficient. It's just that the it takes lot of time to put everything together.
Also gamers demand more content per game which obliviously pushes the teams to fill the game more and more. Just the other day, people were complaining about Luigi's Mansion being only 13-15 hours for a 60 dollars game.
Damn, you said it all... studios need learn to use what they already have to make something new...using naughty dog as exemple, uncharted 4 is a awesome and technical marvel, but in the end of the day is just more uncharted. From software reuses a lot of stuff in their games, but somehow they put out something that fells new and fresh, one cant say that ds3 Bloodborne and sekiro plays the same or whatever, they are completely different games.
It's only going to get worse over time. Unless developers/publishers stop chasing the tech arms race dragon, stop trying push the limits of graphics and stop chasing Hollywood; game development is only going to take longer, become more expensive, continue to homogonise in terms of design and become worse and worse.
So? Obsidian isn't a small developer. They have a couple hundred employees, plenty enough to make the fairly light on content Tyranny, a sequel to an old school cRPG and one moderate scale AA(A?) console game within the span of (nearly) 5 years. Point still stands that even smaller games can easily take 2+ years. It's mostly just some asset recycle games, very similar sequels and simple & short cheaper games that get done in less than 2 years, not AA games.
I'm ok with 2-3 years cycle like PS360 gen :) I don't like the idea of waiting half a decade for game.
You should be.
I started this gen late. With the Wii U at the end of 2015. Got a Switch at launch because Nintendo nailed it. PS4 2 months ago. Every gen since SNES it was a priority for me to get at least one system very close to launch.
Why? Because the jumps were massive. It wasn't just the visuals, it was the gameplay. The experience. But that has changed. The previous gen changed things significantly (Wii/360/PS3).
HD graphics on a 1080p screen are good enough for most people. 3 of the most popular games in the world right now are Minecraft, GTA5, and Fortnite. All games that were either built for last gen systems or can run on relatively low end hardware.
This creates a divide in game development. Companies can now actually decide if they really need to focus on next gen, whereas before the Wii era it was almost a necessity to survive. I can't think of any publisher who lived off of handheld games. They always had to push to make games for the home consoles, then get some side cash from handhelds.
Wii and cell phone games brought this about due to lower development costs and the casual craze. This trend has now spread itself throughout the game industry as a whole. It will never go away, until cell phones are gone lol.
We're not just talking about making games for one gen now. Why do you think we had stop-gap consoles this gen? In order to maximize profits and potential. Not just for now but for the future. You think next gen starts next year?
Haha. Maybe a handful of titles will barely cross that mark, 90% will be cross gen and that number will slowly go down until whoops another mid-gen refresh and likely Switch 2.
By that time cell-phones will be capable of visuals good enough that even more of the casual players will be satisfied. The status quo will get even lower.
Streaming will get bigger, the age of a standard multiplatform AAA release will start to disappear. Things become more episodic in nature to keep up with the demand. The playerbase will be bigger, but the amount of different devices games have to take into account for will grow as well.
Next gen is likely the last of its kind. Its a defining moment. Which developers/publishers will continue to take the plunge into the exclusivity that the historical tech race of consoles impedes, and which ones break free.
I started this gen late. With the Wii U at the end of 2015. Got a Switch at launch because Nintendo nailed it. PS4 2 months ago. Every gen since SNES it was a priority for me to get at least one system very close to launch.
Why? Because the jumps were massive. It wasn't just the visuals, it was the gameplay. The experience. But that has changed. The previous gen changed things significantly (Wii/360/PS3).
HD graphics on a 1080p screen are good enough for most people. 3 of the most popular games in the world right now are Minecraft, GTA5, and Fortnite. All games that were either built for last gen systems or can run on relatively low end hardware.
This creates a divide in game development. Companies can now actually decide if they really need to focus on next gen, whereas before the Wii era it was almost a necessity to survive. I can't think of any publisher who lived off of handheld games. They always had to push to make games for the home consoles, then get some side cash from handhelds.
Wii and cell phone games brought this about due to lower development costs and the casual craze. This trend has now spread itself throughout the game industry as a whole. It will never go away, until cell phones are gone lol.
We're not just talking about making games for one gen now. Why do you think we had stop-gap consoles this gen? In order to maximize profits and potential. Not just for now but for the future. You think next gen starts next year?
Haha. Maybe a handful of titles will barely cross that mark, 90% will be cross gen and that number will slowly go down until whoops another mid-gen refresh and likely Switch 2.
By that time cell-phones will be capable of visuals good enough that even more of the casual players will be satisfied. The status quo will get even lower.
Streaming will get bigger, the age of a standard multiplatform AAA release will start to disappear. Things become more episodic in nature to keep up with the demand. The playerbase will be bigger, but the amount of different devices games have to take into account for will grow as well.
Next gen is likely the last of its kind. Its a defining moment. Which developers/publishers will continue to take the plunge into the exclusivity that the historical tech race of consoles impedes, and which ones break free.
In terms of multiplayer options and platforms - games are better than ever, it isn't even close. When I get free time now to play it's not a question of finding something to play, it's a question of what to devote time to.
Single player games mostly flourished in a time before multiplayer fun really existed - it's certainly taking a backseat to online multiplayer (which a few big exceptions), and yeah they take longer to make and there are less of the big budget storytelling efforts, but look at the budget indy gems and everything in between - it's all pretty healthy and creative. Never mind 'indy', i've probably spent days now just browsing Dreams creations and being amazed.
I think the groundedness you talk about is just a few recent examples and not really a trend. Sure, realism can sell, but so does fantastical bonkers. We weren't able to get close to realism or "cinema" in the past, and it's maybe overplayed due to how relatively new in the industry it is, but I think that phase will pass. Maybe we will have a wave of batshit crazy or very stylised big budget games soon. Death Stranding is certainly not playing it too safe. I also wonder what Platinum Games is working on.
Single player games mostly flourished in a time before multiplayer fun really existed - it's certainly taking a backseat to online multiplayer (which a few big exceptions), and yeah they take longer to make and there are less of the big budget storytelling efforts, but look at the budget indy gems and everything in between - it's all pretty healthy and creative. Never mind 'indy', i've probably spent days now just browsing Dreams creations and being amazed.
I think the groundedness you talk about is just a few recent examples and not really a trend. Sure, realism can sell, but so does fantastical bonkers. We weren't able to get close to realism or "cinema" in the past, and it's maybe overplayed due to how relatively new in the industry it is, but I think that phase will pass. Maybe we will have a wave of batshit crazy or very stylised big budget games soon. Death Stranding is certainly not playing it too safe. I also wonder what Platinum Games is working on.
Good advice right here. Such incredible work being done by indie developers nowadays.
And you have every right. But engines and wor-flows become faster to work with so maybe some game can be made faster and more efficiently.
But yes, it takes time. And i rather see them take a reasonable amount of time and not work people into a burned-out out shadow of themselves.
I rather wait and buy a great product from people who enjoy their work. Screw the money grabbing guys who are only there to collect.
But yes, it takes time. And i rather see them take a reasonable amount of time and not work people into a burned-out out shadow of themselves.
I rather wait and buy a great product from people who enjoy their work. Screw the money grabbing guys who are only there to collect.
TLL is not half a game, it's as big as UC1 and a lot better too.
Besides, quality > quantity. It's not like there's a lack of games to play, AAA or otherwise. Look at how stacked 2020 is and we don't even know all of it.
Besides, quality > quantity. It's not like there's a lack of games to play, AAA or otherwise. Look at how stacked 2020 is and we don't even know all of it.
The quality is the problem though. We had several AAA developers completely jump the shark this gen.
Legend of Zelda says hi!
Also Smash Bros was four years apart. Splatoon as well.
Let's talk about Pikmin shall we?
Nintendo is no stranger to long development times and they are more willing than most companies to delay games no matter how much they've invested in them already.
More often it does.
I mean, you're right in that triple-A blockbuster titles are getting harder to develop... I'm not sure where else the big two console manufacturers can go at this point, they seem dead set on this endless arms race for bigger specs and better visuals in lieu of any significant innovations. Naturally this will continue to hit devs of bigger marquee titles the hardest, heaping way more expectation on teams and demanding more advanced development hardware, bigger headcounts, more specialisation to cope with the endless ramping up of graphical complexity that gamers have come to expect.
I don't doubt that there's some market research knocking around somewhere that tells us our biggest audiences want more realism, higher resolution, denser poly counts etc... But this is an unsustainable trend. The improvements get more and more incremental, more subtle, to the point where the vast majority of players won't even notice the difference (how they'll manage to make stuff like Raytracing marketable I have no idea). But most importantly this eats into dev time that could be better spent on iterating gameplay, refining core design, writing more competent AI, story, time for creating actual meaningful content to justify that $60 price tag.
Personally I feel that most players are much smarter than publishers like to let on, and are in fact yearning for more games that just feel straight-up good to play, that aren't a gigantic ripoff, that don't demand constant further monetary investment and don't preoccupy themselves with aesthetics beyond all else. This is why indies can be such a breath of fresh air; yes, in some ways the advancement of tech hits them too, but they're far less beholden to industry trends, audience expectations, publishing strategies, marketing gimmicks, etc. This approach to games obviously does come with its own caveats that push dev times up as well (IE less overall structure to the development cycle, smaller teams with less specialisation, etc)... But the freedom to innovate in that space is so valuable to the industry as a whole.
There's a ton more stuff to factor into this whole issue that I don't know if I'm properly equipped to talk about, particularly the advent of games as a service which approach the issue in a very different way... Ultimately though, you're right to be concerned, and I think that it's something we need to prepare for, or find new solutions to. Because we absolutely do try to evolve our workflows, and we do build better, more user-friendly engines with streamlined featuresets and automation... There's just only so much you can do when you're constantly preparing for the next big thing to come along, which will inevitably make your job harder.
I don't doubt that there's some market research knocking around somewhere that tells us our biggest audiences want more realism, higher resolution, denser poly counts etc... But this is an unsustainable trend. The improvements get more and more incremental, more subtle, to the point where the vast majority of players won't even notice the difference (how they'll manage to make stuff like Raytracing marketable I have no idea). But most importantly this eats into dev time that could be better spent on iterating gameplay, refining core design, writing more competent AI, story, time for creating actual meaningful content to justify that $60 price tag.
Personally I feel that most players are much smarter than publishers like to let on, and are in fact yearning for more games that just feel straight-up good to play, that aren't a gigantic ripoff, that don't demand constant further monetary investment and don't preoccupy themselves with aesthetics beyond all else. This is why indies can be such a breath of fresh air; yes, in some ways the advancement of tech hits them too, but they're far less beholden to industry trends, audience expectations, publishing strategies, marketing gimmicks, etc. This approach to games obviously does come with its own caveats that push dev times up as well (IE less overall structure to the development cycle, smaller teams with less specialisation, etc)... But the freedom to innovate in that space is so valuable to the industry as a whole.
There's a ton more stuff to factor into this whole issue that I don't know if I'm properly equipped to talk about, particularly the advent of games as a service which approach the issue in a very different way... Ultimately though, you're right to be concerned, and I think that it's something we need to prepare for, or find new solutions to. Because we absolutely do try to evolve our workflows, and we do build better, more user-friendly engines with streamlined featuresets and automation... There's just only so much you can do when you're constantly preparing for the next big thing to come along, which will inevitably make your job harder.
lol sure jan. Nintendo is not the only ones making fun to play games, nor have creativity.
But it isn't Sony. Besides Bloodborne Sony's generation has been the dearth of fun.
Sure..if you say so...most don;t agree. I had fun with plenty, are you saying I never? There is more creativity in VR then most things nintendo has done this gen. Nintendo is not a sacred cow nor special, many devs make great/fun games.
Next gen doesn't automatically mean longer development time, the reason development time takes longer is that games keep developing and reinventing themselves. A lot of popular series had to reinvent themselves because people get tired of the same old stuff.
That said your examples are comparing apples and oranges, God of War was a complete reboot hence why it takes longer, Rockstar shifted their focus to longer lifecycles for the online parts of their games since that makes them money, Final Fantasy Square Enix is Square Enix they have a rocky track record of game development overall with multiple project restarts, Batman games haven't been produced not because it takes longer to make a new batman game but because of other things.
Look instead at how many games of high quality we have today compared to last gen.
That said your examples are comparing apples and oranges, God of War was a complete reboot hence why it takes longer, Rockstar shifted their focus to longer lifecycles for the online parts of their games since that makes them money, Final Fantasy Square Enix is Square Enix they have a rocky track record of game development overall with multiple project restarts, Batman games haven't been produced not because it takes longer to make a new batman game but because of other things.
Look instead at how many games of high quality we have today compared to last gen.
Thing is, just as with the Yakuza games, it's very possible to have a high output if you don't mess too much with that particular franchise's framework & gamesystems. For a lot of studios, its a trade-off: do we stick with the formula 'we are good at', or do we try to expirment and create new things? The first choice is usually "safe" and predictable (which is important for investors). The other choice means a lot more risk, prototyping and projects that might get cancelled if they don't reach expectations. It's a trade-off. For 1st party studios its a bit different: Their games should sell the system; they represent the brand. So just as with TLOU2; it makes more sense for Sony to delay things to make sure the game is up to scratch.
We need it to. And with any luck VR will be the thing that helps that.
AAA development is becoming more costly and time consuming so this shouldn't come as a surprise. I expect things to develop at pace at which they did in this gen and that's fine, there are ton of AA/Indie games which are worth playing.
This one is going to be just as long so I don't think that makes a difference. It's not exactly a controversial take to say that big publishers have produced less games this gen than previous ones, on average. It'll probably slow down even further next gen. It's not necessarily a bad thing, as indie developers have helped to pick up the slack, but I can't help but wish we got more mid budget games as not everything needs to be a big budget release
We also had lots of brilliant games, some of which are among my all-time faves. I worrry about my backlog more than I worry at quality at this point.
You do Lost Legacy a disservice by calling it only half a game. It's as much a full game as Uncharted 4 is. As for your other examples, Rockstar is the one big outlier we've gotten. You also need to remember that the last gen lasted, what, 10 years?
Capcom has released plenty of games this gen, outside of Final Fantasy XV Square has released more than a handful of other games, I'm not sure why you're only counting Final Fantasy as a "main" series for them. Dragon Quest XI came out, as did DQ Builders. Not to mention in the first few months of next year wer getting FF7R and the Trials of Mana remake.
Capcom has released plenty of games this gen, outside of Final Fantasy XV Square has released more than a handful of other games, I'm not sure why you're only counting Final Fantasy as a "main" series for them. Dragon Quest XI came out, as did DQ Builders. Not to mention in the first few months of next year wer getting FF7R and the Trials of Mana remake.
High-end power is not the problem. The problem is using that performance for higher fidelity.
If Nintendo had a system with 36x the performance of the Switch, they could continue making games with exactly the same level of fidelity and quality of assets, but they would run at 4K120 instead of 720p30. Or more realistically 8x for 1440p60, 9x for 1080p120 etc.
Anyway, the point is that the games wouldn't take any more time or cost more to develop, but they would look and run significantly better.
This is part of the reason why I want to see developers pushing for higher frame rates next-gen. HDMI 2.1 now supports 120Hz - could you imagine if games went from being built for 30 FPS to 120 FPS? It would be incredible, and it could help reign in AAA budgets.
You could also argue that faster hardware make game development easier.
A developer might struggle to get their game running at a smooth frame rate on the Switch, but that same game would require less time spent optimizing it to run well on faster hardware.
Features like ray tracing make lighting your levels faster and easier since it happens in real-time and behaves realistically without having to bake in lighting or use lots of tricks to get the look you want.
Long takes are extremely impressive in cinema because of the amount of work that goes into making them happen, and how everything has to be timed and executed just right.
It's a neat design decision they made for God of War, but I don't find it to be all that impressive considering that it's all pre-scripted.
The number of AAA games has no impact on the number of indie games though.
Indie games are great, but I miss when AAA took more risks and had a lot more variety than it does now that the budgets have exploded.
The problem I have is that the limited output means there are fewer games that I want to play.
I don't try to play every AAA game that gets released, but the limited number of them this generation has meant there's been significantly fewer that I've actually enjoyed or wanted to play. So even though I have limited time, I've been left wanting for something new to play.
OP
OP
Thanks for bringing fromsoftware ( I forgot to add their case to the op) their case is specially one of the best, since they have always been known for their vast output in most gens of games (go and look at their releases history, they even supported gamecube and original xbox) so to cut to the chase this gen they made:
-bloodborne
-darksouls 3
-Sekiro
-deracine (a psvr game).
-elder ring (tba, might be crossgen)
but go and look what they developed last gen:
-Demon souls
-Cromehounds
-Dark souls
-Dark souls 2
-Ninja blade
-Enchanted arms
-Armored core 4
-Armored core for answer
-Armored cored V
-Shadow assault tenchu (downloadble puzzle action game)
-Another century episode R
-Mobile suit gundam unicorn
-Steel batallion: heavy armor
-armored core: verdict day
So thats around 14 games last gen compared to 5 this gen (I am giving you the vr game since I counted that downloadable only tenchu game). And thats not counting their output to psp (4 games), ds (4 games) and ps2 (yes they even had time to release 2 ps2 games after ps3 came out) compared to only 1 3ds release. So as you can clearly see their past gen output was at least 3 times the one they had this gen.
Iteration and ideation is not wasted time.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that we wasted a bunch of time. The vast majority of Cuphead's development time was generating art assets, which, honestly, is the same issue AAA games have.
OP
OP
Sorry I am answering this in 2 parts, but since I am in a mobile phone, didnt want to make it too long and have the chance of screwing it up.
So regarding SquareEnix, as I said only counted "main" ff titles not to make it too big (and the fact that SE publishes a lot of games that arent necesarily developed by them) but lets dive into SE complete output last gen and compare it to this gen, lets see.
Last gen SE gave us:
-FFXI
-FFXIII
-FFXIII lighting returns
-FFXIII - 2
-FF Crystal Chronicles my life as a king
-Soul eater monotone princess
-The last remnant
-FF Crystal Chronicles Echoes of Time
-FF Crystal Chronicles my life as a darklord
-FF Crystal Chronicles the crystal bearers
-the tales of bearsworth manor 1 and 2 (since these are 2 wiiware titles I am counting them as one not to inflate the list)
-FFXIV
-Mario Sports Mix
-Dragon Quest X.
-Sleeping dogs ( SE london studios developed this one alonside another studio)
-Dragon Quest builders (this is a crossgen title so it should count for both gens)
Note that I didnt count all the ps2 remasters (kh remixes) that released for ps3. Also psp and ds titles which are a lot of games. Specially psp that got kingdom hearts birth by sleep, 2 final fantasy dissida games, ff type 0, Crisis Core FFVII, etc and DS got a lot of games too.
This gen we got:
-FFXV (plus 4 short dlc stories)
-FFXIV Expansion (this is also cross gen, since it was first released for ps3 and windows and then around 8 months later for ps4 I am not going to count it for this gen)
-World of ff (like sleeping dogs, was dev alonside another studio)
-saga scarlet ( this one was dev for vita but since it was later released for ps4 I am going to count it)
-kingdom hearts 2.8 (same as above, its main game is kh 3d which was dev for 3ds, and also added a short aqua episode, so I am going to count it as well)
-romancing saga
-kh3
-ffvii remake
-chocobo mistery dungeon
-dragonquest builder (cross gen as I said before)
-dragon quest builders 2
-octopath traveler (in collaboration with another studio)
-dragon quest xi
-ffxv pocket edition.
Again, didnt count vita and 3ds releases (with 2 exceptions) but I did 1 ffxv side game (pocket) just for kicks and to even up things a little since I also counted a some wii releases.
Final count is:
Last gen around 15 (not counting any ds and psp)
This gen around 12 (counting 2 3ds and 1 vita, and some games they were codevelopers)
So all in all, again last gen won in output.
Smash Ultimate took 2.5 years to make after development wrapped up on Smash 4 DLC. Those wait times have less to do with actual development cycles and more when they actually start development (except BOTW which has a typically drawn out dev cycle for Zelda). It's uncommon for a game to be in development for longer than 3-4 years under Nintendo, but I think 5+ will be the norm going into next gen.
OP
OP
It's already started and I can't wait till we're back into the 100s of AA games to play
yeah I don't get why people don't understand that. Better graphics = more time needed to make a game. We went from 30000 polys to well over 300000+ on a large part of AAA games.
Nintendo's better at development times than a lot of developers. They'll let a game take years to complete to ensure quality like you said, but many of their tittles are completed in around 2 or so years. Splatoon and it's Sequel, were developers in just 1.5 years. ARMS and Labo were made in just 2. Games taking 4 or 5 years to make at Nintendo isn't unheard of, but it's not as common as one would assume actually.
