www.tombraiderforums.com

Go Back   www.tombraiderforums.com > Tomb Raider Series > Future of Tomb Raider

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-12-19, 14:31   #751
AshesBorn
Professor
 
AshesBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Estonia
Posts: 3,731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legends View Post
Back then, gaming budgets were much lower, so they had to be way more creative than some of these lazy developers are today. That's the real difference. Today they have all the means in the world to succeed. More money, better technology, bigger development teams. They have everything they need to succeed, but they're not even ****ing trying.
Because the cost of failure is also much higher nowadays. Very few publishers (if any) are willing to sink millions into something "creative" and "artistic" with no guarantee of it being profitable. They stick to whatever is popular. So, in a way, a smaller budget provides more freedom.
__________________
'In order to be irreplaceable, one must always be different' Coco Chanel
AshesBorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-19, 14:55   #752
anniversarytr11
Professor
 
anniversarytr11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,537
Default

It's quite ironic that we are arguing about innovation in videogames within a thread that is about remaking a 23 year old game
anniversarytr11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-19, 15:25   #753
Legends
Tomb Raider
 
Legends's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 18,183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anniversarytr11 View Post
You completely missed my point. Back in the 90's development teams consisted of an average of 10-50 people and the budget was much lower hence there was a lot less risk when releasing a game. If the game cost $150,000 to make in the 90's, it would only need to sell 5,000 copies to break even.

Nowadays, development companies have hundreds of employees and the budgets are in the tens of millions, sometimes hundreds of millions. This has meant the publishers who are paying the developers to make the game do not want to lose millions of dollars of investment obviously. So sequels or games with similar gameplay to well known games but with its own twist are safer bets to make their money back than something completely off the wall.

If you want to play games that are really different and innovate then go play indie games, which are basically teams of 10-50 people and work the way developers worked in the 90's.
No, you're making a point to excuse the laziness of the current AAA industry, but I still get what you're saying.

They just aren't trying. They are literally doing the bare minimum with all these resources. That's a problem. In the past, they had to exploit every single resource that was available to make a proper video game. That's not the case these lazy developers. They have everything, but they don't give af about it as long as they can exploit the customer and still make money. That's ultimately what it comes down to when their target audience will buy whatever crap that is thrown at them. They don't have to make anything "good" (or innovative) because people will buy it regardless.

I just want to play video games that aren't stupid. They don't need a 100 million dollar budget to make that happen. They can make bigger games with less today than they could before, but for some reason in this day and age they need more to make less. It's completely screwed up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AshesBorn View Post
Because the cost of failure is also much higher nowadays. Very few publishers (if any) are willing to sink millions into something "creative" and "artistic" with no guarantee of it being profitable. They stick to whatever is popular. So, in a way, a smaller budget provides more freedom.
The AAA industry is ****ed. They've become so greedy there isn't room for real video games anymore.

Last edited by Legends; 10-12-19 at 22:51. Reason: spelling
Legends is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-19, 15:32   #754
charmedangelin
Tomb Raider
 
charmedangelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 11,292
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anniversarytr11 View Post
It's quite ironic that we are arguing about innovation in videogames within a thread that is about remaking a 23 year old game
The 23 year old game would be far more creative and innovative than a game that sticks with trends and trends only..
__________________
Team Classic: We want our classic Lara Croft back!
charmedangelin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-19, 18:48   #755
Nigel Cassidy
Professor
 
Nigel Cassidy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,640
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charmedangelin View Post
The 23 year old game would be far more creative and innovative than a game that sticks with trends and trends only..
It would be, as they call it: refreshingly oldschool...
Nigel Cassidy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-19, 18:50   #756
charmedangelin
Tomb Raider
 
charmedangelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 11,292
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Cassidy View Post
It would be, as they call it: refreshingly oldschool...
That could eventually evolve into something more, as rumored that a new Crash and Spyro game is in the works.

Could happen for TR if they actually gave it a chance.
__________________
Team Classic: We want our classic Lara Croft back!
charmedangelin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-19, 19:13   #757
Aerie
Hobbyist
 
Aerie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 68
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charmedangelin View Post
That could eventually evolve into something more, as rumored that a new Crash and Spyro game is in the works.

Could happen for TR if they actually gave it a chance.
Yes, please!
Aerie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-19, 23:22   #758
paulojr_mam
Archaeologist
 
paulojr_mam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Brazil
Posts: 1,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anniversarytr11 View Post
I'm just giving you my opinion that I don't get excited by the same characters and franchises being milked over and over and they get away with it because each game is "new". It might be new gameplay but its still the same franchises, the same aesthetic
To me what matters is gameplay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anniversarytr11 View Post
appealing to the child/teenage gamer demographic.
There you lost me. I disagree. Nintendo's games appeal, I think, to everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anniversarytr11 View Post
Developers are taking fewer risks nowadays because the development teams are real people with real jobs who have their families to feed and their bills to pay. So if they decide to develop a game like nothing else before it they are gambling with peoples jobs. If the game fails and makes no money, the publisher closes the studio and hundreds of people lose their jobs.

Yes, it means we don't get completely original games all the time, but that is the reality of the world. If you gamble everything in something that hasn't been done before in the business world, most people fail and lose everything.
You spoke of the cause of a general lack of creativity in the industry (to which there are exceptions (and what the exceptions are varies from person to person)), but the cause doesn't matter, because it doesn't make the sameness go away. It just justifies it. I myself think devs, big publishers, should alternate between big releases and smaller games, not all games must be the big budget mass-market movie-like games.

Also, one of the games that IMO broke the trend, is the remake of RE2. So a remake of classic TR could feel fresh too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anniversarytr11 View Post
It's quite ironic that we are arguing about innovation in videogames within a thread that is about remaking a 23 year old game
Not without reason. The 23 year old game is unlike anything we have on the market right now, because what we have on the market is mostly very similar to each other, deviating very little from a Modern Game™ formula.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charmedangelin View Post
The 23 year old game would be far more creative and innovative than a game that sticks with trends and trends only..
Agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Cassidy View Post
It would be, as they call it: refreshingly oldschool...
You're right.
__________________
.

Last edited by paulojr_mam; 10-12-19 at 23:30.
paulojr_mam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-19, 01:44   #759
cephasjames
Archaeologist
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anniversarytr11 View Post
You completely missed my point. Back in the 90's development teams consisted of an average of 10-50 people and the budget was much lower hence there was a lot less risk when releasing a game. If the game cost $150,000 to make in the 90's, it would only need to sell 5,000 copies to break even.

Nowadays, development companies have hundreds of employees and the budgets are in the tens of millions, sometimes hundreds of millions. This has meant the publishers who are paying the developers to make the game do not want to lose millions of dollars of investment obviously. So sequels or games with similar gameplay to well known games but with its own twist are safer bets to make their money back than something completely off the wall.

If you want to play games that are really different and innovate then go play indie games, which are basically teams of 10-50 people and work the way developers worked in the 90's.
This basically describes why every Marvel movie is what it is. It's the exact same idea with AAA games. Do what makes money even if it's not innovative. That could also describe TR2-5 really.
cephasjames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-19, 05:10   #760
Error96
Explorer
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Huddersfield, UK
Posts: 806
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anniversarytr11 View Post
Nowadays, development companies have hundreds of employees and the budgets are in the tens of millions, sometimes hundreds of millions. This has meant the publishers who are paying the developers to make the game do not want to lose millions of dollars of investment obviously. So sequels or games with similar gameplay to well known games but with its own twist are safer bets to make their money back than something completely off the wall.
They get all these massive budgets, huge teams and todays tech and they can't outdo the gameplay that a small team was doing 15 years ago. I think this decade of video games has stagnated with all the copying. Is like with Marvel movies that in themselves are are great but then when you see the whole superhero genre transform into Marvel movies or brands trying to replicate a Marvel movie, it just feels all the same. We got even better graphics but is it really better if the new game is an automation fest, just another shooter or cuts major corners compared to their predecessors? It's not really developers/publishers fault however more money and bigger teams should bring increased variety yet it seems to be having the opposite effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cephasjames View Post
This basically describes why every Marvel movie is what it is. It's the exact same idea with AAA games. Do what makes money even if it's not innovative. That could also describe TR2-5 really.
I don't think there is a problem with a series doing what it does well. over and over, such as Mario Kart or Call of Duty. If it ain't broke don't fix it. The problem is when any brainstorm for a new cartoon racer is going let's make it just like Mario Kart or every new shooter brand is like let's make it just like Call of Duty.
__________________
Go team GOLD - It's time for Lara to get her dual pistols back

Last edited by Error96; 11-12-19 at 05:20.
Error96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 11:57.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.