Could AAA games benefit from indie limitations?

Indie games have been a major focal point in the next console battle regarding to the ease of developers being able to self publish their games and what devs are on what console. Seven years ago, nobody would have cared as indie games hadn't hit their stride like they have the past few years. While the cost of the games themselves benefit the discovery of these new experiences, it's the worlds they create, the mechanics that are so well realized and the ambition that can be achieved from so little that create more buzz and leave gamers wanting more.

On the flip side, AAA games have felt more and more stagnant as they become more annual with little to no changes between titles. While this is made as a blanket statement, it shouldn't be treated as such. There are some AAA games that do try to shake things up, but the majority of titles seem to do a rinse-repeat of either an older iteration of that IP or bares a remarkably similar resemblance to a different game (ie Uncharted and Tomb Raider).

One may think that giving indie devs more money would allow them to make their unique games even better, but I don't believe that to be true. Indie games are great because they have limitations that are addressed and worked around. Throwing money at these devs may not make it better, it could make it worse.

For example, take Limbo. The game itself isn't noteworthy so much for it's gameplay as it's a pretty basic puzzle-platformer. None of the tasks it makes the player do is difficult and it's relatively simple all-in-all. But the charm in the game comes from the dark atmosphere it presents as this boy traverses the world with the risk of a gruesome death at every turn while searching for his sister. Now imagine the same game where everything is in crisp detailed three-dimensional models and in color. But they had a vision, and they stuck with it. They turned down publishers in fear of the idea being tarnished, and it worked in their favor.

The biggest obstacle for indie games, at least for gamers, is simply the look. It's outrageous to think that these games will be on par with higher budget games. It's not going to happen. So they have to think outside of the box and find different ways to make it aesthetically pleasing to the eyes. Limbo did it. Braid did it. And Fez did it. But, it also bleeds into another criticism I've seen more lately.

 
The explosion of 16-bit indie games. There has been more groaning and complaining over these 16-bit graphics and it's driving this writer bonkers. Yes, there's a ton out there, but there's far more current-gen looking games that are nowhere near as beautiful. Somehow, people have grown to hate this style of indie games while not batting an eye to yet another gritty shooter that looks on par with the same 50 games from 2 years ago.

The most frustrating part is that they overlooking what makes these games great. Yes, Fez has a 16-bit style. But there's more to it than that. It has (according to people who have played it) amazing music. The mechanic of world shifting by 90 degrees. The puzzles are actually thought provoking and had an entire community of gamers come together to piece the together the answers. So many positive things that Phil Fish pieced together despite all of the background trouble during the development of the game, and the most some people can get out of it is "Uck...another 16-bit artstyle".

While Mario may be the epitome of platforming to some people, my personal favorite would go to Super Meat Boy. The drawback for most gamers is the frustrating platforming elements one has to surpass, but at the same time, can be strung into a positive. The game is hard, but it's never cheap. Not many games can say that.

Team Meat crafted one of the best platformers in gaming. The controls are so spot on, you never feel there's any lag between a button press and the reaction on screen. If something goes wrong and you die, the game instant respawns the character instead of a small load time to start again. Being able to view a replay of all the failed attempts at passing the level is fantastic especially in the well crafted levels that never felt old. The two members of Team Meat know limitations. They went broke. They rarely slept or ate. They lived on different sides of the country and rarely met face to face. Yet they created the game with a brand new engine (instead of using an old one), received little faith from Microsoft and Sony, and are now two of the most well regarded indie devs in the business.

I've spent the blog so far explaining some indie games and the areas they succeed despite lack of funds or sheer manpower. So why can't AAA games provide the same experience just on a larger scale?

Well, part of it is, the focus doesn't go towards gameplay. Look at games like The Last of Us and Tomb Raider. Both games look astounding. On par with some of the best graphics to date. But the gameplay leaves much to be desired. It's solid. But doesn't do anything new. There's literally nothing about either game that makes me sit back and go "You know what, I can't say I've seen that ONLY in this game.".

Instead, the focus goes to improving the graphics and story. Mo-capping has become increasingly more popular, and bringing in big names to do that and/or voice work. The stories are more grandiose in scale pushing gameplay out of the spotlight and instead becomes moments of action that lead into the next big CGI moments. These gameplay elements don't receive as much focus as the detail of the world does, and while they are serviceable, it's clear they are a means to an end. Not as much thought goes into what can make the gameplay different from other games as it does to make the world different from other games.

I think the other major point why change doesn't occur is because they fall back on the same engines time and time again. I don't have to mention the two games that probably come to mind immediately, but I will anyway: Call of Duty and Madden. While Call of Duty goes a bit further than Madden to make changes, they still fall back on the exact same engine with every iteration. And it's telling. Instead, they make tweaks to the system instead of putting the time and money into creating something new that really sets it apart from past games. And why should they, it's a cash cow. Madden is the same way. The game feels identical year in and year out, and simply adding in extra animations for catching and tackling isn't doing it. It's essentially a roster change and that's the biggest update. Again, why fix what isn't broken?

Other games are becoming more guilty of this such as Assassins Creed where the largest addition was ship battling and that's making a resurgence with Assassins Creed 4: Black Flag. In fact, that's been one of the largest selling points of the game as every trailer features that and little of anything else. Perhaps it's because it was the best thing critics said about Assassins Creed 3?

Despite all of these complaints, the industry still needs these big budget AAA games the same way the movie industry needs those big popcorn flicks during the summer. People love them, myself included, and they sell well making money for the company to put towards more games.

But there's something to be said about the smaller games. The ones where people put their financial future on the line by pulling out loans that would take forever to be repaid. The ones that cause friction between friends or lovers because of the stress of putting these games together. The games where something has to be different to stand out and be noticed or be buried with the rest of the floundering titles that receive no recognition.

And to be honest, the publishers are as much, if not more, at fault for these problems. Once they see a selling title, they are hesitant of change. If a title that receives praise for something unique, such as Mirrors Edge, doesn't sell well...good luck getting another one. And for the games with great concepts in both worlds and gameplay, Remember Me comes to mind, they are not given proper time to be well-realized or the developers simply don't put out a good game. Instead of giving the IP to another well-established dev, they toss the title away never to be seen again.

The end goal should be a fantastic game that pushes the boundaries to prevent stagnation of the industry. No gamer wants to feel like they receive a similar experience between games with the only difference being a fresh coat of paint. They want something new and invigorating to their senses. A game that leaves a mark because they haven't played anything like it before. And currently, very few of those are AAA games.

Indies are beloved for that very reason. They aren't doing this because of the paycheck they get every week. They do it because they love games and they put their entire future on one game. If it doesn't pan out, they may not have the opportunity to make another game. Publisher owned devs have similar worries of studios being shut down and having to look for work, but they still have it better. They have work to throw on resumes that people can recognize over some forgotten game in the bowels of XBLA. They still have money in the bank because none of it was coming out to fund the game they were working on. They didn't have to take the extra time to create a new engine because they were provided one from a previous game.

So again I ask, could AAA games benefit from indie limitations? In my mind, yes. And I believe it's time to test the waters with restricting resources from these devs to jump the creative juices again and see if something new can come out of it. Because as it is, it's looking awfully generic on the big game front. And that's why I appreciate diving into indie games.

Why I'm Stumped With Fez

There's a game that's going around, and I'm sure you all know it, named Fez. It's a game that after 4-5  years in the making has received a number of awards and discussion.  It was finally released to the masses after the controversy that was the creator of the game Phil Fish's "Japanese games suck" comment. Despite the long development time and the backlash he received after the comment, the game received very positive reviews.

But here's where I'm stuck...

The concept of the game sounds intriguing. A little 2D man who receives a little Fez hat that allows him to see a different dimension that he uses to solve puzzles to save his world. Many have commented on the music being amazing and the gameplay a little similar to the Paper Mario form of shifting perspectives. There is nothing that I just wrote that would keep me from wanting to play this game. However, the number of reviews on this game do. Below is a few things that I have noticed either said about the game, or not really discussed about it.

• This game can be a chore and frustrating, and not particularly in a good way. Not until after you see the first "ending" does it really open up to the absolute craziness that makes this game what it is.

• Most reviewers don't actually say this game is fun in any way shape or form. They comment about what this game turns into and the puzzle lunacy, but nowhere do they make the game sound fun or that they had any fun while playing it.

• How great it feels to go to the community and see them try to solve puzzles together because nobody seems to be able to do it themselves in game. This moment in gaming where so many people come together to find everything they can in it, and that it may never have been done on this scale before.

Now, I'm confused on why these have been praised where in other games they would be criticized. For example, the going to the community to solve puzzles. Anytime a puzzle game comes out, people always say how important it is to be able to figure them out by yourself. A good puzzle, as most will put it, will leave you scratching your head one minute. But as soon as you figure it out, you feel like a moron for not piecing it together sooner because it was so obvious. That doesn't seem to be the case with Fez. Instead, it is rewarded for being so difficult that you have to not only come to the game with a specific understanding of ideas and previous knowledge, but to go online to find answers that other people have answered.

Not only does this isolate people who may not have an Internet connection (which is something people bring up often when it comes to digital distribution talk), but it brings up the discussion on why sites like Gamefaqs can be scoffed at in one regard of receiving help, but receiving the same amount of help on the game's forum is okay.

My main problem with the puzzles and level of difficulty is the one that had the entire Fez community working in tandem, and that's the very last puzzle. With such a large number of people working on it, one puzzle should not have caused such a problem for them. But not only was it a problem, it was solved by brute force, not any specific methodology.  Nobody who has played Fez can find any sort of reasoning behind the answer to the last problem, nor are they sure it IS the last problem. And while some reviewers were amazed at this and didn't seem to have any issues, it contradicts the very statements they say about games like Portal about the feeling of success they receive when figuring it out. The best part about this puzzle is how the community came together to do it, and that I can understand.

So my question would then be, what about people who come in later? If one of the best things about Fez was the community interaction, what happens to players who play the game at a later date. That community interaction is moot, because the puzzles have already been solved. So one of the best parts about this game is suddenly diminished because being a part of the community to solve Fez's most mind-numbingly frustrating puzzle is gone. The answers have been found, and the game has become nothing more than a Gamefaqs solution away.

But what I'm most concerned about is the actual fun factor. Puzzle games can be fun. Again, Portal is the perfect example of that. So why can't I find many reviewers actually say this game is fun in any term of the word. I can respect the puzzles being hard. Phil Fish sounds like he's on a genius-level I'll never come close to and I am envious of that. The music is apparently amazing and every screenshot I see of the game looks remarkable. I heard the platforming itself is somewhat lacking, and the premise of the game sounds like something I would love. Yet why is it that every person that talks about this game sound like they were clubbed in the back of the head repeatedly while playing it? Being frustrated to the point of looking up answers is not fun. Neither is having to play through a chunk of the game until it picks up interest. Where the actual enjoyment of the game comes from is beyond me, but perhaps it's an elaborate puzzle where I have to decipher the true feelings of the game by picking out every third letter in words with two vowels or more and piecing the letters together backwards.

I'm not sure what to think of Fez. Since I am unable to play the game currently due to no X-Box in the house, all I have to go off of is the reviews and I'm completely baffled by what I'm hearing from them. But at the same time, if the game ever releases to the PS3, I know I'll get it just to see what the hubbub is about. Some people probably think I just don't "get" Fez and I won't until I play it, and that may be true. But I don't "get" how Fez could go against what people want in games but be given the scores that it has when other games would be rated lower due to the same things. So Phil Fish, if you are reading this (doubtful), I hope the game is released on PS3. I would love to be proven wrong and see what this game is about. And if possible, send me a cheat sheet. I've seen the ones people have made, and I don't know if I'm smart enough to figure it out on my own.