Everyone seems to think that FPS and action games are the only genres that can be successful in the AAA space. But, why is that? Why, suddenly, are there only two genres capable of success, when we used to have a good variety of genres?
Some will argue that "AAA" hasn't existed until the PS3/360 gen. I argue that "AAA" has always existed, and is simply defined by a developer pushing the top-of-the-line consoles to their limits.
In the PS1 and PS2 eras, we had AAA turn-based RPGs. Yet, today, people scoff at the very thought of such games. "They would flop, horribly" they say. "The publisher would go bankrupt", they say. "Nonsense", I say.
I think people need to ask themselves why. Why can FPS and action games be AAA, but turn-based games cannot? Why do people look down on turn-based games, when they used to be so popular, and sold millions of copies?
To me, the answer is clear. Yet, no one else seems to see it. Think of your average (emphasis on the word: average), modern turn-based game.
I'm willing to bet that, for one thing, you just thought of a handheld or phone game. I present you with problem number 1. How well do you think an FPS would sell on a handheld or phone, compared to its AAA console counterparts?
I'm also willing to bet that you thought of story scenes taking place with static, cardboard-cutout characters who occasionally change the emotion they're supposed to show. Can you even fathom how hard an FPS would flop if it tried to get away with the same crutch? People would laugh at that game. You can't take it seriously.
I think "Demon Gaze" is a perfect example. Look at "Demon Gaze", and replace the turn-based battles with FPS gameplay. Do you think it would sell well? Hardly.
And this is the point I'm trying to make. People (the entire industry, included) look at turn-based games as a "niche" genre, so they make "niche" games in that genre. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. A "niche" FPS or action game will flop just as hard as a "niche" game in any other genre.
And, along those same lines, it is my strong belief that a AAA turn-based game can be just as successful as a AAA game in any other genre, including FPS and action. The only reason they are "niche" is because the industry has forced them to be.
SquareEnix has proven these things to be true, in the past. But the other Japanese companies that make these games look to them to lead the way. And, SquareEnix has not been playing the role of leader. They've been following western companies, and (in my opinion) are largely responsible for the state of the Japanese industry.
If SquareEnix can put their money where their mouth is, and bring turn-based RPGs back to the AAA space, I believe that they will, once again, be a massive success, and other Japanese companies will follow them. All they have to do is try. Something that hasn't been done in a long time.
While nothing has been confirmed, the evidence that Marvel Rivals is coming to consoles is mounting as the game's files mention crossplay.
Nintendo may be working on a brand new Legend of Zelda game featuring Zelda as the main character, based on a new rumor.
It works
The cycle of hatred can't always be exactly the same
Maybe in one reincarnation the Hyrule family name their son Link in honour of Hylia's chosen hero and some village woman name their daughter Zelda in honour of Princess Zelda from the old tales of the lands past.
This rumor, or variants of it, appears pretty much every time there is a gap with a non-announced Zelda game in the works. So I would take it with a grain of salt."
That said, I have always wanted a game where you play as her. Not exactly a "Zelda game", mind you, I always see her making more sense in something like a city builder/management or strategy game.
There's a rumor that another Zelda Musou game in the works. I'd sooner believe that one over this.
A character select screen would work just fine. If RPG developers, with far more complex gameplay everything, have been able to do this, why is Nintendo still dragging their feet?
This ain't Baldur's Gate nor Morrowind, so lets get to it already.
Here is a look at the Closed Alpha for the game in action.
Keep in mind that regardless of your stance or interest in this, be it good or bad; the ToS agreement makes it so you can't leave negative reviews once accepted.
Yes PS1 games such as FF7 were clearly AAA in terms of production value, but AAA only became a thing a 3D, realtime and high definition, or Western gaming standards.
You are seriously getting the definition of AAA wrong.
Triple A titles are determined by their budgets of production set by a company not their success in the market.
A company could make a turned based RTS and for them it would or could mean it is a triple A title since they are sinking so much money for engineering, marketing, QA, promotion, etc, etc.
It has nothing to do with a genre or success of a title.
'And, along those same lines, it is my strong belief that a AAA turn-based game can be just as successful as a AAA game in any other genre, including FPS and action. The only reason they are "niche" is because the industry has forced them to be.'
It's not the industry, its the audience. Valkyria Chronicles received praise across the board yet it managed just over 1m units sold. Ubisoft release Tomb Raider and deem it a bit of a failure as it was expecting 5m sales, got 4m.
The mindset of most companies is pretty clear, if it doesn't yield ridiculous profits, it isn't worth the effort and possible won't see a sequel.
Funnily enough, Valkyria sold over x2 the number of copies in NA as it did in Japan, yet the sequels were only released in Japan but that's Sega's logic for ya. :)
"it is my strong belief that a AAA turn-based game can be just as successful as a AAA game in any other genre, including FPS and action."
Define successful? Successful in financially or ratings? I'm guessing you mean financially. This just all depends on the publishers (and developers). Hell, I remember Square Enix saying how Sleeping Dogs, Hitman and Tomb Raider were all failures. So the term success in the eyes of a publisher is "Did it sell as much as Call of Duty? No? Failure." Most of the budget from AAA games get poured into marketing.
Personally I find JRPGs to be boring as hell (although I used to like them as a kid). Also you should watch Jim Sterling video on this topic (sort of). I think you'll enjoy it.
http://www.escapistmagazine...
AAA game usually means big budget game with lots of DLC that you end up being bored at it after a week or 2.
The exceptions are rare but when those come around those games are worthy of including in your colection i mean games like Red Dead Redemption and Heavy Rain not something like Call of Duty and Battlefield.