You’ve all seen countless Triple-A games go out there and become successes and complete flops.
But what you don’t know is how much danger there is with a model like that.
Triple-A games cost a whole lot of money to make, and developers have to assume that the game will be the best thing ever in order to turn a profit. These days games run for about $60 at a base price, not even counting the DLC that will undoubtedly come into play later on. That’s a good sum of money for a high school student or a college student to drop on one game, thus they have to be choosy with what they choose to buy and play on a daily basis. This makes it so there’s even more pressure on the developers to make their game the next big thing. The logical way to do this would be through innovation, but all it really does is stir up intimidation. It locks developers into a loop where familiarity is key because they don’t want to deviate from a formula that makes good games.
And that is how Call of Duty became the cesspool of angry children that we know today.
If developers stick to making the same game over and over while changing only a few things, the concept starts to get stale, they run out of new features to add in, and eventually, you get Infinite Warfare being bundled with Modern Warfare Remastered as the only way to get the latter. If you want to keep a concept fresh, you have constantly innovate to create better and better experiences with every new release. But considering how hard that is to keep up, Cliff Bleszinski (Gears of War) is saying that a way to do this would be to adopt a model that he calls the double-A development. This is where you take a triple-A game and you tone it down a bit. It’s kind of like performing a lobotomy, you try and see what you can take out and what you can keep in for the game to function normally and for people to like it.
Picking and choosing your battles in an important part of this, you can balance it out and create a game that’s not unlike Rocket League or Warframe. Those games are cheaper, Warframe being free to play, but they’re both still wildly successful games.
So what do I think about all of this information? Well, I think of one brand that should probably adopt this model, Call of Duty.
I talk a lot about CoD here, but this is actually relevant. I’ve said many times before how CoD just needs to slow down, and how it’s good that they’re going back to their roots with their upcoming game, but if they adopted the double-A game method I think that would help them a lot.
If there was a CoD game that came out, and it was so watered down it was basically a running and shooting simulator, that would be great. Well, not exactly a simulator, If they just made a Call of Duty game that only had a multiplayer option that took from the Modern Warfare series I’d probably get that game. I don’t need all the extra BS that they’re stuffing in the game engine until it’s ready to burst, Call of Duty is a simple concept, and the game should be kept simple.
What do you think? Leave a comment and like the post if you did!