By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Why I stopped playing modern triple A games

IcaroRibeiro said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

I think you’re painting with an overly large brush, but I agree with the broad strokes. A lot of big “AAA” publishers that were firing on all cylinders in the 6th and 7th gens — Ubisoft, Activision, EA, Bethesda, 2K, etc. — are mostly skippable now. Microsoft- and Sony-published games are less essential today than they were a generation ago, with prominent exceptions like Astro Bot. Rockstar Games remains a big deal, but it turns out software so infrequently.

Bethesda was already mediocre even in 7th gen, truth be told Bethesda releasing games for consoles have done irreparable damage to the quality of their RPGs,  with the last good Fallout (New Vegas) not even being developed by Bethesda itself lol 

EA... do they even have a single good game in any generation? I'm really asking because I can't think of any. I'm asking genuinely because I only remember them as developer of sports games 

As for Ubisoft, I think their early 7th gen games were important because it was an era we were still figuring out how to properly develop HD games with a large scope and scale, but from a purely gameplay perspective I've always found their games to not be that good tbh 

As for Activision they fully embraced the role of being a publisher rather than a developer. Blizzard still releasing/maintaining very good games, but they are mostly focused on live services which single player gamers hate I guess, but they are still competent in this specific market I'd say 

Well, remember that I framed these groups as publishers, not developers. And I think they delivered some of the best, most consequential titles of the 6th and 7th gens.

Bethesda brought us The Elder Scrolls III-V, Fallout 3, and New Vegas.

Ubisoft brought us Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, Splinter Cell, Prince of Persia, Far Cry, etc.

EA brought us Dead Space, Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2/3, 007, Lord of the Rings, Burnout, Battlefield, etc.

Activision brought us Tony Hawk and presided over the golden age of Call of Duty.

It would be difficult to talk about the finest games of that era without these companies. 



Around the Network

Thats all fair, you do you. Tho it bears mentioning that all of that sounds like it has more to do with yourself than it does the games themselves if im being honest.

I play less AAA games but its mostly due to life. I dont have the time i used to have to invest in it, theres too many AA great games out there, and of course, money reasons. Other things have taken priority. But every now and then a AAA game blows it out of the water and reminds me whats so fantastic about big budget games when done right, like BG3 or Elden Ring.



Veknoid_Outcast said:
IcaroRibeiro said:

Bethesda was already mediocre even in 7th gen, truth be told Bethesda releasing games for consoles have done irreparable damage to the quality of their RPGs,  with the last good Fallout (New Vegas) not even being developed by Bethesda itself lol 

EA... do they even have a single good game in any generation? I'm really asking because I can't think of any. I'm asking genuinely because I only remember them as developer of sports games 

As for Ubisoft, I think their early 7th gen games were important because it was an era we were still figuring out how to properly develop HD games with a large scope and scale, but from a purely gameplay perspective I've always found their games to not be that good tbh 

As for Activision they fully embraced the role of being a publisher rather than a developer. Blizzard still releasing/maintaining very good games, but they are mostly focused on live services which single player gamers hate I guess, but they are still competent in this specific market I'd say 

Well, remember that I framed these groups as publishers, not developers. And I think they delivered some of the best, most consequential titles of the 6th and 7th gens.

Bethesda brought us The Elder Scrolls III-V, Fallout 3, and New Vegas.

Ubisoft brought us Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, Splinter Cell, Prince of Persia, Far Cry, etc.

EA brought us Dead Space, Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2/3, 007, Lord of the Rings, Burnout, Battlefield, etc.

Activision brought us Tony Hawk and presided over the golden age of Call of Duty.

It would be difficult to talk about the finest games of that era without these companies. 

As publishers (not developers) they still release good games regularly, but I have to agree their importance has mostly dwindled. They no longer release generation defining games anymore 



m0ney said:

The last ones I played were Spider Man (didn't finish it) and TLoU2.

I don't play them because:

- They feel tedious - they contain busy work that is not fun and takes forever, but if you skip it all it feels like you are rushing through the game.

- They are visually too 'loud' - this has been an ever increasing problem for the last 20 years. I think filling every square meter with stuff just because you can is stupid, the game doesn't become nor look better from that. I liked the clean look games had till around mid 2000s.

- They look more or less the same because they use more or less the same engines and tools and libraries.

- They have paradoxically become less advanced - invisible walls/inaccessible areas, inability to jump, inability to use items and weapons when and how you want, weapon/item limitation etc. It feels like you are on rails even when you are playing a open world game.

They are visually too 'loud'

I very much agree with this, cramming too much on a little screen. I adore the emptiness of the landscapes in SotC and BotW. 

I now play exclusively in VR, being in the game solves the problem of cramming too much in a little window, plus hardware limitations still keep the unnecessary clutter away in VR. Stereoscopic 3D and parallax makes it also so much easier to keep track of all the effects.

Plus it also solves the 'less advanced' problem, adding interactions instead of taking them away. Hitman WoA on PSVR2 is amazing, I would never want to play that on a screen. 

Flat games were hitting a dead end for me, I never finished GoW Ragnarok, tedious. last AAA (flat) game I've bought, meanwhile got over 100 PSVR2 games.




I just find hilarious when I see people who complain about AAA games talking like they were playing AAA games all the time before starting disliking them.

I like AAA games but I'm not going to only play AAA games all the time or I would play TLOU2 immediately after playing Spider-Man, doesn't sound healthy or fun because a AAA game is way more demanding to your time and attention than an smaller game.

If you aren't up for that that's cool you do you but it's not the games fault that you bought something that wasn't made for you and keep talking about AAA games when you don't play them anymore is as much of a waste of time as you playing those games.



Around the Network

It's going to be a problem for the game industry at some point I think because younger kids have less and less of an attention span due to Tiktok/Insta feeds dopamine hits.


It's hard to even get them to sit down for a full movie which is only a 2 hour investment in most cases. Probably why GaaS are taking off so much, you learn one game and just stick with it forever.

So you might end up relying on older people in their 30s/40s/50s etc. to play those more traditional games, but those people also have kids in a lot of cases which then kills their free time. I'll be honest I still haven't played through all of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom.



My attention span likes smaller, indie stuff and retro 2D. Modern games are so full of things, so dense and want you to invest so much of your life in order to fully enjoy them that it's nay impossible for me to gain entry. But I will if I feel the game is worth it. GTA 6, if it lives up to its predecessors, would be one example.



My last AAA game, unless Hears of Iron IV counts, was Dragon Age: Origins. Also my last physical PC game btw.



Bofferbrauer2 said:

My last AAA game, unless Hears of Iron IV counts, was Dragon Age: Origins. Also my last physical PC game btw.

Ok you win :|

Seriously though ~2009 was a great time for triple A games, my favs were Batman Arkham Asylum and Colin McRae's Dirt2



My Etsy store

My Ebay store

Deus Ex (2000) - a game that pushes the boundaries of what the video game medium is capable of to a degree unmatched to this very day.

Chrkeller said:

I still play AAA games, but not as much as older games. And within AAA games, I prefer the shorter ones like RE and SH. I have two major issues with modern AAA games:

1) Too darn long, with a family and career I just don't have 60+ hours for every game.

2) Similar to above, a lot of that 60-hours are boring as crap with stupid fetch quests or boring side quests (e.g. fluff). I still maintain Rebirth could have cut half the towers, half the side quests and drop 90% of the stupid mini games (especially del Sol) - it would have been better. Games need to be more intentional in design, with purpose.

I swear sometimes a developer decides how long a game should be then designs with that in mind, versus just making a game and the length is what it is.  

Edit

Now I am wondering if the reason I love Nintendo games is because they typically are smaller/streamlined.  DK and Prime 4 are both around 10-15 hours.  Not much fluff in either of them, except the green crystals (which wasn't overly bad).  LM3 is another great example, does what it does very well, not much fluff.  

Yeah this is an issue for me too, I often just get bored after a while of playing through dozens of hours of mostly filler.

I miss when AAA games were allowed to be like 8-20 hours of focused content without all the extra BS. I know there are still games like that, but it feels like bloat has become a major and prevalent issue, with so many games trying to have like 50-100 hours of content, but then most of that content being dull and repetitive.