Fromsoft games are among the few modern games that actually feel like games instead of interactive movies. They also don't add a lot of padding and/or empty space.
elden ring looks like crap, they didnt even bother making proper kb+m controls as usual but its even worse than their previous games. big ass empty maps, for example in DS3 it was cool to explore, locations had great design with many connections between themselves, here its just ton big empty layers with some crappy items. they didnt even bother making new animations, used tons of old ones. So many bosses are just reskin, alot of dungeons are also just reskin. its also easier than any other Fromsoftware souls game.
Are games like GOW Ragnorok supposed to be put into this criteria too? Because I was more than ok with that game feeling more cinematic. Same thing with Naughty Dog games. I would say they and Santa Monica Studios are the only studios that are making titles that make the most of the large amount of cutscenes and dialogue
Thanks for featuring our video Asmon! Really appreciated your in-depth thoughts and feedback. Would love to hear in the replies to this comment if any of you guys have ideas or suggestions for future topics! 🙌
Would love to see a video about games going against their core, for example how Call of Duty was about soldiers going to war and ended up turning into something different, with super soldier and cibernetic habilities.
Maybe something on the trend of remasters/remakes and the value of different kinds? For example metroid prime remastered is a huge improvement, priced well and adds value. Same with dead space remake. Great content, got a sub from me!
Gamer’s not accepting “you are not the target audience of this game or feature” is a massively under explored topic imo and I am glad to hear you mention it, even briefly.
totally agree with you there. the fact is that when the company was new, they made games for gamers. but as time went on and executives change, they made games for people. the reality is that the target audience has change. It's like the company has change into candy crush but we as gamers keep coming back expecting them to sell the same old stuff.
The problem with that argument is that games from (for example) Ubisoft are designed by committee, focus-tested to the max, and meant to be as uncontroversial as possible to appeal to as many people as possible. As such, it seems more like their games are made for no one.
Thanks for the examples in the replies! A game that doesn’t function on technical level is outside of the target audience discussion, broken games aren’t made for a specific type of player. Forms of scummy monetization aren’t made to benefit players either so I don’t include it in target audience discussion, but I see why others might. I am more speaking to systems or rewards within a game or more generally game genres. I’m assuming as RU-vid commenters on this quite specific topic we are all deeply intrenched in gaming. Sometimes it’s good to just step back and consider other perspectives. Just because I might not want to engage with a game or certain things within a game I enjoy doesn’t negate the fact that there are often people that do enjoy it.
Except that his examples in the video were just incorrect, even if you aren't the target audience you can still judge if a game is good or not. You don't have to be a chef to say if food tastes good, so when he mentions fifa as a good game, it may be a good game individually, but as a series it's literally the same game resold with different players. That is objectively lazy development and a cash grab, especially with the in game gacha systems that make them pay to win. And he was also disingenuous about saying all games are a cash grab, there's a difference between making money and cashgrabbing. Cash grabs are when the game is soley meant for making money, such as gacha games that have virtually nothing to offer but take money from people. Games like elden ring aren't a cash grab, they aren't out to just pick your wallet, you get all the content with the game and a whole new experience that isn't copied from another game.
'Stop talking if you don't want people to talk back' should be the number 1 golden rule of Twitter. But there's too many entitled folk who think their opinion is always correct and therefore if they post a tweet full of nonsense and get called out for it then they're being 'harassed' or 'bullied' 🙄
I've always been a nba2k Player gamer but I heard and saw so much of Elden Ring that I decided to Iry it out. It was so far out my comfort zone. It had me either standing up or on the edge of my seat which games don't really have that feel anymore. I can now say I'm a fan and willing to play future games of from software. It was a big shake up to the gaming industry I'm sure. Look at those sale numbers. Also bruh it brought me here to your channel and probably others that normally wouldn't be here so there's also that.
i think the main reasons i never get bored of gaming is 1) indie games 2) just go back and play the classics you’ve never played before cos just recently i’ve been starting games like dead cells, octopath, professor layton, and other games just cos i’ve never played them before and heard they’re really good games. i’ve also been getting into visual novels recently which means there’s literally a whole new library of games that i have never even touched yet that’s in store for me so basically the best thing to do is to just constantly open the door to new types of games and you will go a really long time before you ever even start to feel like your bored of gaming and maybe even surprise yourself with a new favorite game of all time
@@kesatoria7176 Oh yeah i downloaded those games on gamepass (i think it was the trilogy) the other day thanks for reminding me. i’ve played danganronpa 1, 2 and some of 3 and iirc the zero escape games are also by spike chunsoft right?
The problem with sports games from EA lies with their business practices. They first purchase the rights to the likeness(es) of the players, teams, and league(s). This means no one else can make a competitor, which leads to minimal development between games and 0 options for gamers hoping to play a type of sports game. They essentially have created a mini monopoly within the sports genre.
I see what Asmon is saying but the reality is the sports genre of video games has been stagnant for at least a decade. Common bugs, issues, and noticeable features that should be in the game happen year after year. I may not be the target audience but I sure as hell can see that EA has not put any effort into making their games worth playing.
The saddest thing about Ubisoft is that they made the legendary Prince of Persia trilogy all released on the PS2 in the span of 3 years. You get entire triple AAA games that take 7 years to develop that don't have half the story of a single Prince of Persia game, and they did that three times in 3 years.
@@tdenzel101 Perhaps more money, VFX, Voice Acting. Promotion and advertisement. I think the entry barrier is far lower than before and the dev process is easier than ever. I agree that costs are higher now.
The Answer; All the game devs we loved from our childhood retired a decade ago and the only people left are the soul less children of the modern education system who are incapable of original thought and can only craft increasingly derivative copies of what we used to love.
The marketing with this game actually went hard in late night shows and cable commercials. I remember visiting my parents and they were watching the walking dead, I saw 3 ER commercials while I was there.
True, but they usually add their own opinions and takes so I find it interesting, if you don't enjoy it too why are you watching still? It seems like you've watched many of them, so if your tired of it stop watching. You have that power lol. Some people just can't put down their phone, and they have to watch every single video even if they aren't enjoying it. Then they go to the comments to say how much they aren't enjoying it. Like why? Just go somewhere else
I'd go as far as to say this has been the case with the lack of decent aaa games even around when ds1 was released. I found out about that game by mere chance and at a time when I was so bored of games in general. When I played ds1 it awoke something in me I thought long gone. There was real consequence for dying. Which made the victories even greater. Boss battles felt like a genuine obstacle to overcome. And stunning visuals and storytelling made it so the basic character creation and basic combat wasn't even a big deal at all. Dark souls made me actually BELIEVE that games could be made great again.
I think the major issue is that they come out with these big titles make it look cool as shit and then they expect the developing team to get it done in a month without really knowing what the game is even about. Like I mean a month is a bit exaggerated but it mind as well be a week
It's not about making new assassin's creed games that is the problem, it's more about it being the same gameplay wise. Look at final fantasy, people don't really say that square enix's releasing the same game over and over again (some would even argue that it's suffering from making too many changes sometimes). If ubisoft made the same amount of changes they made between AC1 and AC2, or between Syndicate and Origins, but every time, nobody would argue that it's the same game.
I'm a core fan of ac. I don't even mind the whole idea that the gameplay loop was always very similar, exploring, missions, collecting etc ... If the story and and environment were compelling then that was more than enough for me. The problem is instead they decided to introduce a new formula that destroyed the game. Adding massive RPG elements, dropping a lot of the ac overall theme and interesting philosophy that came with it. They made it very generic.
This, and also that the other IPs are too similar to the AC formula on top of it. Far Cry and Watchdogs aren't too dissimilar to a series that already repeats itself. And it worked surprisingly long that way...
fromsoft is possibly the best modern day example of a decently big studio sticking to making good games. Even the fact they're going for an armoured core game rather than elden ring 2 shows that their priority is creating what they think is a good game instead of milking cash cows whenever they can. Heck, they literally made a VR GAME knowing that it wouldn't sell well, they still made it cuz the goal is to make good games. At this point I genuinely don't even consider playing any new ubisoft/blizzard/ea.
True, while I personally find most of the souls-like games to be kinda boring and just not very fun, I could always see that Fromsoft has always put effort into making their games good, and I am looking forward to seeing how this Armoured Core gameplay is since it will be my first AC game.
@@bloodthirst2ez fair enough. If it's combat that you find boring in souls games then i'd encourage you to try out sekiro. But yeah Armoured core will be my first too and i'm not too big on mechas but I'm optimistic.
It's always depening on each individual taste. Like me, I like playing Dark Souls, Elden Ring etc., but I also really like Assassins Creed, because it's exactly those settings I love and I wish I would see more often. I mean, at least with Souls-like I do and I'm looking forward to games like Lies of P, but there isn't anything like Assassins Creed regarding the historical setting. I mean, ok there is Kingdom Come and some old games like Knights of the Temple, but that's it. I mean, I'm not that hyped about Assassins Creed Mirage, but for the next after that, because I prefer a japanese setting over some desert stuff.
or rather one of the only studios left that hasn't been consumed by soulless corporatism. Mostly because the head is a certified gamer and not some nameless b*s*nessman
@@bloodthirst2ez Sad to break it to you, but Armored Core gameplay is the same Souls gameplay. All FromSoftware games have the same type of gameplay, even before they became famous, with King's Glave and older Armored Core games.
“But then elden ring came out” Fucking exactly man. Elden ring gave me hope that there will still be games in the future that make me feel like I’m a kid again, discovering a new world and having a great and memorable adventure.
It really was a breath of fresh air. I remember wonder if maybe my expectations were messed up. That I had just been gaming too long - been there done that. Maybe things had always been this way but as a kid you just dont care and I had become the jaded old man. Then Elden Ring came out - “No, its not me its the industry.”
@@mooddd2684 Indies are great. Outer Wilds is still my all time favorite. The difference is Elden Ring had mass market appeal. It “proved” that good games was not limited to the indie market.
@@mooddd2684 interesting that you couldn’t name one of the many “great games” you claim are out there. I’m not a nice person so you can go fuck yourself. I made a nice fucking comment and you took time out of your day to shit on it because you are a fucking low life piece of scum. Fucking loser go get a fucking job.
@@wintermintmojo2418 bro incredible games come out every damn year. God of war ragnarok, Spider-Man, the last of us, resident evil 7/8/2/3, final fantasy 7 remake. There’s so many good games lmao what a joke
To me it sometimes feels like this is not just about AAA games. It's about western companies in general. Like a lot of them really used to give a great product to the customer with great quality. But something changed in the last decades. Companies somehow changed their focus from selling a great product to just maximizing their profit. They started to reduce quality and fire a lot of smart people who would regularly bring new innovation and instead they filled their companies with managers. And these managers are just there to maximize profits for their shareholders and themselves. That's all. Instead of creating good products (I know there are still lots of good products from western companies but they are slowly losing their quality) they went to just increase marketing and implement a bunch of bullshit features (planed obsolescence, ingame-shops, ..) to gerade more money out of the customers. And by doing that they started to lose focus on what they are producing and what made them so good in the first place. Western Game company did and are doing this until today, they don't give a shit about their games. They just want your money. Meanwhile Japanese companies are a different story. It seems like CEOs of a lot of Japanese companies are living for their products. Like take Nintendo for example. They make a lot of mistakes but they always ensure that the player gets an awesome experience. They don't do shit like Microtransactions and instead give you good gameplay. As far as I know the CEO of Nintendo even lowered his own salary when Nintendo made losses. You can literally see that they care for their games. A lot of their important managers are the inventors of the great titles you love. Like Shigeru Miyamoto who created Zelda. He is the head of the development section of Nintendo. Not some idiot who don't give a fuck about anything but numbers. A person who knows the game and loves it. And I think the same goes for From Software. They invented Dark Souls and whole new genre. And until today they keep on incrementally enhancing the Souls experience. They don't care for maximal profits and making the game more accessible. Because they know who their fans are and they know what they love: A hard but rewarding game. And thus they created Elden Ring which started as just a successor for Dark Souls but instead became a world wide success. Not because they implemented the perfect graphics or added fuckin' Keanu Reeves into their game. And not by making it easier so that every idiot can play it. No, they just enhanced the formular they knew was great and added a bunch of great features to it. I don't think they ever planned for it to become such a success, they just perfected their game for their own niche and when people realized how great it is they started playing and loving it. Instead of making their game more accessible, fans had to adapt if they wanted to be successful in Elden Ring. And I think this is what made it so great. It's not some soulless AC where every idiot can beat it with their eyes closed. No, if you made it and beat a boss, you felt like a goddamn god. And this is the feeling that makes game good. It's the reason why people do sports and train hard every day to become better. To challenge themselves and beat something you thought was unbeatable. And that's something that is just lacking in western games. You don't feel like a master if you beat them, you feel like the younger brother who just pressed some buttons on a disconnected controller while your older brother did the work for you.
You would never accept the real answer, which is that this was caused by diversity. When you don't have any shared values with your fellow countrymen, you don't care to provide them a great product, only to make as much money as possible.
Mario odessy or Zelda ToTk or breath of the wild aren't particularly difficult games. But they are arguably way more successful than Eldena ring. At least sales wize. U can make a game for the masses. But u have to know what ur doing.
The amount of corporate hogwash in media in general feels pretty crappy. It makes even the slightly better than average stick out and the really good things become masterpieces. I also think it's just a matter of something new, so many things are just rehashes of old franchises but worse. The constant remakes of old games, old shows, old movies, etc. but often take all the love out of them (more on the side of shows/movies than games). Games are more on the side of repeated formulaic mechanics and heavily monetized.
Its the same reason why outer wilds is such a timeless masterpiece. The game oozes soul, sorrow and joy at all times, lets the player be themselves and just lets you enjoy the experience
@@dailynews5683 yeah, its not the kind of game that you recommend to everyone. But to me it was one of the most unique games i played just becuse of the approach they took. You dont level up, you gain information. Its very cool concept that very few games try, nd even fewer succed. They actualy createe nice mysteries and let us find them out without being scared of us not being able to solve them.
@@Stealth86651 I'm almost certain you are refering to simulators, but man did I just have a good laugh at the sentence "Reminds me of some more hardcore games I play like sims", imagining a guy sweating his ass off while designing a new three story condo and garden in Sunset Valley for his family of four.
Hahaha, I loved Asmon's "EW, WTF?" expression when the guy in the video went from burned steak to legitimately delicious ham. Dude loves his cheap and overcooked steak too much, haha.
80/20 rule is also called the pareto principle, business and EHS management use its corresponding diagrams to help solve multiple problems by focusing on only a couple issues. I'm not sure if it works too well for video games though. This is more for consistent Quality, Enviornmental impacts, and safety issues.
One thing people seem to not realize is all the devs, people etc. who made those legendary AAA games are no longer in those studios anymore. Take a look at call of duty for example, everyone complains that call of duty is not the same as the legendary Modern warfare and Modern warfare 2 from back in the days, but if they took an hour of their time and watch credits they would realize those people who worked on those games have been gone for a while, the 2 masterminds behind call of duty modern warfare from inifinity ward were fired 1 month after the release of the OG MW2 by Activision CEO who betrayed them in a disgusting fashion and they went on and created Respawn Entertainement and made Titanfall and Titanfall 2.
I really hope that Elden Ring gets a worthy successor with the same game principles. open word exploration, bonfires, soulslike mechanics, dark epic ore maybe beautifull epic cinematic world, find new weapons and stuff. That's my dream.
"Maybe the games that some of you are shitting on was just not made for you" THE MOST SENSIBLE THING ASMON HAS EVER SAID. I have more respect for him now!
Yea, which is why I don’t play games like elden ring. It’s not my type of game. I find it unenjoyable. So I stick with story games like GOW or Uncharted where I find my enjoyment.
That last part didn't make sense considering elden ring is a heavy story driven game not many cut scenes but it has a very deep story as with all the souls games.
@@tdenzel101 it’s not really a story that interests me tho. That’s mostly why I don’t like it. Also the game is very hard, and I get frustrated easily. So mix that with the uninteresting story makes me not want to play. That’s just me tho.
I don't know. "It's not made for you" is one of those ridiculous things Hollywood actors say when any criticisms is made of their content. We need a better phrase.
I feel like we just need new studios to pop up and aren't controlled by a large corporation, I feel like games got more and more samesy after studios started getting bought up until half of the games are owned by the same company making all the same decisions.
>We gamers are tired of Ubisoft games >Their games are literally having record breaking sales for their series Can someone please reconcile these two things?
It's just the some people who say nobody cares about Assassin's Creed Odyssey and Valhalla even though they are the best selling Assassin's Creed games.
Content creators are a very small minority of the gaming community but the average joe working 9-5 and wants to turn their brain off when they get home are the silent majority.
@@DouglasQuaid999 but Ubisoft games aren't even enjoyable to relax with. All this bad design constantly annoys me, I can't turn off my brain and enjoy it.
Something people forget we're really really small compared to the actual gaming landscape. Gta5 made 180 million sales over its 10 years life time. Minecraft have almost that many players playing every month. Candy crush has 280 million players every month. Even AAA games are pretty small compared to the actual landscape, and you want them to appeal to you, who specifically like games that only sold 1 or 2 million units at most? That's what asmon meant by target market at the end there.
Good ol' rage bait. It's especially funny to hear these dudes complain about formulaic games while these videos are always exactly the same shallow bullshit.
I don't think they played games back in the day. The fact is, games have gotten continually better over time Some games suck now, as opposed to the majority of games sucking back in the day.
@@nicholassullivan1239 people don't remember having to wait months for a new n64 game. n64 had 400 games... the switch has over 4k games. You are going to find shit
Elden Ring is indeed formulaic to FromSoft's formula, but FromSoft's formula is so different from everyone ELSES formula that it felt pretty damn fresh with them trying the Open World design with some of thier own tweaks, some that were massive hits and others that in retrospect could've done with alot more polish. But that experience felt fresh, it felt like an experiment. Bethesda, UbiSoft etc. world design is very... Predictable. Because we have seen it for nearly 2 decades now. If FromSoft made Elden Ring 2, or if the (most likely) coming DLC doesn't have some new tweaks, it too will feel formulaic and a bit stale in comparison to baseline Elden Ring. I would assume we're going to see some cool use of the vertical space even more so than base game (think of things like the first DS2 dlc's elevator pillars) and I will be sorely dissapointed if there aren't some refreshing surprises to where stuff is hidden and so on.
Man this is very true. It’s like fromsoft is using the same building material to create an Empire State Building, a Roman colosseum and a Taj Mahal. But then Ubisoft is creating identical apartment buildings with different coats of paint.
@@JDisclmd That's... The point I was making. Dark Souls type of world design, but translated to a fully open world instead of large, intricate levels, made for an extremely unique first playthrough. However, just like how the Souls' games suffer from the issue of loot not being random (hence why Randomizers can be a pretty fun experience, making you actually fully explore everything on a new playthrough), so does Elden Ring. 90% of the open world is useless on repeat playthroughs because you already know where everything you want for your build is, making everything else a pointless timewaste. The size of Elden Ring compounds this issue, as the downtime between bosses in Dark Souls if you run past the enemies is usually pretty low (espescially post-DS1), so while the entire playthrough is way way faster, your downtime remains very low. Meanwhile in Elden Ring, you can be running for over 10-15 minutes going from one mandatory boss to another, as you know everything else is pointless time waste once you got the items you want. Dark Souls 3's DLC's suffered massively from this same issue aswell, much more so than the base game, due to thier scale and low amount of boss encounters for said playspace.
People gotta stop fellating Elden Ring. It's sick already. It's open world Dark Souls with the same combat, 80% of the open world is useless, and it looks horrendous.
@thunderborn3231 This is why you can't take these youtubers and reviewers seriously, they contradict themselves quite often. Reaction content especially
I've found myself playing a lot more games developed by smaller studios lately. I've recently found myself playing a lot of Satisfactory. It feels so good to play a game without a bunch of micro transactions and I love the feeling of knowing I can earn everything in the game myself, not just buy it.
I’m a bit confused about the revenue list talking about game uniqueness. Isn’t elden ring technically similar to the dark souls franchise? It’s just bigger with a few different features…which all other similar games tend to do. Like the sports games where they add new features every year bladdyblah. Idk I could be wrong and I’ve never played a souls game or elden ring, but the similarities are there
The argument here is why would Ubisoft get butt hurt about Elden ring not following this “formula” when it seems like elden ring is because of the past dark souls releases…to me the problem is the amount of releases that Ubisoft is taking under these same titles such as the assassins creed formula. There obviously have not been as many titles under the dark souls formula than AC formulas. That’s their issue, but to call elden ring it’s own original is a bit strange
Yes, but the same exact studio made games like sekiro and armored core, which are incredibly different from the souls “formula” and arguably even BETTER, which you can’t say for the studio that makes say CoD or madden
Man... who would have thought that releasing a game that isn't bug-ridden and stuck in Early access forever and actually has all the features that they have promised the game would have at launch.... would do well?!... holy shit! this is truly a mindblowing strategy!... DAMN! why haven't anyone thought of this before?!
I think Hogwarts Legacy is the fine line between creativity, and doing what sells. It has all the Ubisoft busy stuff all over the map, but at the same time has creative ways to use spells to solve puzzles, and interesting yet simple combat.
@@EntitySteel Yeah but nobody is going to punish you if you ignore all the boring bullshit, you don't need 100% completionist to enjoy a game. Just being in the world and seeing all the things you can do and the npcs interact with each other makes me think that the people working on this really cared and wanted to make something good and they succeeded. Some people like having some busywork to do as well it seems, cz this formula keeps being used in the majority of open-world games now. As Asmon said not all content is there specifically for you or me. I just skip most shit on the map if i think it's not something fun and continue to explore and take in the view.
@@Arkanna96 The problem is none of the content is enjoyable. It's all handholding. I genuinely don't see what people gain from this game that they couldn't gain from just rewatching the harry potter movies or reading the harry potter wiki.
@@EntitySteel I did not say it was challenging, but that being said I don't think a game needs to be hard in order to be fun, if you don't like just walking around in a beautifully designed world it's cool, I personally like just exploring the school and surroundings on foot and looking at things and listening to npcs interact with each other. It feels alive and it feels like the devs cared enough to put multiple interactions in the game so they don't just instantly start repeating. I like how the world notices that you're there, the monsters in the vivariums come and look at you quizzically, the other npcs talk to you when you pass by them in the hallway, the gargoyle statue that complains about everything, the howlers some students get and the weird stuff they get scolded for, the awkward interactions I had with npcs when i used polyjuice potion and looked like the headmaster (which you didn't need for the quest but I talked to everyone it would let me talk to cz I found it funny). Can't interact with the world if i just watched the movie, I find it fun just feeling like I'm part of it. The gameplay is meh, the story kinda basic, but the world imo is amazing and that really was the part I was hoping they get right.
I've been saying it for years ever since I started delving into indie games on my Xbox360. The indie scene is going to lead us to the best age of gaming we've ever seen. There's a reason the indies are thriving right now, and there's a reason bigger developers are starting to release more indie-like games with the help of smaller developers. That reason is because indies are where most of the creativity and fresh ideas are now. We're getting there. Just wait and watch. 👍
@@niallrussell7184 pretty much. A bunch of the studios i loved got absorbed by big corpos and then had the creativity sucked out of them. Our only hope is that with the advent of better and more available/affordable engines and tools, indi devs will be able to develop higher quality games without the involvement of big investment groups that are allergic to risk and thus, allergic to creativity.
@@xblade11230depends honestly because for some reason people go red with rage if AI is used for anything other than obvious AI functions like being a chatbot. I watched a vid about an adventure game by a small team that was good "except for some AI art" and the whole comment section was having a fit about how it would ruin gaming so who knows lmao
Asmon saying "but _Fifa and Madden are bought by a lot of people, therefore they are great_ games"... has the same energy as "but _a lot of people bought Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey, therefore they are top tier books_ dude" LMAO
13:49 I agree 100%. The current assassins creed games (Origin, Odyssey, Valhalla) aren't "Assassins creed" games IMO. They might have the AC title but in its bones its a different game. Its closer to something like The Witcher 3 than it is to Assassins creed games that came before. Thats why I'm excited for the new AC game that is supposedly going back to its roots. Finally we will have an assassins creed game about being an assassin and not some guy that needs to level up to kill enemies because the game will no longer be an RPG but a stealth game like it was supposed to be.
I wish I could make the entire world understand that AC has only gotten better. Ezio's games aged terribly and going back to them today anyone would see how much better AC has gotten.
@@MisterPotats so you would say that valhalla is a great AC game, even though the only thing about assassins in that game is basim, some destroyed hideouts and modern day storyline, and that's it. We literally never even become an assassin. As a game, valhalla is relatively good, but as an assassin's creed title it's very lacking.
Those examples didn't actually feature the pareto principle though. One example had "20%" mentioned in it, but not in relation to pareto. It was just saying to allocate time for people to be creative, but didn't factor in the 80/20 rule at all.
i agreed on that comment you said from 20:25 to 20:35 because not every game needs to be set to certain people's expectations. you can play cod, mk 8, fifa, sonic fontiers and a huge number of other games and the player can enjoy the games they want to play.
I had a compulsion to kill the tree sentinel 🤣 I died like 40 times and when I got him I was so elated I made a fist and screamed names at him. This was yesterday and only now can I actually start playing
The problem with the whole get good phrase. Is that the casual players can’t or aren’t willing to spend 6 to 8 hours a day for a week just to get good at a video game. I work for about 10 to 12 hours a day and with household chores and personal relationships. I usually only get maybe around 5 or 6 hours a week to play games. I still enjoy playing games and am willing to put in the work to play a game. But many people like me just don’t have a shit load of fee time to learn all the hacks and work arounds. To beat a boss
Maybe a lot of people don't want to have a totally new feeling and don't want to have to relearn controls? Maybe a new story, new graphics and new characters are all it takes for players to be excited and comfortable at the same time?
That's partially true, games can be wildly successful via formula, but to literally blow up like Elden ring or baldurs gate it does take innovation and change. And can you imagine if we were still watching black and white silent films today? That formula worked so why should they change it? Maybe a lot of people don't want to hear the sounds of the film. You get wheee I'm going with this?
I think your take on "maybe the game just isn't for you" is spot on. It's not just saying some best-selling game is terrible though--it's also the attitude that you're not a "real gamer" or you have "terrible taste" if you don't like some game like Elden Ring. Elden Ring is not my kind of game. I don't like action melee games, nor do I like sports games, nor do I like bullet hell games, nor do I like platforming games. I admit I have a pretty picky attitude :)
I don't think it's a good take tbh. Yes, there are these people, but that doesn't mean criticism is always because of this attitude. This is too often used as an excuse for games that are just bad. There are a lot of games from AAA studios that tanked in sales even though the games market is bigger than ever and has more normies than ever. And then Elden Ring and God of War come and swipe the floor from them, there has to be a reason. And I think it's people still like games, that try to genuinely give a good user experience and developers that don't try to squeeze every last cent from users through microtransactions and such.
@@Paulo27 no, asmon exactly right put fifa as example because up to 90% peoples that buy sports game didn't buy other games at all. That's why he put it as "It's not for you" category, because these types of game aren't sale for their improvements over last installment. These games are for types of people that I call "people who play game because there's free time in between lifestyle, not people who allocate their time, free up schedule to solely play game". These types of game are perfect for them because they can pick up the game and play it anytime they want, and not need much commitment in time and mind focus to play it. And it's good game to use as "normie" media to socialize with each other on couch together. And it's permeate to others triples A games because it's harder to keep up with gamers standard overtime, that's why more triples A game becoming more easier and accessible to normal peoples because it's easier to make overall.
@@aaronclay4665 nope, you have choice of NOT BUYING IT AT ALL. If product not profitable then eventually they stop making it. It may be shocking for you but these sport game aren't for sports nerd like you. So yeah, you're not target audience is right reason asmon use in this case
@@currantew7519 shtty chinese moba lol ripoff. It's exactly as i said, but I don't really care the game that much because I'm having fun with my friends playing it. That's why I like watching salt rider stream and russianbadger yt vids, because any game can be fun if you fooling around with friends, even if it's bad game. I'm also play uno, solitaire, and minesweeper. If you ask for "game" i play, it's deep rock galactic and monster hunter. Gonna buy hogwarts legacy soon
Capcom and Square Enix haven't disappointed me. The Monster Hunter games are probably the best gaming franchise I've ever played. They rarely disappoint. Such a simple formula, hunt monsters for materials, make cool weapons and armor. Setup skills for your preferred weapons and play styles.
Square Enix RPGs always release all these small games for their diehard niche audience. It's all dependent on director and how much they can tell upper management to fck off
In addition to the "game may not be made for you", every year a whole new set of gamers are born that never played a Ubisoft/EA Sports game. When they get into gaming and the latest iteration of some game you're tired of seeing appear yet again, is new to them.
asmon really is a good guy for featuring a youtuber with smaller sub count hope the exposure helps its crazy what one asmon reacts can do for a channel
There’s a pretty human reason that these types of games are safe and sell well, which is habit. People buy a lot of things out of habit because it makes the decision process a lot easier. Habits give safety and people form even more habits, routines and rituals around things they know and interact with regularly. Games are designed around specific habits and routines as well (UI/UX, combat etc.). Franchises are great for this because they usually don’t change these or only do it incrementally over a long time which gives people more safety and less to contemplate than games that require new/different habits. How habitual a person is depends on a bunch of factors but most people are in one way or another. Games aren’t without “soul” (whatever that is supposed to mean) they’re the designed around the financial stability of catering to those consumers. Sometimes they even do more ambitious projects but those probably aren’t cash cows right away and are the first to be axed during economic downturn.
So gamers that care about quality have to suffer because a mouth-breather buys the annual release of a sports game or Call of Duty habitually? It's no wonder AAA studios are making bank without putting in any effort.
@@omgitsfrosty4888 You’re assuming that quality is in any way related to whether something is a franchise or not. Something can be a bad game irrespective of whether it’s a franchise, a AAA game or an indie game. You’re also making the rather dubious assumption that some genres and styles of games are inherently more valuable than others, which is something that can’t be objectively proven. Under current market conditions, certain games simply don’t sell.
@@4.1132 I'm not really assuming, regardless of game budget or genre; game companies will see that a half-baked low effort game will still sell like hot cakes, so why should they bother spending money on developing a good experience? If people would stop 'habitually' buying this stuff, they would be forced to innovate.
@@omgitsfrosty4888 You do realize that most of these games are still quite expensive and resource intensive to make, mostly due to the cost of labor. Granted that has waned over the years. Also pray tell what exactly do you want them to innovate? Most innovation is incremental not radical and the innovation that does happen, doesn’t necessarily affect the quality of the game. Nevermind that most mechanics are basically just a remix of the same stuffs that’s been around for decades. Doesn’t make it less enjoyable but it’s certainly not new. Low quality is largely related to less quality management and less testing, shorter life cycles, market saturation, business consolidation and increased competition. But hell if you want to believe that ordinary consumers are killing gaming or whatever, go right ahead. But please do it somewhere else.
20% is pretty abstract. One thing I've seen that works better is that the year is 52 weeks long, but that's 12*4+4. So give people those extra 4 weeks *as* the "do something self-directed to help the company" time. That's only 7% time, but having the whole week in a row makes stuff easier to justify than a nebulous 20%.
“Most AAA games feel copy-pasted” But Elden Ring is too? Don’t get me wrong it’s not a bad game, but the argument would have made sense without the context of Elden Ring. Because quite literally, FromSoftware makes the same souls-like game. The real reason Elden Ring is so good is because the game challenges it’s players rather than holding their hand like a toddler. Ultimately it is why Elden Ring feels like a breath of fresh air, because the game is derivative to other AAA games.
Elden ring and dark souls 3 are way more different from each other than the last 2 assassins creed games, I get where ur coming from tho. Similar formula but still a lot more differences than people are willing to give it credit for
3:40 yep that was me. I was so scared of playing souls games but when I heard the hype of elden ring I decided to give it a try. it is now in my top 3 games of all time that I love
Games like Elden Ring, Hogwarts Legacy, Final Fantasy 7 Remake, No Man's Sky, Batman: Arkham Asylum...these are AAA games that felt like they had all the soul in them that their development teams could give. They felt like labors of love, of passion, of wanting to create something great. And I enjoyed the heck out of them all. Assassin's Creed used to represent a series I started out enjoying tremendously. The original is still pretty meaningful, but playing it outside of PC or on PS3/360 is a difficulty in itself (least with the new Xbox units they do have 360 compatibility in mind). AC2, on the other hand...that was where you could tell things kicked up to an 11. Even though it had two sequels come out, they worked because they built up the protagonist AND the story he was a part of in regards to the previous game. Despite the 3rd game having its share of haters, I enjoyed it a LOT. AC4 was where things began to taper off...and I started caring less about the modern storyline and more about just going into the past. Each entry afterward began to feel more like they were just starting to get slapped together and I just wanted to run through the modern parts to get back to the historical ones. A couple of years ago, I had a chance to get AC Origins and Odyssey both for a dirt cheap price and I decided to see how things played out. I enjoyed them well enough, and Valhalla was alright. But they didn't feel like games I wanted at launch, and not for $60. $10-20, on the other hand...that was a lot more palpable and I felt like I got my money's worth then. Mirage is just another chapter that has me feeling like waiting for the sale. Ubisoft games lately have felt like that (among Far Cry, Assassin's Creed, Watch Dogs, etc). And if the modern story continues to be trash, I'll prefer to just continue on to the historical bits.
Tbh ever since the guy in 3 died, I felt AC series became lost. They really need to focus on the storytelling of the modern world instead of making it feel so spread out. That's why there's no interest currently with the modern world. It's made me lose interest in their overall story because they no longer tie together. It's just history with a modern twist. AC 1 and 2 was so interesting because it tied history into how it affected their present and what their ancestors had to do with the current story. I really missed AC2 when you could actually build your own city and shop in it. Now new titles is littered with dlc passes where you buy skins with money.
@@ltheelementalflowl well yeah, 3 was the first game post "wait, scrap your plans, we're turning this into a yearly franchise". Iirc AC was originally supposed to be a trilogy
@Superlative Tbh they really screwed up the sequels so bad, I was hoping for another MC, not this random character going back in history stuff. They need to tie it back to Desmond and not just go back into history for the sake of it. Like how Templars are taking over the world. They probaby just need a game where it has nothing to do with history and more of this is what we're doing to address the Templar problem. There is no attachment to the modern characters currently and 0 character development. Like what have the original crew been up to since Desmond. The way 3 ended was such a bad take on storytelling bc they realized they can just rinse and repeat history with a modern take. It added 0 to the story and just played off of the 2012 end of the world meme. AC3 really got lazy with their story telling.
For the last 2 years, I've struggled to find any kind of enjoyment logging into the games I played over the last 15 years. Most of the time when I login I just sit there and try to get motivated and end up just logging out and doing something else so I made a decision that I would get to level 70 on my main in dragonflight and retire from gaming and treat RL like a game with skills to level up.
Asmon: "Elden Ring and every other game other than Sekiro are a joke." Says the man who struggled for hours fighting almost every boss because he'd only jump attack lol
I simply miss the time when you had no idea what to expect of a game and be amazed by its uniqueness. Today executive game producers are out of touch with the life itself, not to mention their vision of a game project idea is less and less original
Oddly enough, I love the pokemon games, and the ones I was LEAST interested in, were the ones that tried to change things up too much. The past few games I completely skipped, because I just didn't like the large changes to the formula. BUT, I loved games like Pokemon Tower, etc. Where they took the franchise an entirely different route.
The 80/20 rule in game industry doesn't make any sense, you can't create AAA game on your own, there has to be a goal that every worker aims at. Otherwise you will end up with 100 assets to different games.
true and real. I just hope that they won't get corrupted by the western influence, because Square Enix already started spiraling down the greedy hole with Marvel trash and now *Un*spoken.
@@v33nod3 Oh I know it is. I 100%'d Chained Echoes and had not a single gripe with it. Not easy to pull that off. I'm not saying others will agree, but from a big JRPG fan I found it outstanding.
Personally I just liked Forbidden West more than Elden Ring. Elden Ring def deserved Game of the Year more, but I just love the whole robot animals and picking off specific parts during combat, I liked the story much more, and the graphics in that game are second to none imo. I felt there was plenty of "world building" which is something Elden Ring fans love to champion which is fine but personally I don't really like that as the main vehicle of story telling. I like a good mix of that and being "spoon fed" a story.
i agree, it's hard to care about worldbuilding unless i care about the characters or plot in that world, or else it's just like reading a wikipedia page of a story lol
I honestly consider that Elden Ring is a sequel as well. It's got a new name and story, but the core game play is very similar to the souls games that came before it. Modern Warfare 2 is a really big marketing mistake. Even someone like Asmon think it's just a remake of the old MW2. When in fact it is a completely new game with all new story. It's more MW 1.5, the story takes place between MW1 and MW2. But you wouldn't know that by looking at the title.
16:11 Mass Effect!.... I slept on the 1st one for a couple of years just from the box art, front and back..... Played 1 and it was the the best game I had ever played by far!!! They did amazing with 2 and 3 They can VERY easily bring back that IP to success if Bio had a good team behind it Mass Effect 1 was incredible back in the day! SO MUCH DEPTH
I slept on the games too but quite loved the series. It's some of my favorites, connected with me more than other space epics like Halo but I'm not big on first person shooters so that's likely why
I loved mass effect 1, spent an enormous time just reading the log entries to learn how things worked because the world was that investing. Like why the guns in 1 had infinite ammo was because they'd break off a tiny little piece off a block of material in the gun, like an atoms worth, and use a mini mass effect drive to accelerate it into a projectile. 2 bored the absolute shit out of me so much so I didn't even wanna play 3. I dodged that bullet there were memes after it came out with 3 explosions but they were all different colors representing that the endings ypu choose didn't matter. I couldn't customize weapons to make a 1 shot sniper or an AR that shot pretty much infinitely and didn't overheat. There were a total of about 3 guns the whole game. It was just go collect a rag tag team to fight the big bad guy again, weapons have magazines now, that part still erks me because 2 years passed time wise since the first game...how were all these weapons manufactured, distributed, and how did they convinced people these are better through the entire known universe WHAT?.
People have problems with interactive "Movies" but I don't. I don't think there's anything wrong with that type of gaming aslong as you know what your getting into. If the game ends up being quality and tells a great story, it's perfectly fine. If you don't like it, Just don't play it. Every game isn't for every person
Problem with interactive movies is at some point, they aren't "games" anymore. They are precisely what you said they are, movies you can interact with. The issue is that companies are selling people who want to play games these movies. It should be branded as interactive movies and not video games. That way people are not fooled or confused and those that want to play have a more clear idea on what to buy. Japan for example, though visual novels fall under the category of games, they come under their own genre so people know that it's an interactive novel. There are entire full blown RPG systems hidden in some but are still branded visual novel as reading is what you would be doing a majority of your time.
I love how he only showed gameplay from AC games prior to AC Origins and WDL to point out formulaic Ubi gameplay but elden ring reusing assets and animations left and right and still absolutely feeling like all the other soulslikes but with a bigger world, we don't talk about that, no one could ever get sick of soulslikes
@@rosurobosu8546 bosses having more position based moves and branching movesets, forcing the player to be more mindful of where they put them selves when a boss does certain things, dodge rolls alone won't carry you through the entire game anymore.
Remember, if you see AAA games new releases that contained "FPS Shooter", "Live Services" Made (or Partnered) by "Blizzard", "Ubisoft", "Electronic Arts", " Activision" or "Bethesda" *Avoid.*
The success of ER is just confusing to me; if it's for you, that's fine, I just don't get it. It feels so linear, with one simple loop albeit done very well. For me, I like a more comprehensive game world: historical lore with a compelling, ongoing narrative to engage with; a living world with characters, events, culture, conflict, and believable day to day life; character development with a range of opportunities to become who you want to be and establish your place in the world. Honestly, the last really good version of this I've seen was Skyrim. Still struggling to replicate the experience.
Skyrim set the bar in open world rpgs as much as people dont want to admit Skyrim is better than morrowind in aging. Not even Witcher 3 went as deep outside of story and combat. Elden Ring is like a wasteland, good on the first run, never changes though. Its best for exploration, combat, and lore.
It's also important to point out that simply making a sequel to a game isn't the issue. The issue arises when it's a hollow sequel. Dark souls, dark souls 2, dark souls 3, yes, they're sequels. They're also well made and have substance
Ubisoft has to really nail Mirage, it's the perfect game for them to just let the devs who are passionate let their creativity go wild. It's small and a proper AC game where they can absolutely flush out the stealth mechanics and the story but if they just do what they've been doing so far then Mirage will be the final nail in the coffin for Ubisoft.
I think there was confusion on Sonic belonging on the list of top 20 games. You can't disagree with what the other youtuber stated, as he's correct. He said "Every game is a continuation of the same IP", but what I think he meant to say is "Every game is a continuation of the same game" as gamers often use IP in that context. Asmon's argument was correct in the sense that while Sonic is an IP, the games are not clones of eachother since it's a universe/lore and not a confined genre of game whereas Madden NFL will always be Madden NFL with little to no changes.
The thing on assassin's Creed for me is the fact that in my own experience saw the growth from where it came, the gameplay evolution starting from the prince of persia games on ps2, then on ps3 came AC1, which at first started out as a prince of persia: assassin game, then til black flag on every game there was something new and you noticed the development growing. then after unity they took the generic RPG route and made it the way it is now, and that style now overshadows the great games in the series, and ppl think all of them are alike. then again i'm sure alot of ppl can have counter opinions, this is how i look at the AC series now
I believe the problem is that these big companies think they have a fail proof formula for making games and they just take or add small things with each new entry (sadly, mostly take) to make them seem fresh. Devs like Fromsoft keep the basis, but try different things with each game.
"What is happening to the studios we loved?" Morons are rewarding them for bad behaviour and sub standard products continuously, by throwing money at them for shit. So why would they change/improve? That's what's happening.
Work from home was a Pants Off Dance Off and all the investors got a haircut from the Short Sales. -Franklin's Agency Pay Phone Hits, GTA Online. Stormfront tried to do the same thing with storm troopers
On giving ubisoft a fair shake I'm not a fan of most of their stuff but fenyx rising was a breath of fresh air. Basically 'breath of the wild' in greek fantasy land with dad jokes. Open world, but far tighter than ubisoft usually does. But that then shows the issue. It was good and fresh *because* it was different to what they usually churn out. I hope they take a lot of lessons from it and make sequels and more like it, but it seems more cult-status than wide hit unfortunately.
Honestly, I don't understand how people liked that game. It was basically BotW but bad. Ubi took a great idea and slapped all their shit on it. You still follow icons on the map. Only difference is you have to slowly pan your camera for them to appear. I maybe wrong here but I remember it having incremental gear score garbage as well. I would recommend Genshin Impact for the BotW like feel tbh.
The issue is entirely derived from management, as someone who knows multiple devs from various companies and as a student game developer myself, no one at the dev level wants to put lootboxes or paid battlepasses in theit games, at least they don't think about it untill they fully flesh out the ideas with the gameplay, mechanics and interractions. You see this with indie studios, they create banger games with minimal or absolute 0 monetization which they put in as an afterthought or a way to support the devs (deep rock galactic, vampire survivors, outer wilds, etc) As soon as a corporate level gets introduced, the focus shifts to making everything profitable, which loses sight of what makes games successful, that being how fun or entertaining they are
With that said, the division 2 is one of my favorite games from the recent AAA era, it is truly one of the ubisoft bangers that came out of the blue and was/is a great game, shame they support it very little due to it's low monetization
Creativity doesn’t make money in the short term* Formulaic products make money- but those products grow stale and companies with zero room for creativity fall apart. Maybe they don’t go bankrupt, but executives come and go through a revolving door, devs move to other studios, new projects are thrown into a wood chipper of mismatched contractor workflows, etc…
I think people are also forgetting that Elden Ring was released during the pandemic when everyone was stuck inside and had nothing else to do. This 100% contributed to the sales.
@@vicmathew23 it was good, it wasn't selling 3/4 of the total sales of the dark souls series good. Fromsoft has a very niche fan base. Out of the blue, people who never would have touched the game if they had better things to do suddenly pick it up. Elden Ring would not have done this well if it wasn't for the pandemic and their next souls game will reflect that.
Bro all the developers that I’ve genuinely trusted haven’t let me down, fromaoftware, rockstar, supergiant, insomniac, respawn, ryu ga gotoku, I even have high hopes for a lot of newer/smaller studios like team cherry, play dead, Santa Monica and Nagoshi studio. Lucky for me I never could really get into any of project red, Bethesda, Ubisoft or blizzard properties actually Hangar 13 and Valve have let me down with terrible pc ports and disappearing respectively so I lied. It’s no we’re near as bad as people are making it out to be though in my opinion people are acting like gaming is dying.
@@LightWavess fair point, I was thinking about the consistency of gta, red dead and even one offs like bullly, I didn’t even know about the remake until the memes came around so they didn’t let me down.
Ubisoft games are fine today. They look good, play okay, it’s a normal game they release. That’s the problem though, it’s mind numbing to play the same “okay” and “fine” game every single new release. Ubisoft used to have novel and exciting games, but now they’re all the same and there’s basically nothing different. BUT DONT EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THE UBI MULTIPLAYER GAMES… I don’t think they could even define the word “balance”.
Love the end where you have to draw two circles to show people that they aren't the majority. And how it devolves into them wanting you to resize and color said circles. A simple "yes that's about right" would have worked. Then they power off their neon lighted PC and open a book or go outside with harps playing while real life godrays shine on mannnn
One particular recent Ubisoft was pretty good - Immorals Fenyx Rising. It was a smaller game and much more focused than their larger IPs and I think that is exactly what helped it IMO.
Thats because it wasnt a triple A Title, they are not expected to make huge profits xo the devs have a bit more room to be creative, the large triple As are the bill payers, they have to sell good or you get in serious trouble, as showcased by bethesda with fallout 76.
tfw I'm not the target audience for Elden Ring and i only see it as a Dark Souls 4. To me its not a masterpiece, nor innovative. Its just a really good game that got noticed due to the hype around it leading up to its release. When it did release it wasn't a loot box/micro-transaction to progress and broken mess of a game that will be stable in 6 months of patches, so it validated the people hyping it. Really we don't need to innovate too much as people are more then willing to buy into long running franchises and continue to have fun with it, they will still buy it and so will I for my preferred games. We just need working games that doesn't prey on people's gambling addictions. If you want a company that fishes around a lot, Imo Sony does a pretty good job at finding niches and capitalizing on it. Their off brand games don't always hit, but when it does then it hits hard and their misses are still worth their time making it since they dip into games types that other companies won't make that the 5-15% market wants and will jump at it. This guarantees them profit in that starved market.
Love what you said about EA sports games just not being for everyone. The same people telling Asmon that he is wrong will be the same people who say, “ Elden Ring doesn’t need a difficulty slider, it’s not supposed to be for everyone” 🤦♂️
I mean you can flat out look at the reviews for the newest Madden it definitely doesn't look like the player base is happy with it. Lack of competition is what is keeping it afloat
Yeah but the difference there is that roleplayers that dont like elden ring can go to a compatitor game in the same genre and satisfy their needs there, Madden and fifa have no such thing, you either play the shit EA is force feeding you or you say goodbye to the sports genre... The biggest compatitor for fifa was literally the fifa game from the year before, which is why they started to force you to buy the new game by locking down the old ones..... And make no mistake, the reason ea has no competition in those genres has nothing to do with quality...
It does have a difficulty slider of sorts, such as summons and ashes of war which are in game mechanics meant to make the game easier for players since most hardcore fromsoft fans won't touch them and play solo, but that's besides the point. Just because a game is not targeted at you doesn't mean you can't judge it, if a company releases the same game year after year but changes the players and locks the old ones from being played, that is plenty justification to call them a bad company. The games may be good the first time you play them, but doing it over and over is scummy business practice.
Elden ring is a sequel and formulaic as well, just that it's not in the mass market spotlight before. Once it hits this size, probably from soft will launch elden ring expansions and sequels just like the other AAAs, just have to wait and see. But I strongly agree that "UIUX" menu and gaming design has made immersion in games and game layouts very very boring across games, Elden ring's immerssion is great because everywhere you click or go, it retains that taste of the art direction, while most games now, once you open the menu, it's like a complete extract from the game, take Hogwarts legacy for example, can't the map or menu be in a more parchment or written way while being eligible, or your character opens a book / magic tool that opens up a map The 8020 rule the creator was talking about is just the trial and error model, I think you can't expect a staff to put 20% and 80% into something, it might be bad for both, but to have a separate task force or team to work on those projects, like Riot is doing with Riot forge, they even outsource their passion projects, that's how to keep things fresh.
The difference is the games made by other companies such as ubisoft, Activision, and blizzard is that you can tell they didn't try by not changing anything and how broke their games are when they release them. So to have a game like Elden ring come out with no problems and some changes that make the game better than previous installments.
Ok the real Problem is us the consumers. The Devs will produce what ever we will buy. If it sucks don't buy it encourage others to not buy it. Its the only way. If no one buys the next assassins' Creed they will change the Formula, end of story
"ubisoft think if they just change the period and setting of their games we won't notice" well you didn't notice that elden ring is exactly the same game as every other dark souls minus some impressive visuals and that character meant to emotionally manipulate lonely men into thinking they had a good gaming experience because they now have an a.i. girlfriend.
