Any weird/controversial opinions? I'll start. Before the remake, the best version of Resident Evil 4 was the Wii version. The Wiimote controls old Resi's tank controls better than any other controller at the time. The PC version had a bunch of little bugs and detractors that the Wii version just doesn't have.

I'll extend this by saying that the Wiimote is actually pretty damn good for shooters, and particularly good for accessibility. Not having to cramp up my hands to press buttons is awesome for having arthritis. Aiming with the Wiimote and moving with the nunchuck just feel really natural, you barely have to move your fingers for anything.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Most AAA games are boring. All the big games from the last few years are just plain boring. They found a formula back in the 2000's that they never expanded upon or really changed in any way shape or form. The focus is on visuals and story (and I gotta say, the stories are pretty fucking cringe a lot of the time unless you're a 13 year old) or skinnerboxes and psycho tricks to keep you addicted and the gameplay remains the same stale shit it's been for over 20 years. I feel like AAA games are games for people who don't play games, because the actual game part is always the worst part about them.

[–] LeylaaLovee@lemmy.fmhy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is facts. I'm a zoomer. AAA games haven't meant shit to people my age for the most part. The 3 undebatable most important games of my generation are Minecraft, Five Nights at Freddy's, and Undertale. Talk to any gamer under the age of 25-30 and they will likely agree with at least 2/3 of those. All those games started with one person dicking around. We're fully in the era where the formula is starting to stink like piss because it's so stale. We're going to see a "crash" of sorts soon, the infinite growth these shitty publishers have seen off games as a service isn't infinite

[–] majere@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

To be fair, 2 of those games are legit some of the GOATs. I've been gaming since my mom played Mario with me in the early 90s, and those two games are something else.

I remember buying the Minecraft alpha for $10, and there wasn't that much to do, but it was strangely addicting.

[–] pancakes@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What do you mean, AAA games expand upon the formula...

When small indie studios create unique smash hits and then all we see from AAA studios are clones of that game with more monetization. If that's not capitalist innovation, then I don't know what is.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Having damage numbers flying off the enemies when you hit them or other frivolous BS isn't actually innovation, man.

[–] Llamajockey@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yup. As an adult with less time to play, you really notice how much AAA games are just copy and paste with a new area on a map or same mission, but different npc.

I just picked up the 2022 remaster of Pacman World from 1999. The game design in that game is so nice. Each level has new enemies and new platform mechanics. I feel like only indie games bring innovation like that today while AAA is just rinse and repeat. (For the most part anyway...God Of War and Zelda are good examples of companies doing it right)

[–] tal@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I think that some of the problem is that AAA games leverage a high budget. That lets them do things that you can only do with a high budget. But in order to pay for the development, they cannot afford to move down the long tail very far. To be a financial success, they must sell many copies. And it's safer to target a genre that is known to be able to sell to a large playerbase than to do something that has not demonstrated the ability to do so in the past.

[–] RampagingPlant@jlai.lu 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Back then AAA meant the game had budget, scale, graphics, polish.. Nowadays all of these qualities are present in AA devs, and plenty of indies as well.

I feel like the only real differences the AAA has is 1) very detailed and realistic graphics (which does not equal good looking or good art direction, mind you), and 2) a lot of overhead management and investors. These investors are all looking to make returns on investment, which is probably why they so strongly discourage taking risks by deviating from the pre established formula, and strongly encourage absurd monetization practices.

Not to say there's no good AAA games nowadays, Fromsoft is amazing with their souls borne series, and Zelda is pretty solidly designed imo.

[–] Robbeee@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

AAA also tend to spend a lot on celebrity images and voice acting. Which is weird to me. I don't think anyone bought Cyberpunk just for Keanu Reeves.