AAA Games Are Finally Proving Games Need To Be Smaller, Not Bigger

The games industry is an incredibly nuanced and complex beast that is ever-evolving and, in theory, ever-improving. However, the past few years have proven that said evolution and innovations may actually be to the detriment of the industry and its overall chances of survival. As games cost more and more to develop, studios expand in size, development timeframes balloon far beyond the expected, and innovative design requires rapidly increasing investment, we begin to see not just a drop-off in actual releases, but also the untimely and deeply unfortunate closures of certain studios, mass layoffs, and game cancellations.

The ever-changing AAA space is becoming increasingly unstable, and its future is invariably uncertain. The rate at which the gaming industry continues to push onward is simply untenable, especially if we want to avoid seeing more of the recent drastic studio closures that have resulted in extremely talented developers losing their jobs. Fortunately, it appears there is already a solution, one that we’ve known for a very long time but seemingly have been too afraid to act upon. That is, of course, making smaller games and reducing a focus on the many impressive but ultimately costly advancements the gaming industry is so hyper-fixated on. It is possible to take this route, but a lot would need to change, and sooner rather than later.

Photorealistic Visuals Need To Be A Thing Of The Past

I can absolutely see the appeal in photorealistic visuals, the likes of which are so often sought after by triple-A developers. Sure, they often eschew the use of style, favoring instead impressive cinematic visuals that, in theory, deliver the emotion of an actor’s performance to a greater degree, but this blurring of gaming and film, to a degree, makes sense. It offers developers a way of delivering a narrative through a framework that both makes sense to the average consumer and appears premium, a facet of game design that seems increasingly integral now, considering the rising cost of video games as a whole. Suffice it to say, it’s easier to sell a game as being innovative visually in a trailer than it is to convey how it has mechanically evolved.

However, in pursuit of this specific form of technological innovation, not only have developers and publishers disregarded a lot of the traits unique to the medium of gaming, but they have further unnecessarily inflated development costs. The more money studios pump into pursuing photorealistic visuals, the greater development costs become, especially if they’re building their own engine, and, as a result, the more video games begin to cost on the consumer side. And that money won’t ever stop. It can’t. Photorealistic visuals date significantly faster than stylized ones, forcing developers to spend even more to keep ahead of the curve and avoid their visual style from appearing uncanny.

These visuals don’t just affect cutscenes either, but increase production costs across the board. It’s why file sizes have ballooned exponentially, why development timeframes continue to increase to a ridiculous degree, and, I’d argue, why mechanical innovation has begun to suffer. Crucially, that latter issue is becoming a significant problem for the gaming industry. Taking the better half of a decade to create a game only for it to release and feel mechanically the same as games releasing a 10 years prior is not conducive to great sales. It’s why sales in once untouchable AAA franchises like Call of Duty and Assassin’s Creed, despite their impressive visuals, have dropped off.

Mechanical innovation is paramount to the survival of video games, as, contrary to popular belief, visuals do not make a game; gameplay does. It is why the indie and AA scene, unburdened by the need for photorealistic visuals owing to their significantly smaller budgets, can create genre-defining experiences that go on to be critical and commercial successes. Of course, there are instances in which photorealistic visuals are necessary, such as in Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2. However, for the most part, this insatiable hunger for technological innovation is not just hurting the gaming industry but making AAA games objectively worse.

Consistently Released Smaller Games Are The Way Forward

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the gaming industry’s woes are very much in tandem with those of the blockbuster movie industry. Movie budgets have become obscenely excessive, reaching well into the hundreds of millions for films that end up looking as generic as a much cheaper Netflix original. They lack the daring nature, visual flair, and storytelling capacity of the arthouse movies of old, instead relying exclusively on rushed CGI, big-name actors who’s relevancy is extremely fickle, and recognizable IP. Ostensibly, they’re worthless to almost every moviegoer, and that’s reflected in the dwindling box office numbers of the once untouchable giants of cinema.

Fortunately, studios like A24 and Neon have come in with an obvious solution: produce more films for less money and reap the rewards when one of them blows up. It means these studios can take risks on more innovative films from interesting directors, as the initial investment is a tenth of what blockbuster films can cost. Should one of the many films they independently produce or distribute succeed, which they inevitably do thanks to the power of social media and word of mouth, then they’ll generate more than enough revenue to cover any losses made on the other films. This is the same model that has worked for the AA scene for so long and seen games like Kingdom Come: Deliverance, Baldur’s Gate 3, and Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 become household names and financial juggernauts.

Even Nintendo seems to understand that this approach is for the best, as it prioritizes innovative game design and more frequent releases over photorealism and the many other pieces of unnecessary technology the other AAA studios seem so dependent on. Despite its proprietary hardware lagging significantly behind the competition in terms of raw power, it manages to remain completely self-sufficient, avoids massive layoffs and studio closures, and rarely sees the major game cancellations affecting PlayStation and Xbox.

Rather than investing everything into a handful of games that adhere to the tired tropey formulas of old, larger studios should release a flagship title alongside a plethora of smaller, more innovative titles. I’m not advocating for the total removal of photorealistic visuals in video games (after all, I’ve already cited use cases for it). Rather, I think AAA studios would have a better chance of surviving if they reverted to the old school form of game design, stopped chasing unattainable technological innovation, and focused on delivering numerous, high-quality, cheaper experiences that prioritize mechanical design and a unique visual style.

The Games Industry Needs To Change, And Fast

Of course, it isn’t exclusively photorealistic visuals that are hurting the video game industry. There are numerous other factors, such as the irresponsible mismanagement of franchises and developers, as well as real-world events like the global pandemic, leading to over-staffing and rising financial expectations that couldn’t be met under normal circumstances.

There’s also the foolish race to release the next popular live service game, which comes with never-ending costs and relies on a stable player base, something few, if any, games can achieve thanks to so many titles dividing everyone’s already limited attention. This is what resulted in mass layoffs at hugely successful studios, such as NetEase, the folks behind Marvel Rivals.

However, clearly something needs to change if the industry is going to maintain the same level of impressive revenue and scale while avoiding laying off thousands upon thousands of employees and closing beloved studios. If it were up to me, I’d start by culling the need to release games that look like movies and put a greater level of importance on what matters for video games. I’d focus on seeking out interesting new gameplay mechanics, on evolving franchises in new and dynamic ways, and on producing experiences that only video games can deliver.

Much in the same way that Disney’s soulless live-action recreations of its beautiful animated films illustrate the shortcomings of live-action filmmaking and the benefits of animation, cinematic visuals in video games only serve to expose technical shortcomings, rather than elevate the fundamentals of game design. Simply put, we need to stop trying to imitate another medium and instead deliver best-in-class experiences that only today’s exceptionally talented video game developers can create.

What do you think will help save the gaming industry? Leave a comment below and join the conversation now in the ComicBook Forum!

5 MMO Games We Almost Got (And Why They Were Never Made)