Well, you are assuming a lot of things I haven’t said there.
First of all, I said that in the AAA world, original games are rare. They exist, but they are rare. And there’s a reason: an AAA game is made by a company that has a stakeholders board deciding what has to be done and what not (which is the reason why people say BG3 is not an AAA game but an indie). Since those boards want their money and only that, they don’t care about innovation or anything else.
This doesn’t mean that AAA companies don’t make original games, it only means that they rarely experiment and tend to focus on already succesful formulas.
Second, I never said that AAA games are just “big games I don’t like”. As I said, sometimes they do good games. But seriously, how many times have you seen an AAA company take a serious risk in what they do?
Also, I don’t think it’s just the usual three. I think GTA is doing the same. What are they gonna do with 6? Just GTA V but bigger. That’s exactly what I mean when I say that they don’t innovate.
I’m not assuming anything you said or meant, I’m talking about the term in general, regardless of how you speficially are using it.
Even if you were super rigorous about it, the term is now meaningless because it’s routinely misused (again, the “woke” of complaining about games).
But I don’t think you’re being super rigorous about it, either. I guarantee that Larian has a board, despite being a private company. They have six different studios at this point, someone is managing that investment. Also that Hasbro and WotC had at least some say about the content, even if they were smart enough to sit back and let Larian cook.
Larian is privately owned, which does mean their obligations to their investors are different than to public shareholders. But that’s not how you (or anybody else) is defining AAA.
So in terms of examples of AAA companies taking risks the struggle becomes that I don’t know what you mean by AAA and I don’t know what you mean by “taking a risk”.
Do I think Activision took a risk by shipping Call of Duty without a campaign? Sure. Do I think it’s a particularly interesting or creative risk? Probably not.
Do I think Larian took a risk putting their AAA franchise sequel on Early Access for two years and barely talking to people about it for that long? Absolutely, holy crap. Do I think they took a ton of risks with the game proper? No, it’s pretty much a Divinity sequel with a D&D license and a big budget.
Do I think Naughty Dog took risks with The Last of Us 2? Narratively, for sure. That game is the Metal Gear Solid 2 of that franchise. Gameplay-wise less so.
Do I think Sony took a risk making a AAA Astro Bot? Meh, we could debate that, but it’s certainly a AAA-ass game that succeeded, I think that’s undeniable.
Do I think Capcom takes risks with its AAA games? Well, Dragon’s Dogma 2 is an alien artifact and Kunitsu-Gami is even weirder than that. I don’t think Okami is as much of a risk, or Monster Hunter.
Do I think Ubisoft takes risks? Well, they shipped not one but two 2D Prince of Persia games, including a roguelike from some of the Dead Cells people. You know it was a risk because they both failed. Were they AAA? I don’t know. They’re Ubisoft games, though.
So see, I don’t know what you mean by “AAA studios don’t innovate” or “don’t take risks”. I don’t know what you mean by “innovate” and I don’t know what you mean by “AAA”. Not all of that is your fault, other people ruined those terms for you, but by using them as if they made sense you make it so I can’t give you the benefit of the doubt or assume I know what you mean.
Well, you are assuming a lot of things I haven’t said there.
First of all, I said that in the AAA world, original games are rare. They exist, but they are rare. And there’s a reason: an AAA game is made by a company that has a stakeholders board deciding what has to be done and what not (which is the reason why people say BG3 is not an AAA game but an indie). Since those boards want their money and only that, they don’t care about innovation or anything else.
This doesn’t mean that AAA companies don’t make original games, it only means that they rarely experiment and tend to focus on already succesful formulas.
Second, I never said that AAA games are just “big games I don’t like”. As I said, sometimes they do good games. But seriously, how many times have you seen an AAA company take a serious risk in what they do?
Also, I don’t think it’s just the usual three. I think GTA is doing the same. What are they gonna do with 6? Just GTA V but bigger. That’s exactly what I mean when I say that they don’t innovate.
I’m not assuming anything you said or meant, I’m talking about the term in general, regardless of how you speficially are using it.
Even if you were super rigorous about it, the term is now meaningless because it’s routinely misused (again, the “woke” of complaining about games).
But I don’t think you’re being super rigorous about it, either. I guarantee that Larian has a board, despite being a private company. They have six different studios at this point, someone is managing that investment. Also that Hasbro and WotC had at least some say about the content, even if they were smart enough to sit back and let Larian cook.
Larian is privately owned, which does mean their obligations to their investors are different than to public shareholders. But that’s not how you (or anybody else) is defining AAA.
So in terms of examples of AAA companies taking risks the struggle becomes that I don’t know what you mean by AAA and I don’t know what you mean by “taking a risk”.
Do I think Activision took a risk by shipping Call of Duty without a campaign? Sure. Do I think it’s a particularly interesting or creative risk? Probably not.
Do I think Larian took a risk putting their AAA franchise sequel on Early Access for two years and barely talking to people about it for that long? Absolutely, holy crap. Do I think they took a ton of risks with the game proper? No, it’s pretty much a Divinity sequel with a D&D license and a big budget.
Do I think Naughty Dog took risks with The Last of Us 2? Narratively, for sure. That game is the Metal Gear Solid 2 of that franchise. Gameplay-wise less so.
Do I think Sony took a risk making a AAA Astro Bot? Meh, we could debate that, but it’s certainly a AAA-ass game that succeeded, I think that’s undeniable.
Do I think Capcom takes risks with its AAA games? Well, Dragon’s Dogma 2 is an alien artifact and Kunitsu-Gami is even weirder than that. I don’t think Okami is as much of a risk, or Monster Hunter.
Do I think Ubisoft takes risks? Well, they shipped not one but two 2D Prince of Persia games, including a roguelike from some of the Dead Cells people. You know it was a risk because they both failed. Were they AAA? I don’t know. They’re Ubisoft games, though.
So see, I don’t know what you mean by “AAA studios don’t innovate” or “don’t take risks”. I don’t know what you mean by “innovate” and I don’t know what you mean by “AAA”. Not all of that is your fault, other people ruined those terms for you, but by using them as if they made sense you make it so I can’t give you the benefit of the doubt or assume I know what you mean.
“Woke”.