OP
OP
Ubisoft? Like...?????? The only thing I can think of is the DLC for AC:Origins & Odyssey.
If you're saying that while understanding my point then maybe I really should
Opinion: The Amount of Remakes We Had Proves that Old AAA Games Are Still More Creative
- Thread starter Blade Wolf
- Start date
Ubisoft? Like...?????? The only thing I can think of is the DLC for AC:Origins & Odyssey.
If you're saying that while understanding my point then maybe I really should
OP
OP
100% Agree
Like I said in the TL;DR the artists in the industries are still just as creative, but there's a lot more filter now.
On consoles, sure you could make that argument. On PC? No way. That's the power of marketing and the limitations of BC for some console hardware.
The reason is you got old and boring, not the games. Strong disagree, and the cherry-picked examples of this thread seem so extreme as to be almost disingenuous. Yeah, lots of games seem boring thematically compared to MGS3 and RE4, two of the coolest games ever but I'm not sure that's really indicative of much.
OP
OP
Did you even read the rest of my post like WTF ?
OP
OP
the topic is about creativity, not quality
of course the quality went up when gaming goes mainstream and budget starts rocketing
Really, that's it? And again you are doing that thing where you compared games that just aren't comparable.
Just because RE2 is a zombie game doesn't mean you can just 1:1 compare it to Last of Us. Last of Us tries to be a grounded game, so of course you don't get creative enemies like giant alligators.
I get the feeling what you mean when you say "creative" you mean just "fantasy". You don't like games grounded in reality, which is fine. But saying those games aren't creative because they don't have "naked red monsters"....cmon.
Rayman Legends is one of the best platformers of the last decade.
OP
OP
ok then tell me how is RE2 not creative, according to your definition of creativity?
and what's so creative about more grounded & realistic experience like Last of Us? the writing? the acting?
you are trying to tell me it's just my preference and realistic games can be just as creative, do you have any examples in detail?
you're not wrong
but it's funny (more like crazy) how I'm roasted by a dev from one of my favorite multiplayer FPS franchise which is now ruined, dead & on fire
Last edited:
Creativity is exactly the same as it was years ago, I would even say that developers have more opportunity to realize their visions.
Maybe they just don't fit your design sensibilities.
Now I know this community has continued the crusade which originally started on GAF about completely destroying the definition of objectivity, but you legitimately cannot "feel something to be more interesting from an objective perspective". Feeling "something is far more interesting" is inherently a subjective opinion, there is no objectivity here. To contribute thus with my own subjective reaction, it feels like your point is basically just that you liked what was cool in the 90s/2000s more than what is cool now.
As for FFXV, I'd say it's not really high bar for FF7R to surpass if it manages to be better than a game which spent 7 years in dev hell, then scrapped most of the work and spent 3 years in dev on a busted ass engine instead of UE4. FFXV definitely deserves a remake tho because a lot of its scope had to be cut short, not for a lack of creativity but rather because it just had to be out at some point.
OP
OP
I'm not trying to be disrespectful, nor am I roasting back, just saying how crazy it is
I LOVED BFBC2 & BF3 and never thought I would actually talk to one of the devs, just wish the franchise is in better shape cause I only feel pain & anger now
Not just Battlefield but Mirror's Edge as well (RIP)
Don't have anything to say really, good luck I guess
How is Sekiro's world where you have dragons, demons and mythical animals that pretty much cover everything Dark Souls showed, on top of having mechanical tech that shouldn't exist in that time frame more grounded than DS that stuck with grounded weapons when it comes to your character?!
Even though I prefer DS's world and setting, "more grounded" isn't it, nothing in DS strikes me as "this couldn't exist in Sekiro's world" while the opposite isn't true.
Last edited:
I never said RE2 is not a creative game. Most if not all games are creative.
And yes I would consider the writing and characters in Last of Us creative. Also the set pieces and enemies, the use of music and lightning etc. Obviously it's not something we've never seen before (same with RE2) but it's how it's used that makes it creative.
I didn't answer your zombie game question before because I don't play a lot of zombie games but I consider Dying Light extremely creative. Sure, the enemy design is pretty standard but the things you can do as a player are not.
Is it "more creative" than RE2? Probably not, I dunno. Since we have completely different ideas about what "creative" means there wouldn't be a point to that discussion.
I don't even feel any particular urge to defend TLOU, but I really don't see why "We Watched John Carpenter's The Thing" (this basically describes a good majority of RE bosses, especially as the franchise went on) and something as basic as "giant alligator" is the height of creativity.
You should at least give Naughty Dog props for watching a nature documentary
You should at least give Naughty Dog props for watching a nature documentary
OP
OP
Maybe I'm stupid but it doesn't sound like you're too impressed by RE2's creativity according to your initial question:
You didn't actually said it, yes, but that's kind of what you suggest, is it not?
And what 3 of those are indie games, and I wasn't talking about indies, but even I think most indies seem to stick to the safe banal concepts. There's always exceptions and Mario would sell no matter what it was and Astrobot that's in VR. I don't understand how people cannot see we have much less creative game's now I guess its just their lack of imaginations I don't know, or people just want the safe banal concepts.
I'm not impressed with it's creativity.
That doesn't mean I don't think it's creative.
I will never understand people being like "Indies don't count"
Do you play the game and think "Wow this is fun, but it's an Indie so it's not as good as Medievil"
Don't know about that OP.
This gen we had:
-Gravity Rush
-Nier Automata
-Control
-Death Stranding
-Horizon
-Splatoon
-Untitled Goose Game
I could list more but the point is we do have unique game. Wether it is in the art department or the gameplay department or both.
Even RE2 as much as I love it isn't as creative as it is when you look back at the time it was made and what was popular. The game was inspired by Terminator, Alien, The Thing and a bunch more horror movies from the time.
This gen we had:
-Gravity Rush
-Nier Automata
-Control
-Death Stranding
-Horizon
-Splatoon
-Untitled Goose Game
I could list more but the point is we do have unique game. Wether it is in the art department or the gameplay department or both.
Even RE2 as much as I love it isn't as creative as it is when you look back at the time it was made and what was popular. The game was inspired by Terminator, Alien, The Thing and a bunch more horror movies from the time.
Dinosaur-like monsters in Monster Hunter are more creative than actual dinosaurs from Dino Crisis, which were pretty much lifted from Jurassic Park.
Because it seems like you are confusing camp and cheesiness with creativeness. Would you say batman and robin is more creative than the dark knight. Obviously not putting either game as comparions to those at all, just trying to use a blunt example.
Control begs to differ...Especially when it comes to concept, art style, world building and overall premise.
I am NOT saying there aren't creative modern games but they are few and far between.
Honestly outside of the Souls games and maybe some Sony games I just don't see much creativity that's as fresh and unique as the PS1/PS2 gen.
It's always the same core concept with the same tone and the same characters.
You can bring out the good old ''well indie games is always creative'' which is true but my point is that AAA just aren't nearly as creative as it used to be.
Don't get me wrong, modern AAA games are good, probably ''better'' in many ways, but they are far more restrictive when it comes to creativity and even the execution of said creativity. It has nothing to do with artists. Artists will always be creative. It's just that modern AAA can no longer take the same risks in those creativity anymore.
Modern AAA games can no longer deliver concepts, original ideas or characters like this.
Ideas like this can only exist ''back in the day'', or in a remake.
This level of creativity just doesn't happen anymore. Look at FFXV, would anyone even want a remake of that? It has got to be thematically the least creative RPG I've ever played.
Most games (RPG & non-RPGs) back then have the balls to go crazy with bold, new ideas that knows no boundaries.
Games like RE4 can never be done today because it would be deemed ''too crazy and over the top'' and the person who came up with the giant walking statues wouldn't even made it into the team, even if he did he would probably get fired shortly after suggesting that.
Like would anyone even be surprised if RE4 Remake end up being more ''mature'' and more ''serious'' and more ''focused''? It's the nature of the AAA industry at this point.
We are all just pretentious now, everything has that Last of Us grime and dirt over it, and we all like to pretend that we look cooler because of it.
The overall creativity sparks in the AAA industry has gotten so dim that even Death Stranding is considered a bold idea when in reality that shit doesn't even touch MGS.
Call me a boomer all you want (24 btw) but you know it's true.
TL;DR
Many modern AAA games have really boring worlds because there are just too much ''filters'' especially when the cost of the development are so big
The amount of remakes we're getting proves that developing games is getting so much expensive that companies now not only need to rely on huge ips but also on their most known entries' reputation in order to make their investments safer.
On the other hand AAA gaming is getting so blatantly less diverse and more risk adverse with every new generation it's not even worth arguing about it anymore.
On the other hand AAA gaming is getting so blatantly less diverse and more risk adverse with every new generation it's not even worth arguing about it anymore.
Last edited:
Like the word, "Literally", "Objective" has been robbed of its meaning, in this thread.
As for the topic- Remakes are cheaper to make and iterate on because the groundwork is already laid. A ground work that was crafted during the fledgling years of the medium and even then quite a few games were referred to as "Clones" of the genre starter. Terms like "Doom clone" and "Metroidvania" exist for a reason.
Among these, the most beloved and the ones with a cult following were always going to be candidates for remakes. This is true for the current remakes and will be true for the current gen games (which meet the same standard) that will be "remade" a decade or more from now.
The current crop of remakes, whilst taking from an OG concept, also work to remove/correct substantially problematic cultural/social issues that were accepted as "norm" back in the day due to the demographics of the day.
The medium as a whole is shifting due to both new and aging demographic (consumers and creators). Yes, AAA are now more risk averse in general and the GAAS-ification of games have affected the design of games adversely at times. MTX abuse has also been rampant. However, these are the issues of current gen and the best/most interesting games will once again rise to the top. It's the nature of entertainment industry that is so tech reliant- The story can be told better, the emotions can be better conveyed, the UI can be modified, there can always be more frames per second, the remake can be in VR... etc.
Whatever it may be to you, the desire for remakes are driven by nostalgia and imagination of "what ifs" in terms of scope and current gen tech. The desire to remake games by their IP holders are their economic viability.
As for the topic- Remakes are cheaper to make and iterate on because the groundwork is already laid. A ground work that was crafted during the fledgling years of the medium and even then quite a few games were referred to as "Clones" of the genre starter. Terms like "Doom clone" and "Metroidvania" exist for a reason.
Among these, the most beloved and the ones with a cult following were always going to be candidates for remakes. This is true for the current remakes and will be true for the current gen games (which meet the same standard) that will be "remade" a decade or more from now.
The current crop of remakes, whilst taking from an OG concept, also work to remove/correct substantially problematic cultural/social issues that were accepted as "norm" back in the day due to the demographics of the day.
The medium as a whole is shifting due to both new and aging demographic (consumers and creators). Yes, AAA are now more risk averse in general and the GAAS-ification of games have affected the design of games adversely at times. MTX abuse has also been rampant. However, these are the issues of current gen and the best/most interesting games will once again rise to the top. It's the nature of entertainment industry that is so tech reliant- The story can be told better, the emotions can be better conveyed, the UI can be modified, there can always be more frames per second, the remake can be in VR... etc.
Whatever it may be to you, the desire for remakes are driven by nostalgia and imagination of "what ifs" in terms of scope and current gen tech. The desire to remake games by their IP holders are their economic viability.
OP
OP
No because it's still Batman
imagine this
they make a ''not-Batman'' that's more realistic, grounded and without most of the gadgets that Batman has
that's how the new AAA games is like to me right now, are they still ''good''? Hell yeah they are!
but the point is, they are not nearly as creative and are too obsessed with being gritty & cool
I think more games need the FFVII remake treatment. I've been playing it for almost 25 hours and I don't think I've disliked a minute of it. By focusing on one part at a time they're clearly able to add a level of detail you can't get normally and a game like FFXV would have benefitted greatly from being split into two parts, each with its own continent.
Could you imagine an FFVI remake where the World of Balance and the World of Ruin are two separate releases, each as long as a full game by their own right?
OP
OP
Battlefield 5 is a good example. The initial trailer I thought was great, they were saying you could have silly customisation's like eyepatch's and mechanical arms and whatever else and it looked more fun and arcadey. The players raged, they didn't want these weird ideas they wanted realism, they wanted bland banal boring historically accurate WW2(whilst it not really being accurate). It wasn't the developers fault, players really don't want new idea's, they want the same thing's they've always had, with slight changes.
Okay but for one, you said in your original post you were even worried about a re4 remake being more gritty and serious. The re2 and re3 remakes are both cheesier and more over the top than the originals. Re7 is a new one and as cheesy as ever. People have also given a bunch other examples. Plus even ffxv isn't dark and gritty even if you think it's lower quality. The setting is fantasy mixed with like 50's style western US.
This reads like "goofy stuff = creative, gritty stuff = uncreative" which is pretty silly. The type of thing you are praising as super creative -- goofy trinkets -- is honestly super played out. How is that kind of stuff creative, when tons of huge games over the last decades plus have done that kind of thing? From stuff like TF2, to Rocket League, to Fortnite, etc. You call "realistic WW2" banal, but what you praise is just as common.
I feel like this is at least in part due to how expensive it is to be creative.
Just look at environmental art, FFVII had to be split into multiple games under the justification that it's just too expensive to recreate FFVII's world in today's scale in a single project. They need to create Midgar's assets and then get as much use from them as possible. They can't just create an entire town with its own look and feel to be used for a couple of hours.
God of War 2018 at first felt like it was the modern AAA equivalent of JRPGs of old in its sense of adventure, visiting wondrous places, the best example was the Witch's house, that incredible environment with the turtle and all, to be used for, what, 30 minutes at most? That felt refreshing, it felt like a big budget version of games of old. But once you come back from Alfheim, which is like 30% of the campaign, you've pretty much seen every asset, and they'll just be rearranged slightly differently until the end of the game.
I don't think it necessarily has to do with being too crazy for artistic standards, and more to do with how to make the best of what we can realistically develop. If it's no longer affordable to make a game where you go to all kinds of insanely different places, which is better: a more grounded setting that justifies the adventure taking place in similar looking environments, or a game that presents itself as crazy, over the top and a huge adventure, and yet you're looking at the same objects and environments all the way through?
It's not the only reason, of course, but when the realities of development mean that executing on the "mature, film-like story" is more affordable than the "grand adventure" pitch, it's not hard to see which vision will win with the suits. And the audience loves it, too, all the more reason to go with that.
Just look at environmental art, FFVII had to be split into multiple games under the justification that it's just too expensive to recreate FFVII's world in today's scale in a single project. They need to create Midgar's assets and then get as much use from them as possible. They can't just create an entire town with its own look and feel to be used for a couple of hours.
God of War 2018 at first felt like it was the modern AAA equivalent of JRPGs of old in its sense of adventure, visiting wondrous places, the best example was the Witch's house, that incredible environment with the turtle and all, to be used for, what, 30 minutes at most? That felt refreshing, it felt like a big budget version of games of old. But once you come back from Alfheim, which is like 30% of the campaign, you've pretty much seen every asset, and they'll just be rearranged slightly differently until the end of the game.
I don't think it necessarily has to do with being too crazy for artistic standards, and more to do with how to make the best of what we can realistically develop. If it's no longer affordable to make a game where you go to all kinds of insanely different places, which is better: a more grounded setting that justifies the adventure taking place in similar looking environments, or a game that presents itself as crazy, over the top and a huge adventure, and yet you're looking at the same objects and environments all the way through?
It's not the only reason, of course, but when the realities of development mean that executing on the "mature, film-like story" is more affordable than the "grand adventure" pitch, it's not hard to see which vision will win with the suits. And the audience loves it, too, all the more reason to go with that.
Thank you for reminding me why I should never get involved in discussions like this.
I must be getting old, but I'm not even sure what "creative" means anymore. I'd rather play a tried and true Falcom game than the creative mess the recent FF are.
Also, I may have reading comprehension issues, but how the heck is FF7 cast creative and crazy again? Spiky hair dude with oversized sword? Check. Large gruffly black dude? Check. Shy priest girl? Check. Big you-know-what bold girl? Check. Talking dog? Check. And I could go on with the rest of the cast ...
Also, I may have reading comprehension issues, but how the heck is FF7 cast creative and crazy again? Spiky hair dude with oversized sword? Check. Large gruffly black dude? Check. Shy priest girl? Check. Big you-know-what bold girl? Check. Talking dog? Check. And I could go on with the rest of the cast ...
OP
OP
yeah I think you hit the nail here
It's why it's so refreshing when we get AAA games like GOW, Nier Automata & DMC5, more please
DOOM Eternal is also quite creative but that's just me being a Doom fanboy
well, if I'm being honest, I don't think discussions where subjective opinions about degree of creativity are really fruitful in the first place. Like, I don't really play games with realistic aesthetics too often, I normally go for super abstract or brighter aesthetics. but that's taste, going around talking about how what I like is objectively "more" creative than what I don't like just doesn't yield anything of substance. Primarily, because it's not objective in the first place, we're discussing inherently subjective topics. But also because I know there are lots of ways to express creativity, and even within "realistic" depictions there is just as much creativity on display.
1) There arent as much remakes are you think they are
2) This sounds like a "back in my day X was creative and better" nostalgia speaking
2) This sounds like a "back in my day X was creative and better" nostalgia speaking
OP
OP
but even the olders games did dark, gritty, realistic creativities better such as Silent Hill
It is, now that you mention it. I was too in love with the mechanics to even think about it in this context, but you do visit a surprisingly large variety of environments, in what is a pretty content-heavy experience for a shooter. It's definitely part of what makes it so great.