I agree with that but it doesn't answer my question though since I was asking about how spectacle made less of a difference to HL's success than I claimed since you said it wasn't as big a deal for that as I said it was. That's why I got annoyed there since it seemed like you were purposefully avoiding answering that and instead went on about something different. Seems it was just a misunderstanding though.

Control was also "cheap" and was made with a $30 million budget. The insane thing is Spiderman Remastered had a budget of $39m according to the Insomniac leak. A freaking remaster. It cost more to make than a brand new game.

Sounds like Insomniac needs to figure out their ****.  

Maybe I misunderstood too; I thought you meant to imply that graphics were one of the primary reasons for its success, which didn't seem right to me cos the downgraded PS4 and Switch versions did well despite being months late. Graphics were definitely a point of appeal for some folks, I just feel like if it was one of the main ones there would've been little to no interest in the worse looking versions.

I would consider it one of the primary ones alongside it using the Harry Potter IP and it being a well made open world game. The PS4 and Switch versions still sold well cause there's still those other factors and the PS4 version still retains a lot of the spectacle even if it's reduced while the Switch has the handheld component to kinda replace it. The PS4 version of God of War Ragnarok while not as pretty is still good looking so spectacle still will have helped sell that version for people who didn't have a PS5 yet. Basically it's not that spectacle was so important to HL's success that it completely lacks appeal when that is reduced, spectacle is just one of multiple layers of appeal it has so it can still well when one of them is removed though not as well.

It was definitely one layer of its appeal, yes. I guess by spectacle I was thinking more of cutting edge graphics, but if we're including the circa 2013 PS4, then I get what you mean. 

Control is also a game that largely takes place in a very confined environment (an office tower) and can be beaten in 5-7 hours so it doesn't have the scope/scale of Spider-Man. Also Remedy being based in Finland probably helps them, not too many game studios in Finland, so if you have some artistic talent and don't want to move to a different country, working for them is probably your best bet even if the salary may not be as high. Whereas if you're a game designer/artist whatever in the UK, USA, France, Japan, etc. you will have multiple big studios bidding for your talent, so they have to pay you well to keep you or you can just walk elsewhere. 

I wasn't meaning pure cutting edge yeah, spectacle can still increase appeal a lot as long as it's not too far from that. It also helped out the Switch a lot since for 2017 standards games like BOTW and Mario Odyssey were high quality spectacle wise for games that can be played in a handheld format. I'd consider it a big reason Odyssey sold way more than all other 3D Mario games.

I kinda doubt Ratchet cost anywhere near what Spiderman or God of War or COD cost, is what I meant.

And yeah you can have great graphics nowadays without breaking the bank, provided you keep your scope under control. We saw this last gen with Hellblade, and more recently with Plague Tale.

Too many fully open world games, and too many side quests / content.

Hell look at something like DQ11.
‘I felt that rather than spread our effort across a breadth of things, we’d rather concentrate everything on the story’ - Yuji Horii

“If you’re going for a completely open world, there’s obviously a development cost attached to that, affecting where you spend your time and effort.” 
- Yuji Horii

Basically open world games, can limit you, in story telling.  And theres tons of extra work, makeing lots of these little shallow story elements, that need to be everywere.  Sometimes a more focused approach, is going to offer better results, and require less work overall.

Does DQ11 feel limited in anyway as you explore that world? nah.
Does it have Photo realistic graphics? nope, doesn't need it either (infact it would be odd, or bad if they chased that)

I read online people are saying a game like DQ11 isn't even AAA.... I guess I dont even know what AAA is anymore.
I just know I like it, it feels polished.

The same is true with Photo realistic graphics..... not every game needs it, and the costs it takes.
If game devs are worried about costs, the first things they should look at, is scope (as you mentioned), and really "does it need to be open world?" , "does it need photo realistic graphics?".


Hell I love alot of those old school rpgs, with the 2D backgrounds from the PS1-2 days.
If your budget is really tight, why not try some of the tricks that worked then?
Pretty sure you could make use of the same techniques today and still get good results.