Sheikah

See, I reckon you're getting confused here because the review quote wasn't wrong. Here's what you said: But...go read the actual review. Here's the link. Nowhere does it say you are made to invest real money. In fact, here is the actual point the review makes: That's contrary to what you're saying Ronnie. The review states you can buy the items with in-game money, just it costs an "absurd" amount. This is the same kind of thing employed in the EA-published Star Wars Battlefront 2, and in many mobile app games. You can unlock those things without paying real cash, just the game is designed in such a way to be tedious and take a crazy number of hours to do so. Not saying it's as bad in Anthem as Battlefront 2, in fact surely not, just that this is a tactic we've seen before and that's what the reviewer is referring to. I am guessing the reviewer knows how long it takes to earn in-game currency after playing the game. Aaaanyway. I think we are focusing way too much on a point of minor significance in the grand scheme of things. Probably the microtransactions won't do a thing to this game; it's the other issues that I think could cause this to bomb.

I was specifically talking about game design and not gameplay. Do not confuse the two points. The feel of shooting and flying might be fine, however the game design sounds to be heavily flawed. If what you're doing is repetitive and menial, it won't make for a fun game. And this is exactly what the reviews are saying. This kind of comment is not conducive of good discussion.

Again, from the vg247 review: Here is gamesradar saying a similar thing about repetition, and also a very similar comment about the good looks not being enough to distract you from it: I'm not interested in counting sites and reviews here, I want to know in your opinion how patching the game can solve the issue of tedious game design. I have no reason to distrust that the above quotes are reasonably accurate descriptions of the game.

A strange response from someone who hasn't played the game (or even demo), dismissing the view of somebody who has... Perhaps the review is worth a look, rather than going off on one? That comment is about the way the game is designed and how customising your javelins is clearly geared towards investing real money. I also disagree with your comment that microtransactions are harmless (they never are). For a full price game, I dislike that there are microtransactions at launch to make your javelin look (or perform? I don't know) half decent. It's not like these paid for items came out months down the line, where they could potentially try to justify why they weren't included with the game and required extra development to make. In fact I actually found this review to be very frank and the reviewer called out things that absolutely deserved to be called out, and I don't have any reason to distrust that the things he's calling out actually aren't problems in the game. What stood out to me was how he said so many of the game's problems are not easily patchable. There's also other negative to mediocre reviews out there, it's just that most other well known sites haven't gotten around to releasing their reviews yet.

Yeah but I reckon this will discount much quicker and by more. You could already pick it up for something like 32 quid before it even come out and that's very unusual. It's by the same people who made Andromeda, an average game with problems that discounted quickly. Games like AC Odyssey, I know first hand did not discount nearly as quickly (I was trying to buy it!) This game sounds like it's going to be mediocre too (vg247 review):

I can imagine this will be close to 20 quid before very long at all. I'd say you're doing the right thing by not preordering it.

I saw this and thought...why? I mean you could basically play the original and have the same experience. Sorry to poo poo this, but I just don’t really get it. This feels different to when they remaster a 3D game in all its grandeur, or even a 2D game into 3D...it’s basically just substituting one art style for another. And I much prefer the look of the original!

Don't listen to these guys. I bought it!

It's weird, all they have to do is look at a game like FFIX and make a game like it which would be perfect for Switch. Like fleshed out towns, characters, environments, and a deep plot. They can keep the battle system they've developed, and run with these changes and make an amazing game.

IMO Bravely Default has literally one of the worst stories of any RPG. There's a crazy plot mechanic in it that to this day I don't know how it got through. I was losing the will by the end.

The actual reality is far from that Ronnie, and I think the discussion is going to have to end here if you're going to put words into my mouth. Game design is lazy, the game developers often aren't, and are working at the behest of publishers. And I was talking solely about AAA. We are clearly never going to see eye to eye on this matter so this will be a circular argument.

Yeah generally speaking I am not talking about just the entry cost of the game but what you're actually getting for your money with most AAA games these days. I am happy to have a discussion about what we're actually getting, but the argument that "gaming is cheaper now" is far too simple a view and overlooking reality, IMO. It can only be stated as fact if one simply pays no attention to what one is actually getting and looks only at the up front retail cost. In keeping the entry cost roughly static (adjusted for inflation) they have made cuts to game design (which is now often lazy, missing previously free content, and frequently predatory - particularly at the top end), which is why I'd argue that the real cost has risen, just in shitty and insidious ways.

Those PS1 games have been £3.99 for years. Let's put it this way - PS1 games were 2 generations old when being sold for £3.99 back on the PS3. Similarly, PS2 games are now 2 generations old - but they're selling for more - at £11.99 on PS4. If you're going to look at discounted, non-RRP prices, you could use the above to argue that games aren't being reduced to the same degree as we progress through the generations; or that games are generally settling at a more expensive 'final price' (and being considered as higher value products). It's why I generally think looking at short-term price reductions to measure cheapness generally doesn't mean much. Ultimately I do think the RRP of big new games has gone up, or at the very least, the price we actually tend to pay for games at release. It's not uncommon to pay £50 or close to for new big games, whereas that wasn't really the case 10 years ago.

PS1 games are generally £3.99 on the PSN store. If we're going to look at non RRP prices, you could easily use that to argue that old games are cheaper than new ones. I do agree with you Goafer, but I do think there is a general trend for AAA games to be giving you less game even in the base offering but padding it out. Not all big games for sure, but there is a general trend for it. I think the proliferation of the open world genre has contributed to this.

I don't know why you keep returning to God of War since the game is not typical of your usual modern AAA title. It was made for a different purpose. The crisp packet analogy works if you look at that AC Unity image, which by the way applies to the tens of Ubisoft games that follow this formula. The crisp packet (in this case the world map) has gotten bigger. But there are fewer crisps (worthwhile unique, crafted content) inside. So, so many big games these days rely on copied and pasted content, or a barebones game that requires extra money for content to make it a complete game (e.g. Battlefront). Or microtransactions to make gameplay progress at an enjoyable rate. And you are not the first to fall for this in thinking you are getting this massive game without diminished quality, for less money. They rely on people like you. Based on your comments it seems you feel AAA content is generally being developed and delivered in exactly the same way it always was (which is the only way we can interpret your argument given you are doing like for like comparison on costs between new and old AAA games). You can't say gaming is cheaper when you're not getting everything you used to get.

Those extra costumes and things you get for paying more used to be included in the game. This is exactly what I was referring to when I said they carve out content and you now get the base game for the standard cost. It also happens with extra missions and modes.

It isn't though. The crisp packet has got bigger but there are fewer crisps inside. You can't really say AAA gaming is generally cheaper these days when the offering isn't the same.

Right, so to look at this image again... Your reaction to this image is that it's great that this game is "packed full of things to do"? Really? Do you honestly believe that? That image is indicative of padding and lazy game design. VERY lazy game design. You can see that the icons are copies of each other, meaning that the team came up with a few ideas and repeated them, changing a few details each time. When I played these games I did not do more than one or two of each because they really are so repetitive that there is no sense to doing many of them. I'ma post your favourite dude again who goes into these issues in more detail: You realise how many big games have been released on PS4/X1 in the last 6 years? You also realise that your list contains games with the problems we have been talking about (e.g. Far Cry 5)? Games with copy-pasted padding of the game or generally uninspired gameplay choices, as well as microtransactions. Sorry, but your list doesn't mean very much.

Come on Ronnie. This is not just a discussion about the amount (or size) of game you get for your money but the quality of the game. I have plainly stated, among other things, that many AAA games have tricks to make seemingly “big” games, and content is often carved out for later. Games like Far Cry, which you mention, rely on copy and pasting event types over a massive map. Compare that to an adventure game of old like OoT which is a finely crafted work with no two parts the same, there is no contest on which is giving you real value for money. Here is a map from Creed Unity. Don’t tell me this does not fill you with at least a slight amount of horror.

No, I named 5 at least EVERY year. And games like Far Cry, please. If ever there was a game series that copy and pasted mission types over a massive fucking map, that’d be the one.

1 in 5, easily. There's usually an AC game, often a Far Cry, then there's COD, FIFA, then usually at least 2 or 3 more other shitty practice big games out there per year (select from games like Battlefront, Shadow of War, etc). So yeah, very easily. Very easily. And fuck that game for being rushed to market in a totally bug-ridden state, all the while charging full price. There's another issue of the AAA game these days - inferior quality control.

For every 1 of those games mentioned there are at least 5 big annual ones that do everything wrong that we have been saying. You can also take exclusives out of that list (in terms of interpreting AAA game practice) because they are made with a totally different MO. Games like God of War are commissioned by Sony to give their console the edge and entice customers to their platform. Those games don't need to be such big money spinners because that's not why they were made. In general, AAA gaming does everything we have been saying. You're finding the exceptions rather than the norms. Oh and regarding ME:A - fuck that game.

[mention=4353]Ronnie[/mention] every point you are making has summarily been countered in Jim Sterling's video. I get that you believe what you're saying, but you're not convincing me in the slightest.

Comparing anything to N64 is silly because N64 games were expensive relative to everything else even at the time, largely owing to cartridge costs. Often now the entry price is the so-called base price, I suggest you watch this video which gives you a good explanation of how much of the content is carved out and resold later down the line: Many big games these days also contain large amounts of padding and bullshit to make them bigger; "big" open world games often have large expanses of not much and copy-pasted mission types. Ubisoft games are well known for this. The bottom line here is Ronnie that what you are paying for now is getting you less game, or a lesser quality of game. Maybe not in all cases, but in a lot of cases with these big AAA games. Here are good recent examples - Battlefront 2 and Middle Earth: Shadow of War. Both games were rife with microtransactions and their effect on the gameplay was not optional in the sense that when they removed the microtransactions, they had to rebalance the game because they progression system was utterly boring when earning things the normal way. The quality of these big games nowadays is often impacted by these decisions to include things like microtransactions. Another example is in AC Odyssey where people are paying real money to "skip the grind" and get a permanent 50% XP buff. But let's not eat shit here - who designed the game to have a "grind" that people would want to pay money to skip? Lastly, there is literally no need for companies to make AAA games cost so much to develop, it is all on them. Plenty of companies have shown that great games needn't cost the Earth to make and don't need to be made to emulate Blockbuster movies.

Mario not even close.