As eighth-generation consoles prepare to enter their second year of existence (third in the case of Wii U), much of the new-gen software we’ve seen in the past year appears to have taken on a bizarre, unprecedented habit of stagnation. Some gamers are calling it laziness, and maybe that’s partially it, but I think there are other factors at play. In fact, I think it’s arguable that the definition of “blockbuster game” has become too massive for developers to effectively brainstorm, create, market, and sell over the course of a 1-2 year period while still maintaining an acceptable level of quality. Here’s one way of looking at it: if Bungie can’t deliver on blockbuster hype, then who can?
Related: Destiny’s Downfall: What the Game Could Have Been
It’s a bit unfair to target Destiny specifically, and Bungie’s game is hardly the worst offender. Rather, Destiny’s critical reception (an acceptable but not stellar or even particularly impressive 76 on Metacritic) was far below the expectation set by the previous work of its developer. Sure, the game was ambitious, but it almost feels as though certain AAA game-makers simply aren’t scoping their games properly. Next-gen development takes more time and doubles the effects of Murphy’s Law, and (sometimes unsuccessful) attempts at harnessing the previously untamable forces of 1080p and 60fps aren’t making things any easier. After a year, the new-hardware grace period ought to be over; it’s time to start planning accordingly.
Changing the Status Quo
Of course, game development is an incredibly complicated process that can’t easily be improved with vague advice like “plan better,” so what can studios burdened by the strict deadlines of their AAA parents be expected to do? Assassin’s Creed Unity demonstrated that executing a high-polish, open-world Assassin’s Creed experience for the new generation may not be possible with an accelerated development cycle (the opinions of gamers have been made especially clear), and despite Ubisoft’s claim that work on the game began in late 2010, the glitches in the final product suggest otherwise. Drafting a few doodles years in advance hardly qualifies “starting development” — for how long was a core team working on the game? That’s where things went wrong, and that’s where the issues are.
Captain Toad looks as good as it plays, and development didn’t break the bank or take too long. What’s not to like?
I doubt publishers like Ubisoft want to stop releasing Assassin’s Creed every year, or (apparently now) Far Cry every two, so how can publishers make their annual or bi-annual releases better without shipping them broken? It all comes back to scope. A fine example is a game that released today: Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker.
Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker is a very simple game, but it’s also an incredibly polished one. If you’re not a Nintendo obsessive, you might guess that this humble little puzzler was developed by some B-list team at Nintendo, and if so you’d be dead wrong. Treasure Tracker was developed by EAD Tokyo, the Nintendo development studio behind Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario 3D World, and you can bet your Wii U GamePad that they were multitasking the next Mario while creating it. It’s understandable that not every publisher can afford to sit around for years developing a game without releasing anything (the way Rockstar sometimes does), but Nintendo’s strategy is a viable solution that yearly blockbuster-houses ought to heavily consider.
Am I saying Activision should make a cutesy Call of Duty puzzle game? No, certainly not. But I am suggesting that big name developers and publishers explore smaller ideas that can be not just “finished at the last minute” within a year or two, but made incredibly functional, innovative, or fleshed-out in that same amount of time. Start simple, then improve upon your game if the core idea is completed with time to spare. All the while, a larger project could be brewing in the background, ready for release three or four years down the road. The idea that Unity was being legitimately worked on when Assassin’s Creed III’s development had hardly begun is a bit tough to believe, regardless of Ubisoft’s revolving internal structure.
Let’s do our best to confine horrors like this to 2014, shall we?
Meanwhile, EAD Tokyo assigns, say, a third of its team (and one or two senior members) to churn out Captain Toad while the rest lay down the groundwork for the next Mario. That’s a story I can swallow, and is also something that works.
Turning Words into Actions
Coming up with ways to implement this strategy is a bit more difficult, but there are plenty of possibilities. I’ll keep going with the Assassin’s Creed example. How about a yearly release of an episodic nature, with tight, linear gameplay and plot that explores the series’ characters more deeply than the mainline entries do? Something that’s more Arkham Asylum than Arkham City, lasts five to seven hours, and effectively advances the Assassin’s Creed universe, all while hyping the events of the next major game. Releasing entries like this annually that lead into a massive, epic, open-world, and most importantly bug-free mainline adventure could yield incredibly positive results. Ubisoft Montreal would benefit from a more relaxed development process, gamers would benefit from experiencing the best of both worlds (yearly content and incredibly high quality when the main games hit), and Ubisoft as a publisher would benefit from better review scores, both with the smaller yearly entries as well as the major ones that were given enough time to thoroughly gestate.
Related: Watch Dogs PS4 Sold More Copies than Assassin’s Creed Unity on All Platforms in the UK
In an ideal world, confusing strategies wouldn’t be necessary; a publisher could develop high-quality, smaller budget passion projects like Child of Light while slowly working on big names, releasing them when they’re ready. I understand why this isn’t consistently feasible, and like it or not, annual releases are what help companies meet their targets financially year after year and quarter after quarter. Some things aren’t going to change, but it doesn’t mean they can’t be altered or revised, and the examples in this piece are just a few of many, many creative ways in which publishers can remedy the abysmal year for AAA that 2014 undeniably was.
“Dear AAA developers — you can’t all be like me.” – Nathan Drake
In the end, you can’t expect every major publisher or developer to be Rockstar Games or Naughty Dog. Regular, sometimes yearly releases are necessary to turn a profit, and taking sweet time to the extent that the aforementioned studios do would bankrupt most other companies. What is a reasonable request, though, is that we all try thinking just a little bit more like Nintendo. The nasty trends of 2014 are not behaviors gamers want as standard eighth-generation precedent, and the sooner publishers can provide a little bit more Captain Toad while they slave over their Super Mario Galaxy, the better off we’ll all be.
