10 Things AAA Games NEED TO BRING BACK

(bright music) - [Falcon] AAA games is a place where trends are followed and stuff gets dropped pretty often. Sometimes it's good that they get rid of something annoying like, I don't know, crypto stuff in games. Not many people are doing that anymore, but there are also things that they drop that we miss.

Hi, folks, it's Falcon and today on Gameranx, 10 things AAA games need to bring back. Starting off with number 10, bring back taking risks with established franchises. Nowadays, it really feels like AAA publishers are playing it way too safe with their established franchises.

Instead of ever trying to do anything new and innovative, they take the path of least resistance to do the boring, expected thing rather than something surprising. And when I say the boring, expected thing, I don't mean making another game, like just throwing some new levels together. That's not playing it safe, actually nowadays.

Sometimes that can be really good. Playing it safe usually isn't. I mean, playing it safe like, "Oh, we'll make a game that's hopping onto this trend.

Let us do what the other games publishers are doing. " Now, that's not to say we're not getting the prequels and reboots that are meant to be like the old games or straight up remakes, those are safe too. They are proven to be successful, and they'll very likely make at least a little bit of money.

You just don't see that many sequels that are really challenging anymore. Like "Metal Gear Solid II" for instance, like "Sons of Liberty" is such a left field, we're gonna bait you into thinking this is a normal sequel and then you're literally not Solid Snake. In fact, we're gonna play at the guy who is obviously Solid Snake not being Solid Snake and kind of pretending that he's possibly dead, but he's not.

Iroquois Pliskin, he's obviously Solid Snake. Come on, man. - My name is Pliskin, Iroquois Pliskin, Lieutenant Junior Grade.

- [Falcon] Or something totally outta left field, like "Far Cry 2. " There's a reason for that, of course. Both of those games were, and in some circles, still are pretty divisive.

But I'm gonna argue that "Metal Gear Solid 2," aside from "Metal Gear Solid 1," is the one I go back to the most. That may not be normal, I don't know. And "Far Cry 2," I definitely go back to more than "Far Cry 1.

" Hell, more than most of the games that follow it. It's a better game. It's not easy on the eyes compared to how one is today, but it's better.

But there's good ways and bad ways to do this sort of thing. Like as much as "Banjo Nuts & Bolts" disappoints fans of that series, it's actually a pretty decent game. It's not the sequel a lot of people wanted it to be, but also, they, I think, should have maybe tried to establish better expectations.

I think it's a large element of negative reaction to a risk. Not only does sometimes they not set expectations for something different or say it's a side game or if it is a sequel, just letting people know that it requires an open mind a little bit more than the last one or in a different way. I think one of the big problems is some of these developers actually get hostile at the idea that people won't like these changes, and they start fights with the fans.

Sometimes, publishers do that with the developers, not even saying a word, that particularly sucks. And there is real danger in taking risks with an established IP, especially with large vocal groups of players using weaponized discontent to possibly damage a game. Sales, we are not in the same world anymore.

Like you used to be able to make a game usually when people wanted a game, and it would sell. Now you make the game, you have to market demand for that game into existence. I mean, you still used to have to do that, but it wasn't because of market saturation.

It was more because you were making a new type of game that took risks. But the thing is the fans can also market discontent into existence too. Companies are definitely balancing a lot of plates when they put out a new game, especially one that would take any risks.

So a lot of 'em just consider potential backlash and say, "Hmm, best way to mitigate this is to just go as predictable as we can, follow a trend, not try anything new, blah blah blah. " Which sucks because that's just a way to produce an endless feedback loop, where companies keep finding more excuses to make boring sequels or, and probably my least favorite version of this, chasing the games as a service model. That's maybe not considered as safe as it was a year or two ago.

They all thought that was the safe bet. You were wrong about that. Anyway, the industry's getting hurt as a whole here.

We're starting to reach a point where AAA gameplay barely feels like it's meant for new audiences, 'cause all these publishers are just trying to court old fans, or if they are trying to court new fans, it's not really because they think their series is good, but rather because they think a new business model is good. But the thing is, there's one "Fortnite," there's not a hundred "Fortnite. " There's not exactly a lot of room at that table for other people.

AA games are usually where you see the most innovation in any era, but AAA games really did use to have some of the more interesting and innovative games and we don't really see that anymore. They're usually very easy to digest, very safe, and very bland. I mean, that's generally speaking.

Obviously, not every single AAA game is lacking in innovation or interesting new ideas, like the two new "God of War" games were probably a pretty big risk and it worked out pretty well, I think. Obviously, the first was the bigger risk over the second, changing the gameplay of the entire series to something different. That's a big risk and it worked out and those games are great, but in general, the industry seems to be pretty scared of doing anything new and unique though, especially with established franchises.

(fire crackling) (bomb whistling) And number nine is just bringing back creativity with new IPs. Like look at Sony's output from PlayStation 1 compared to the PlayStation 5, it's night and day. They were publishing so many unique, oddball games, just stuff that maybe had limited financial value the time.

Some of them were bad games too, but they were interesting. They were attempts at something. Sony had a far reaching and varied catalog of games to draw from back then, but now they kind of just have a few tent-pole, billion-dollar series and that's about it.

Compare Sony's 2024 release catalog to how it looked in 1996. They published eight games for the PlayStation 5 in 2024. In '96, they published or co-published over 40 games.

That's not even their most active year either. And their output's still way higher than what they're doing now. Instead of doing more, all these big game makers are doing less.

They're putting their eggs in one basket because they're the games that make them the most money. The rare times we do see them do something different, it's, again, because they're trying to chase a trend. I mentioned this in the first one, but I mean, it's as applicable here with "Concord.

" That was a new IP. Yeah, I mean you could say that contradicts what I'm saying here, but it was also, essentially, just another hero shooter that Sony scooped up because they wanted to get in on the games as a service bandwagon. (guns firing) - [Character] Throwing a smoke screen.

(smoke screen exploding) (guns firing) - [Falcon] That seemed like such a safe investment not long ago. It's hard to get excited about that, you know? And it's not just that they're focusing on popular, long-running series, it's also becoming more and more common for AAA games to be based on popular IPs like Star Wars or Marvel.

And I'm not even saying these are bad games, it's just that it's hard to get excited about that, 'cause I mean, we've been there, we've done that. Sony used to do weird and wonderful stuff from Japan studio or Media Molecule, like remember "Journey? " I love "Journey.

" That's such a cool game and I don't know, nothing like that anymore. Not from the big publishers anyway. And hell, look at Xbox.

It's basically a spiritual successor to Dramcast, which was like Innovation Central, but I mean, that changed, obviously. Don't see all those odd and interesting games coming out from them anymore. The closest thing was "Hi-Fi Rush," and well, it was a success, so naturally, they gave them the boot.

I don't care about the financials of these companies. I don't care it's more or less profitable to do one thing or the other. I like video games and I want more interesting games, and it's disappointing how few of them we get from major publishers anymore.

(silly music) And at number eight, something that's maybe a more realistic expectation but still, something they have left by the wayside for one reason or another. So let's talk about how disappointing the state of day-one release games are a lot of the time. For more casual players who are just coming into gaming and think, "Oh, I'm gonna try this out.

A lot of people are doing this. My friends, they like games, I'd like to do something with my friends, et cetera, et cetera. " They buy a game on release day and it is "Cyberpunk" on release day.

It's a big old mess, or like maybe the server situation's terrible and they throw up their hands and walk away from gaming forever. Now, that sucks, because obviously, the whole point is to bring more people in. That's what companies want, or at least allegedly want.

I don't know. For the rest of us though, we're trapped. We love games, we're constantly frustrated by the state they release in.

It's a constant problem in this industry across the board, from the smallest indies to the biggest AAAs. I would say you'll see it with the biggest AAAs, maybe a little more than the smallest Indies. (tense music) Indies kind of know that their whole reputation is riding on things, and often get a little grace because they're a little more apologetic about it.

And plus, you understand their situation a little bit more when it's like two people making some really ambitious game compared to a thousand. Release now, fix later. It's just too acceptable as a practice for developers nowadays though, and gamers are just getting sick of it.

It's a situation that is getting better in some ways, but worse than others. Like the entire early access release model is built around fixing it later, but it's a different expectation. In some ways, I find that a lot more acceptable 'cause it's a way of making games that has a lot of positives, but it also has negatives with it.

A lot of the best games do start out as early access, but there is a limit to what people expect. But when these multi-billion dollar companies start calling their games early access and they're basically finished games that aren't finished games, because that's not how they finish games anymore, I don't like that. An exception to that rule I'm gonna give is "Baldur's Gate 3.

" Larian is kind of a AAA developer, kind of an indie, I'm gonna put 'em in AAA after "Baldur's Gate 3," but they went that route, and honestly, people were fine with it. It resulted in a great game. They listened to feedback.

It all worked like how that's supposed to be. That's not what I'm really talking about though. But the flip side of that, it's even worse when a game comes out as a full release and it is essentially an early access game.

They know it's in a horrible state. They put it out for $70 with $130 special edition with three days early access anyways, though. You're paying for the privilege of being a beta tester for everyone who's buying the game three months to a year later at a deep discount with all the bugs fixed.

Or maybe not, I don't know. At least the standard for PC ports is getting a little better. There are a lot of problems, but compared to the Xbox 360-era, PC ports are generally a lot better.

I mean, that wasn't the case maybe a year or so ago, but this year has been pretty all right. I don't wanna pretend that I don't understand that games are incredibly difficult and complex to make, but the average consumer wants something that works. They don't really care about a lot of other things, and the way a lot of big AAA publishers put out broken games and barely support them, it's really eroding the average gamer's confidence in the whole industry, and that's really ultimately who matters.

And with the new gamers that you want to become that gamer, all it takes is one bad experience for a highly-anticipated game and someone might be out for good, I'll go see a movie. At least they finish those. Note, finish doesn't mean good but they do finish those.

(intense rock music) And number seven is bringing back functional menus. It's a more specific thing, but do we really need these "Destiny"-style menus in every game? I don't understand developer's fascination with this kind of menu.

The only explanation I can think of for why so many people use it is 'cause it's essentially the same on PC and consoles, like making the experience more uniform, but it sucks. if you don't know what I'm talking about, I mean all these games where there's a digital cursor on the menu, so you have to manually drag around stuff and pretend to have a mouse even though you don't, instead of just cycling through options like a regular menu when using a controller. On PC, I guess less irritating 'cause you have a mouse, but everywhere else, you don't.

Does the act of actually moving the cursor really add anything? It makes stuff take way longer. It's awkward and unnecessary.

In comparison to the copycats, the original Destiny menus actually did it a lot better too. So all the things you interact with, they're big, the cursor's fairly fast, and the later copycats did it worse. Things got smaller and smaller, the cursor moved slower and slower, just sucks.

So many console games have just given up on menu design. Just, it sucks. I mean when they used to get creative, you'd see some really bad menus.

I mean "Mass Effect: Andromeda" menu is not good. But in general, games' menus used to be easier to use and that's really the important thing. The options should be easy to identify, just with a glance, and it should be fast to use them.

A lot of modern games do manage to clear that low bar, but a lot of them don't. Moving on to number six, just bring back cheat codes already. In a world of achievements and paid time savers, cheat codes are nearly extinct.

The only time you ever see 'em anymore are from games that are intentionally doing some kind of retro throwback, where they're so ingrained in the series, if you took 'em out, fans would riot. Imagine if Bethesda blocked access to the console in "Starfield. " That would've sucked.

They do make it so you can't get achievements if you're using the console, but there are ways around that using mods. Still, it's yet another way that the use of cheats has degraded in modern games. And it's a tough issue to get around because trophies and achievements should be obtained legitimately.

That's kind of the point of them, so you're supposed to actually challenge yourself. Still, retro achievements has a simple solution for this issue. They mark achievements differently depending on if somebody got 'em with cheats or if they did.

It can be fiddly though, so there's no silver bullet solution for this problem. I just think make it so you can't get 'em if you're cheating and let us cheat. The problem is that developers and publishers have monetized cheats, and that just sucks.

There's no excuse for it. Just blatant greed. Especially when they're basically selling you cheats in a competitive game, literally making it so people who pay up get an instant advantage over all the poor chumps who didn't.

Usually, it's just a way to reach max level or whatever faster, but depending on the game, like NBA 2K, your player stats make a huge difference in a competitive game, and the people with maxed out stats are just gonna have an easier time playing it. The monetization of cheats just makes games worse. It used to be cheating was something you did for fun, and often something that kids relied on to be able to play games before they felt confident enough to play them for real.

(guns firing) (tense music) Now many games, there's no options out there. Either watch a big brother play them or nothing. Cheat codes used to be the grand unifier.

They made it so everyone could play and even beat a game. You didn't even have to be a savant or grind away hours of your precious life to do it in a lot of games that give you a tough time. In some ways, accessibility options, they're becoming the new cheat codes, at least depending on how powerful they are.

The one that really lets you fine tune the difficulty or make it so you could see collectibles, stuff like that. They're great for people that need 'em. but you know what accessibility options don't have?

Big head mode. So bring back cheats. They weren't fair but they were fun.

(traffic humming) And number five, bringing back trilogies that actually come out in a single console generation. The reality of modern AAA game development is that it takes longer, and it's only getting worse, like it they used to be game series we're able to release pretty consistently. Now it feels like sequels are taking about five to 10 years, sometimes worse.

There's a reason gaming feels like it's for old people now. It's 'cause you have to be old to remember some of the games, like it took 10 years to get a "Drgon Age" sequel. In that amount of time, the entire original "Drgon Age" saga came out, all three games prior to "Veilguard.

" That's, too long for a sequel, and it's not an outlier with these things. This kind of wait for games is getting much more common. For three full console generations, we got entire series coming out in just a few years span.

All of Naughty Dogs' "Crash Bandicoot" games were out between '96 and '99. The three Insomniac "Spyro" games came out just as rapidly. We got the entire "Gears of War" trilogy for Xbox 360, the entire "Mass Effect" trilogy from 2007 to '12, three "Uncharted" games on the PlayStation 3, the entire "Resistance trilogy," the list goes on.

Now, we know that developers had to crunch like crazy to make these insane production dates, but the problem with modern games is that so many devs feel like they have to completely reinvent the wheel with every new game. And here's the thing, I was complaining a little bit about not innovating, but let's talk about "Yakuza. " So the "Yakuza" slash "Like a Drgon" games come out pretty constantly.

We get three of 'em in less than a year, and there's another one coming out in 2025. But these games change, like "Like a Drgon: Infinite Wealth" is nothing like the original "Yakuza" game, but here's the trick: they make games in a way that they're smart about it. They're not afraid to reuse assets like crazy because they tend to not move around in terms of location very much.

They definitely improve upon the models and add new things, new mechanics, new story stuff. Like I said, these games change a lot, but if you know your way around Kamurocho, you know your way around Kamurocho. (characters speaking Japanese) Fans don't complain though.

They embrace it. And the reason for that is these guys are consistently making great stories and great games with the understanding they all come out in a consistent world and they iterate, and there has to be a reason the game exists. More developers need to embrace this design philosophy.

It used to be that expansion pack sequel was considered a dirty word, but to be frank, if you do it right, it doesn't have to be, especially now with the way development time and budgets have completely ballooned out of control. They're able to make yearly games without needing a hundred studios working on the same project at the same time, like a Ubisoft game or a "Call of Duty. " It's a good system for getting their games out there.

Capcom isn't above this sort of things either. Their remakes clearly reuse a lot of assets from other games, like I think I've seen the same bolt cutting animation in every single one of them. I'm not saying every game should be like the "Yakuza" series, just that the industry's struggling to keep fans interested in series that take half a decade or more to come out.

Oh, and another thing, they don't all have to be a hundred-hour games. "Yakuza" is your shining example of that. And yes, sometimes it makes the games feel like less of an event when a new one comes out, but I'll take that over years of absolutely nothing.

And if I'm completely honest, I still get excited for every "Yakuza. " And number four, bring back split screen multiplayer and co-op. Couch co-op used to be the de facto way to play games, but it's getting harder and harder to do, even with games that thrive on that sort of play.

The recent "DRAGON BALL: Sparking! ZERO" has a local versus mode, but you can only play it on one map, which is essentially a white void and it sucks. (tense music) - [Fighter] It's no use.

(blows landing) (fighters grunting) - [Falcon] That's far from the only example of a game that used to be all about playing locally, but has more recently shifted to being online only, and that's frustrating. Now, you can't just have a friend come over and screw around for fun. Every game has to be this whole ordeal to get running.

And the whole end game is for there to be some sort of competitive scene which can prolong the life of the game and/or series. You both have to have copies of it, you both have to set up accounts, navigate multiplayer menus, and so many games do it differently that when you try to join a lobby and someone's connection times out or the headset isn't working, something goes wrong. Or let's say it's a co-op game and you have to go through this lengthy single-player tutorial before you can play together.

It's like these games don't want people playing together. And while it is a design problem, it's not just a design problem, it's also a technical problem. Even if those technical hurdles are getting a little easier to deal with, like SSDs and more powerful consoles should make it so mirroring the game world on the screen twice should be possible, but a lot of devs don't want to or can't put in the work.

They see couch co-op as not an essential feature, something people online won't complain about per se, but it's a feedback loop, 'cause all those online people are playing the game online. They're not the logoff types. All their friends and family are probably online, so they don't care about split screen.

Or maybe not that many people actually play in the same room anymore. I don't know, I don't have the numbers. Maybe it really isn't a priority, but it still should be.

Nintendo at least mostly gets this. Sure, a lot of their games run like crap when it's played by more than one player, but at least you could do it. And number three, bring back games that are actually worth the asking price.

This is a refrain I hear a lot. Games are too expensive, they're not worth the asking price. They should be cheaper like they used to be.

It's a complicated problem, 'cause the reality isn't quite so clear cut. Games used to be expensive and generally shorter than we get now too. Take "CHRONO Trigger" for example.

It took about 20 or so hours to finish back in 1995 and its suggested retail price, get this, was 79. 99. And a lot of retailers charged more than that.

Some of 'em were charging 89. 99. I mean, that's an extreme example 'cause video game prices generally stabilized when they became disk-based, but still.

Most games in the late '90s and early 2000s cost a flat 50 bucks on release, which would be great to have now, but back then, wasn't that cheap. Factoring in inflation, those $50 games would cost $90 now. Not a joke either.

Look it up. And I'm not trying to say that games should be more expensive because, no, they should not. But the problem of price isn't as simple as saying games used to be cheaper.

The problem isn't just that they're charging 70 bucks for games now. It's that they're adding all these other expenses on top of that. Nearly every major game that comes out never just costs the retail price.

They've also got a digital deluxe edition, a super special ultimate VIP edition, microtransactions, season passes, DLC bundles, currencies to buy horse armor, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. I like using that joke. Anyway, it's outta control.

So take all that nickel and dimming and contrast it with the many ways the games industry has gone out of its way to devalue games with constant deep discounts, Game Pass where you get a whole lot of games for a monthly fee, and free to play, where they basically trained casual gamers to not want to pay to play games. Or if they do, they only do it at the steepest possible discounts. And there's no reason why they shouldn't because that's a smart thing to do.

It's only the super hardcores, the people who play one game a year, that are spending tons of cash in these bloated special editions. But the end result is that the gap between these two audiences just keeps getting wider and wider. And also, not every game is worth 70 bucks anymore.

I mean, take that "Suicide Squad game. " It's short, it's packed with microtransactions, the open world is small, there just isn't much stuff to actually do in it. It's a live service game selling you on its possibilities rather than what it actually has.

Then the game flopped and all those dreams about new content disappeared, so all you're left with is a game where you spend too much money and there's barely anything to do in it. Basically, what I'm saying is stop loading up games with unnecessary extra expenses so you can sell it for $70 and nobody feels shortchanged. (menu clicking) (tense music) Like the fact that $70 is the base price for a game that's not complete, that's crazy.

If you're gonna make us pay that much, give us a completed product that has everything. And number two is bring back silence. Modern AAA games talk way too much.

They're like those terrible kids movies where nobody ever shuts up because they think if there's a moment of silence, kids are just gonna get bored and tune out, which, I mean, in some cases is true, but maybe that's your movie's fault rather than the kids. And here's the thing, I'm not talking about kids games either, like T for teen rated or even mature rated games are played by people who hopefully have more mature or even adult attention spans. We can handle a moment of silence from time to time.

We're not literal babies with no object permanence who need to be verbally reminded that someone exists. - These zombies, they're everywhere. I'm sure they were nice people before, but come on.

(tense music) Oh yeah! - [Falcon] Otherwise, we assume that they're gone forever. We can handle it, I promise.

It's not just the nonstop banter either. It's the constant handholding. Like in any given PlayStation game where you find a puzzle or something and the characters immediately start dropping hints at what you should be doing.

- If I go in this way, they'll destroy all the evidence. I should look for a sneaky way in. (alarm beeping) (helicopter whirring) There we go.

Huh, it's like my own private ventrance. - [Falcon] Like give me at least a second, game. Let me figure this stuff out on my own.

I don't know if their games are just getting focused tested to death or what, but all these clues and reminders and pointing out things in the environment, it's not necessary. And it's infuriating once you really start to notice how nonstop it all is. If a game like "High on Life," which is a comedy game where the entire shtick is stream of conscious babbling, can have an option to turn down the frequency of the talking, then your big budget AAA experience could do it too.

And finally at number one, bring back friction. If you're one of those people who been playing games for a real long time, this is something you're gonna start to notice with every AAA game. All the rough edges have been sanded off, all the odd or fiddly bits are removed, and the game is just made as seamless as possible.

All the friction in these games are gone. I don't just mean they're easy. You can have a game that's challenging but lacks friction.

Games that have no friction do things like give you big objective markers and way points that tell you exactly where to go at every moment. There's never any penalty for failure. There's no frustrating or intentionally stressful bits like time limits or oddball gameplay mechanics.

It's a double-edged sword 'cause in a lot of the ways, the games are better. A lot of things that add friction to a game aren't necessarily good, especially on their own, but a lot of the time, if you take these things out, you're left with a more bland, less engaging experience. Now I'm not talking about that terrible mini game in the original "Dead Space" that they thankfully fixed in the remake to not be horrible.

The asteroid shooting one. (cannon blasting) Yeah, that one. I mean, that's an example of friction that it's good that they've fixed, but a lot of the time, it's not like that.

A lot of the time, it's something like a puzzle that's not super obvious or a boss that has a trick to it that is actually pretty hard to figure out. These things are also friction, but they're friction done well and they're really satisfying to get over the hump. The modern AAA gaming landscape is just a little too safe, a little too afraid of frustrating or challenging players in any but the most understood ways.

Basically, if it's a "Souls" thing, then that gets a pass, but everything else doesn't. Like so you can have hard boss fights, but God forbid a forced stealth section. I don't know maybe that's not the best example, but maybe something like "Dead Rising" time limit makes more sense.

The first "Dead Rising" had a lot of friction. There was a time limit and hostages to save who were stupid and helpless, and if you ran outta time, the game was basically over. The only way to continue was to start over.

It could be annoying, but it was a unique experience that made the original game something special. They tried to completely remove that central friction in the fourth game by completely eliminating the time limit, and by doing that, they removed the thing that made the game so unique and interesting. It was just another generic open-world zombie game now.

It's not that friction is entirely gone for big budget games. I mean, look at "Drgon's Dogma 2. " They got tons of weird, little, potentially frustrating elements to it.

(gentle music) (character screaming) - [Character] What rotten luck. We've neared a Yore Aid again, sir. (dramatic music) - [Falcon] So not every game is playing it this safe, but there's still way too many that do.

What do you think though? I'm sure you got plenty, plenty of things like this going on in your head after listening to my little list. So leave us a comment, let us know.

If you liked this video, click like. If you're not subscribed, now's a great time to do so. We upload brand new videos every day of the week.

Best way to see them first is, of course, a subscription, so click subscribe. Don't forget to enable notifications. And as always, we thank you very much for watching this video.

I'm Falcon, you can follow me on Twitter, @FalconTheHero. We'll see you next time right here on Gameranx.