Sooooo… So far the games that were supposedly AAAA have all been crap? Maybe that’s the criteria to differentiate AAA and AAAA.

All bad AAA games shall henceforth be known as AAAA!

That sums up my thoughts pretty well honestly. It is a generic Ubisoft open world game, with all the same tricks. But the story is decent, different than the traditional Jedi stuff usually made, and some aspects of the game play are pretty fun. Others are the generic Ubisoft formula, which is to be expected.

It’s better than I expected, nowhere near worth $110 or whatever for the game and season pass, but worth the U+ subscription for a month to try it out.

The author of this article has a little website where he reviews indie games, its been a good read, and just reeks of a passionate writer. https://buried-treasure.org/

To an extent that level of beauty in the scenery creates the lackluster gameplay. If you’ve finished one of these jaw dropping environments, only to realize late in the day it’s mediocre gameplay-wise, you simply can’t redo it. It would take months.

This is oversimplifying a bit, but not by much honestly.

I thought we were calling AAA games ‘Corporate Games’ now. Is that trend over already?

It’s a good article that showcases the way AAA games are basically hollow. They wear a lot of art, incredibly elaborate, expensive, art, but none of it comes together to make the experience it promises. Everything is built in separate pieces and stuck together later, and its boring gameplay that shows no interest in being art of its own is the glue. I remember Yahtzee did a video about the first Destiny that made this same point, about how the environmental art in a few areas was fascinating and clearly full of effort, but the gameplay was a slog that lacked the same ambition.

Well, it’s like this: games are not made by just one person and whilst it seems their art direction for this game is competent, it also seems their game design is not.

Maybe it’s something to do with the MBA CxOs of many of these “top” game makers nowadays neither being nor ever having been gamers, but they can, just like most people, look at something and think it’s pretty (or not), with the end result that they’re putting more money into and hiring better people on that which they can judge - the visual side of things - rather than on that which they cannot - the gameplay side of things.

Further, nowadays it still does make a difference for sales how good the game looks on the pictures and short videos customers see on whichever online stores they use to buy their game, something that also pushes towards focusing on looks more than the rest, especially for Marketing-driven business strategies, such as the ones said MBAs have been taught to use.

really well written article, thanks for sharing it

Honestly, this is a really well made article. They’ve got a damn good point.

Some insightful points from kotaku from all places…

It would be cool if some of the large level designs in some of these games were made more widely available to other developers. They could sell it, doesn’t have to be free. Seems like it could be a decent business model.

Had no idea they’d reskinned the Ubisoft game for Star Wars.

It’s got that AAAA quality

Hey has this been cracked yet? I’d like to try it, but only psychopaths give Ubisoft money.

It’s a crapsterpiece that execs wanted all along.