Ronnie Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 Great to see someone else finally say it, Phil Spencer no less. Phil Spencer, head of Xbox, has said Microsoft should be "pushing harder" for more genre diversity among its first-party Xbox One titles. Microsoft's Gamescom showing featured upcoming exclusives such as Scalebound, Quantum Break, and Crackdown, all of which follow the third-person action framework. "More diversity in terms of genre and mechanics, I think it's a great thing for this industry to push," he said. "So yes, you do find a lot of third-party action games from us, and I do think we should be pushing harder on genre and control." http://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-one-games-need-to-be-more-diverse-says-senior/1100-6429473/ The AAA landscape does seem over-run with shooters and third person action games.
Ashley Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 Yes hopefully all first parties will begin diversifying and not just playing it safe often.
gaggle64 Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 The concept of a "First Party" is dying as platform converge on each other. There will always be big and small publishers with requisite budgets and the "diversity" is always going to be at the small end of the scale, where potential losses are lower, individuals have greater control over their work, and the audiences they attract are more likely to buy something new. Most major tent-pole projects will inevitably follow established popular formulas to sell reliably. Occasionally something exceptional will be produced and supported by a big name but it will usually be the exception. It's the same way in most major creative industries. Big movie budgets go to superhero reboots, star vehicles and brand marketing exercises. The "diversity" of cinema will always be in the documentaries, the small-studio animations, the breakouts from the art scene. I'm fine with it TBH.
Goafer Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 To me, it makes little to no difference whether a game is first or third party. As long as the games I like are being made, I don't care who its by. As Gaggle said, the big games will always be the big dumb blockbusters that are designed to appeal to the most people by being generic as possible. By being generic, they have nothing that divides opinion. It's the safe option. Adding a great unique aspect will always divide opinion and therefore sell less. That's why you have to go to the non AAA titles to get your fill of creativity. At least that's my take on the industry/other entertainment industries.
Daft Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Yeah, I don't really see why it's relevant what first parties do as long as the industry as a whole is diverse, which it clearly is. Spencer mentions Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons as a game that's got a great mechanic but at the end of the day it's still a third-person game driven by narrative with a novel gameplay mechanic. Honestly, I completely forgot about its control scheme, all I remember is the story and the art direction. Actually, I think it's a terrible passive aggressive article.
Ronnie Posted August 6, 2015 Author Posted August 6, 2015 It would be nice to see a big budget AAA game that isn't a shooter or third person action game though. But I suppose that would be too risky, needs to be an accessible, safe genre, sadly.
Daft Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 I think it's more likely that the kinds of games you're looking for and Spencer is talking about don't need to be AAA games or big budget (Rain, Puppeteer, Wonderbook, Hohokum, Doki-doki Universe, The Unfinished Swan, Resogun, LBP3, Singstar, Knack – all first party I think, none of them really fitting into the mould). In fact Spencer's example isn't a big budget AAA game. It just isn't first party. I mean, it's not like these games don't exist and I really don't see how a AAA budget would benefit them. I'm not really aware of Microsoft's offering, I know Project Spark looked a little interesting at least and they haven't created anything like Viva Pinata in quite some time but its not an industry problem. Also, 'third-person action' is about the broadest label anyone could come up with; that could describe both Ratchet & Clank and Witcher 3. Even the examples the article uses – Scalebound, Quantum Break, and Crackdown – are all completely different. Would you say they were similar?
Sheikah Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 I think it's more likely that the kinds of games you're looking for and Spencer is talking about don't need to be AAA games or big budget (Rain, Puppeteer, Wonderbook, Hohokum, Doki-doki Universe, The Unfinished Swan, Resogun, LBP3, Singstar, Knack – all first party I think, none of them really fitting into the mould). In fact Spencer's example isn't a big budget AAA game. It just isn't first party. I mean, it's not like these games don't exist and I really don't see how a AAA budget would benefit them. I'm not really aware of Microsoft's offering, I know Project Spark looked a little interesting at least and they haven't created anything like Viva Pinata in quite some time but its not an industry problem. Also, 'third-person action' is about the broadest label anyone could come up with; that could describe both Ratchet & Clank and Witcher 3. Even the examples the article uses – Scalebound, Quantum Break, and Crackdown – are all completely different. Would you say they were similar? Said it in one. He's created a set of criteria that can only really be met by the kinds of games he's dismissing. Self-fulfilled prophecy.
Shorty Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 I disagree, to be honest. There's no particular reason any particular slice of the industry should be singled out as needing to focus, or even un-focus, their library. If anything, it's important that first-party plays it safe, makes money and protects their bottom line. Whether they appeal to you is irrelevant, if they don't, don't buy them. As an aside, I keep thinking this thread is about the first "party industry". Hyphens, they matter :p
Ronnie Posted August 6, 2015 Author Posted August 6, 2015 I think it's more likely that the kinds of games you're looking for and Spencer is talking about don't need to be AAA games or big budget (Rain, Puppeteer, Wonderbook, Hohokum, Doki-doki Universe, The Unfinished Swan, Resogun, LBP3, Singstar, Knack – all first party I think, none of them really fitting into the mould). In fact Spencer's example isn't a big budget AAA game. It just isn't first party. I mean, it's not like these games don't exist and I really don't see how a AAA budget would benefit them. You wouldn't like to see games like Star Fox or Mario Galaxy be given a big AAA budget? I think the reason why everyone's so hyped about No Man's Sky is because it's something different that's being given the same sort of spotlight other AAA games are getting. I take your point though, maybe the reason why AAAs are so samey is because as you say, they're the types of genres that need a bigger budget.
Daft Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Star Fox sure but Mario Galaxy? It's an almost perfect game. Why would it need a bigger budget? I'm not really sure what is going on at Nintendo to be honest. I'd love them to revert to the days of the N64 where every game they released was a wonderful industry-shaming blockbuster but I think that time has passed and other developers – coinciding with the rise of Western development and the shrink of the Japanese side of the industry – have taken up the baton for the most part (and while we might have less revolutionary games, we are getting more games than ever and they all contribute to the industry - like lots of small leaps instead of occasional giant strides). I'm not really sure I understand your example of No Man's Sky. It's not a AAA game and it doesn't have a big budget. Sure it was given the spotlight but would it matter if it had little coverage? Or do you mean you want to see more games like that? Because Elite Dangerous exists, and Eve Valkyrie will eventually come out - with Morpheus support, too.
Fierce_LiNk Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 [color="Navy" Also, 'third-person action' is about the broadest label anyone could come up with; that could describe both Ratchet & Clank and Witcher 3. Even the examples the article uses – Scalebound, Quantum Break, and Crackdown – are all completely different. Would you say they were similar?[/color] I agree with this completely. Third person action is such a blanket term that covers everything. Also, I think there's a slight irony here that diversity is only really being applied to genre. There's more ways that games can be (and arguably are) diverse than just genre. Theme and setting are things that need to also show diversity, too. You wouldn't want every FPS to be based on World War II, for example. You wouldn't like to see games like Star Fox or Mario Galaxy be given a big AAA budget? I think the reason why everyone's so hyped about No Man's Sky is because it's something different that's being given the same sort of spotlight other AAA games are getting. Now I'm just straight up confused. Mario Galaxy isn't triple-A? It was a home console Mario...I'm pretty sure Nintendo didn't skimp on the budget there at all. It's as triple-A as they come. No Man's Sky is indie. It's being made by, what, 13 people and that's only because they expanded recently. It's huge in scale, it's been given loads of coverage, but it's still classed as an indie.
flameboy Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 the tennis thread actually got me thinking about this with their discussion about where have all the tennis games gone. It's got me thinking about all the genres and franchises that used to be premium products and now aren't. Codemasters for example used to be huge and a lot of their titles were big sellers in the PS1/PS2 era now we’ve seen a vastly reduced in scope F1 game come out and Dirt is in early access. I think the death of a B tier publisher like THQ has certainly impacted upon this; they would certainly have their big releases but also fill out libraries with more variety (granted some of it shovel ware). It’s also got me thinking going back even further and thinking how back in the day we would have sports titles by each platform holder and even they have dried up. I guess it's all part of the industry being less risk adverse but as a result I think we end up playing less games. If there was more variety for example I may have picked up Wolfenstein but instead it's just like urgh another shooter. If I was consuming a broader diet of gaming it might not feel like that it would just be another game to have in a library.
Kav Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 Mario Galaxy is as Triple A as it gets @Ronnie! It's a faultless game!
Goron_3 Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 Mario is as AAA as Wii games got. Hell, it's actually pretty cinematic too. Much more than many of their other games.
somme Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 I'm interested in No Man's Sky not because it's indie nor because it's different. Pure and simply it's the game I've always wanted and dreamt about since I was a child.
Hogge Posted August 21, 2015 Posted August 21, 2015 I'm surprised at how many people say that first party titles don't matter. They very much do, otherwise they wouldn't exist! First party games are exclusives. Guaranteed, non-time limited exclusives. And that sells consoles! While third parties have abandoned the Wii U, Nintendo could've racked up at least twice the sales (and thus potentially keeping third parties), simply by diversifying their first party output. Seriously, how many consoles do you think their SEVENTH sidescrolling platformer will sell? Or their sixth minigame compilation? As opposed to let's say a new Metroid Prime game? Or a new Waverace? Or a competitor to Gran Turismo? Or a modern equivelant to Goldeneye and Perfect Dark? And the fact of the matter is, Nintendo haven't really made anything that's AAA by contemporary standards since the N64 days.
Ronnie Posted August 21, 2015 Author Posted August 21, 2015 Seriously, how many consoles do you think their SEVENTH sidescrolling platformer will sell? You could put it as simplistically as that and comment on the endless amount of shooters on other platforms.
somme Posted August 21, 2015 Posted August 21, 2015 You could put it as simplistically as that and comment on the endless amount of shooters on other platforms. They do have more shooters than the WiiU - but then they have more of everything don't they?
Hogge Posted August 21, 2015 Posted August 21, 2015 You could put it as simplistically as that and comment on the endless amount of shooters on other platforms. This is a debate on first party titles and the other first parties only have one each. If we are to talk about ridiculousness, a vast majority of Indie games on the Wii U are sidescrollers in one shape or another. How many sidescrollers does the Wii U have if you count those? 20? 30? Third parties can release as many FPS games as they want (count the FPS games on other formats and you'll find they're not that many in proportion to the total ammount of games), their goal is to sell SOFTWARE. Third parties will sell whatever games on whatever formats they believe will earn them the best profit margin. Console manufacturers release software firstly to sell systems and second for profits from the software sales themselves. The "endless ammounts of shooters" on other systems don't mean that players aren't spoilt for choice in other genres. The other consoles have plenty of sports games, racing games, adventures, puzzle games etc etc. Let me reiterate: Nintendo has ZERO third party support (oh, sorry, Dance Central, "not another Lego game" and Project Treasure were announced this year). Nintendo need to act accordingly. An eight sidescroller won't sell any consoles, even if it's the best sidescroller in the history of everything. Or at least not as many as a new Metroid, Waverace or Gran Turismo competitor, even if said games were mediocre.
Recommended Posts