[ANewFormation]

Think about what you're saying - the majority of those games are at least 16 years old.

That itself is fairly damning but what puts it over the top is that there are wayyyy more gamers nowadays than there were 16 years ago.

Modern AAA stuff is just simply pretty bad. Games made on a conveyor belt just don't work, at least beyond a point - and that point, wherever it may be, is well behind us for just about all AAA studios.

[johnnyanmac]

Yes... almost like 16 years ago is when game sales weren't depending on how long games were on shelves. Shocking that Minecraft can still sell today because it's been on a digial storefront for almost 20 years.

>Modern AAA stuff is just simply pretty bad

1. your conclusion doesnt match your premise. what does sales have to do with quality?

2. this whole argument is just a useless tangent. If you want to look for games not on a conveyor belt, don't look at best selling lists. Especially for networked games continually updated for decades vs. hand crafted releases

[ANewFormation]

There's obviously many more long tail games, but with few exceptions games, even long tailed, tend to be heavily front loaded. The list, in terms of games from e.g. 2018-2023 will likely look identical, so far as the games included, in a decade.

The reason the reflects on AAA games is because AAA in modern times is much more about budget than depth or quality. AAA games are dumping massive amounts of money on titles with the hope of a quick turn-around, but sales for these games are increasingly meh, because the games are increasingly meh.

Even the same studios do a poor job of rehashing stuff. There are currently something like 10x as many players playing Skyrim as Starfield. It's quite pathetic.

[tmtvl]

We should probably define what 'AAA' means, because Capcom has been hitting it out of the park pretty consistently as of late. The REmakes, Monster Hunter World and sequels, Devil May Cry 5,...