The author of the Fable series believes that the creators of modern games do not risk enough

The modern game industry AAA to a greater extent than ever before, depends on the old IP. Since the development of games has become more expensive and risky, the studios have no incentives for the development and search for new ideas.

Such industry figures as Phil Spencer have already recognized that the dependence of the industry on the old IP is due to risks associated with new ideas. Fable, a former leading designer Fable, also shared his thoughts on this subject, saying that modern games avoid risk.

Peter Molinjo recently talked with Thegamer, sharing his experience on Fable franchise. The developer is one of the founders of the Lionhead Studios studio and it was in it that he created the Fable franchise, becoming the leading designer of the first release of the game in 2004.

Speaking about the transition from Fable to its continuation, Peter Molinjo said that Lionhead Studios was at a huge risk, making a number of changes, believing that such a departure from a proven formula is impossible today. He declared:

The developer wanted to emphasize that the studios of twenty years ago hoped to bring something new to every new game, and not offer what the fans had already fallen in love.

This led to the fact that Lionhead Studios created Fable 2 in a much more gloomy tone than her predecessor. However, Peter Molyneux believes that such an approach to the game would lead to a poor technique in the early stages of testing.

The statement of the former Fable developer emphasizes the need for innovation and evolution in the gaming industry. Growing budgets and severe consequences of failures actually limit the potential of the industry.

Games such as Saints Row 2022 hoped to direct the series in a new channel, but an unsuccessful release led to the closure of the Volition Games. Developers such as Ascentant Studios were also dismissed after an unsuccessful Immortals of Aveum exit.

Although in 2023, the AAA industry is not missing in good games, most of the most rating games of this year were sequels or remasters. Such games are not necessarily similar to their predecessors, but the absence of new IP emphasizes the point of view of Peter Molino that the industry is not prone to risk today.

Last month, David Jaffa also drew attention to a similar problem, saying that Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 looks template and Sony needs to abandon its standard approach to creating AAA-IGR.

However, the game industry is unlikely to abandon its approach. The combination of nostalgia and supports to proven methods has led to the fact that the studios are more likely to return to their previous IP for future releases.

When your main task is to give out more profits by the owner than in the previous year, then any risk for you is fatal. Therefore, now both games and films from large companies are the same tasteless slurry. And it seems like a normal game, but it seems like I already played this time a hundred times.
Therefore, it turns out that now it is much more interesting to try some new turkey than playing another of the same type of AAA developer.

If you disposed of the multimillion -dollar budget, you would also understand that the risk here is unacceptable.
Nobody wants to destroy the business.
And for lovers of variety of indie scenes, it exists. You just need to choose what is more important for you, or consume in some proportion and one and that.
Here, as with cinema – there are pop -root blockbusters made according to the same templates for millions of dollars, but there is an inexpensive copyright cinema. You do not expect the same from them?

What prevents the creation of a separate group that would rivet any game itself, with unlimited time, and with a minimum budget. Remembering how Blizard Hardstone was created, clearly hints at a similar process. No one hopes for success, but a rich company cannot give a couple of people or a group of freedom and a couple of bucks per macDak in a quiet one?

Who does not risk, he does not row money with a shovel. You are very mistaken that rich people adhere to the logic of the inadmissibility of risk. If everything were so, and the risk would really be unacceptable, then all sorts of Masks would not try to build spaceships there, but would be much less risky, but no less profitable. And certainly rich people would not finance wars in different corners of the planet, because any war is accelerate what risk – either lose everything, or make a lot.

In fact, the more money has, the more he is inclined to take risks. This is just a fact. Well, people who have no money, they do not risk anything at all, because in case of failure, there is nothing to take from them. Thirst for risk in people in blood.

made according to the same templates for millions of dollars, but there is an inexpensive author’s movie. You do not expect the same from them?

I’m waiting for the same. Dear cinema does not always look better than cheap, just like cheap does not always look worse than an expensive. Therefore, in this case, from both types I expect the same. The quality of the film usually least depends on the money poured into it. Author’s cinema is usually made according to the same templates as expensive high -budget blockbusters. The templates are the same everywhere.

I will say easier. Camera for filming in both cases the same. With this camera you can make a disgusting film for hundreds of millions, and you can make a chic film for 100 thousand. The numbers are purely conditional. The bottom line is that not everything is measured by the dough. And you are just in the dough. Your approach is wrong and ignorant.

At least the fact that large wealthy companies in the only content of such a unit in the structure will take more funds than an independent team of enthusiasts for the entire game. management, reporting, communications.
All this bureaucracy is not designed for small projects.

What prevents the do 10 original games with a smaller budget, and not put everything on one?
And then: oh, we don’t have something with the finances, we will sell us.
As a result, this is boring and sales are falling. And companies begin to try to compensate for this with completely crazy practices such as Lutboxes even more driving themselves into the hole.

Saints Row 2022, Immortals of Aveum

As if these games tried to do something risky, and did not repeat the sterile LGBT of nonsense from Twitter nonsense.

In these in games I did not see lesbians and gays (LGBT). It’s not about LGBT, which is everywhere seeing where it is not.

In Baldurs Gate 3 there is a LGBT theme. At the same time, the game is popular, high online. Sales of the game are good. There are a lot of people in the PG, because of the popularity of the game, they did not succeed.

Yes, LGBT in all fields, only the game is not sterile.

There is no LGBT. There is sodomy. And the druids are perverts, in principle, canon in the DND. Until it all is at the forefront of it is all, no problems at all. This is not even a part of the main plot, but just a feature. Unlike Saints Row, where there is no plot and the characters fled from Twitter, and in general, all this scribe is contrary to both the Lor and the previous parts.

It is not necessary to inflame the budgets of games to infinity and make a hack. Then the game will pay off in any situation.

This example of Star Citizen, still money is pouring money.

Well, rushed "Soul to paradise". At first, the publishers were to blame, then the players, and now the old masterpiece IP, but directly recognize about their own mediocrity, laziness and desire "from nothing to get everything", Naturally, weak. Total savings on the pros and the general delegation of the titles in the hands of Junes, outsources, and just fans, because the quota studio is busy with anything in the process of 5-7 years, but not by development, and the budget is not rubber, as well as the patience of investors. Therefore, large eminent old studios, even working on the notorious famous IP, are still deprived, and far from only in sequels, but also in banal remasters. Not in the horse food, sorry. Hands just need to be pulled out of one place, finally turn on the brain, and cut your Wishlist "All the money of the world".

P.S.: First, at least they repeated this old IP at the level, and then something arose. Yeah, wait! They better get the old one "new" vision, which is simply licked from another successful project, and then whine that everything and all are to blame.4

PSSS: In the next five -year plan, probably will be the shaft of the division under the BG3 and Cyberpank 2.0. And again, the shaft of surprise and indignation, why these divisions are not shot, although indie with the same genre comes in. "In no way, Bl*, do not learn" – Geralt from Rivia.

I don’t remember the steep imitating indie, looking at what to mean by this in Indi Semen were games that became successful in their niche and then all sorts of games acquired similarly mechanics. About the same in large -budget games. maybe some kind of game brings his gameplay to a honed state and will sell during the next few games. you can make specific games but the audience will have a narrower so that they will automatically earn less money.

They are not at risk? Strong statement. But the wrong one. I will give only one example. Bethesda took a lot of risking, deciding to release a very low quality cosmic RPG into the release. For such fans could eat a gazebo alive, and tear three skins. But the risk was justified. Despite the low quality of Starfield, the gazebo was still ozold, and fanatics are now told as an excuse for poor quality of the product, they say you are not playing the Starfield correctly. You need to play like this, and not. In short, the breaks of AAA studios even sometimes risk it too much when they are plunging a low -quality product. Therefore, there is no need to say, supposedly risk is not enough. It’s not like that at all. There are always risk in the development of games. And it does not matter whether the inconspes are exploited by old ideas or try to introduce new experimental ways. The creation of the game is always risk.

Briefly speaking. Only Western studios are afraid to take risks. Because of this fear, all sorts of crooked Starfields and other trash go into the release.

And for example, Asian studios do not suffer from this disease. Take a look at at least Final Fantasy – all games are different, they still introduce tons of innovation or try to do it. 15th final line cool road adventure – such games in the world, in principle, units. The 16th final line of the Japanese version of the Game of Thrones – such similar games in the world, in principle, does not exist. 14th online finishing case, so generally in terms of the main plot is cooler than many purely plot single games. The 13th ending is divided into 3 separate games and each is radically differed by the presentation of the plot, the combat system, the device of the game world. And so you can say about every finalele in general. They are all different. General only the name. This approach to development is a huge risk.

In the fact of the incorporation of Final Fantasy, they risk it very hard, doing all this. After all, you will never guess how the players will perceive a new game. The ending is always a cat in a bag, that is, an eternal endless risk. Asians always play. Well, the fact that IP is always the same is used is even good that there is a recognizable brand by which it is easy to determine where the game itself is, and what quality to wait.

The conclusion is this. Games development always risk. And the most who is afraid to take the risk of risking most of all. The gazebo will not let you lie with a crooked Starfield. After all, it’s not enough to take a chance to make a bad game. You still need to be able to convince fans that the bad game is actually good. It just opens after 200 hours, and not immediately, and so the game is cool. This is also a serious risk of counting on the quality of the product, but on the ability to convince buyers. Game industry, in principle, one continuous risk.

The gazebo was still ozostle, and fanatics are now told as an excuse for poor quality product, they say you are not playing the Starfield correctly

It is ridiculous to read from you after you licked the cyberpunk from which this whole cart (frank spitting on the consumer) began.

Nobody needs to do anything – he stupidly spat in the topic of optimizing the game, and the hamsters were played out, well at least shut up "everything flies to me for 2070".

The main audience buying games by gamers, playing almost everything like PG, are not – they do not play in everything in a row. And Vasyan first played in the open world of Starfield (he did not see/did not know another) and only this impressed him. Everything, he ran to put the game 8-9 for "Good emotions". And no one here is to blame, except that the stern of the reviewers/magazils trying to sit on two chairs so that no one has bad reviews – so there were estimates 7-8 absolutely every game. You put less on the floor of the point – you are Hater. What is the audience and games.