HOME | DD

Description
Okay, I think it's time to stop milking this joke. You get the idea.

I did consider playing Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, but ultimately cancelled the idea when I realized that the ‘offline mode’ for the game wouldn't be patched in for a good six months after the initial release. So, in their desperate bid to remodel their live service game into an actual single player one, they forgot to include the actual single player mode. And of course, it’s not really an offline mode, because the game still requires an internet connection regardless.

I’ve been replaying Batman: Arkham Knight as a form of non-hostile protest.

To get the big question out of the way first, I don't think AAA gaming is in any danger of going away anytime soon. What I think is happening is it desperately needs a new thing to latch on to, because gamers and audiences in general have grown tired of the constant repetition, and money grubbing tactics from certain publishers.
If you would like me to be specific, I think it boils down to the following points.

A lack of innovation.
Maybe I’m showing my age here, but gaming between the NES to the original Playstation were a wellspring of new and out-there ideas. Things like a blue hedgehog in tennis shoes who could run really fast, a chef flattening sentient burger ingredients, or playing as a criminal by stealing cars and killing people. The problem came when this creative wellspring went away and we saw the regurgitation of the same cookie cutter formulas. There was a brief period during the 2000s when gaming became oversaturated with endless Call of Duty clones and other military based shooters. After this, games like Destiny and Fortnite became the go-to ideas for developers to leech off of.
The problem with this approach is nobody is truly pioneering new ideas, but rather just waiting for the next big thing to copy. Indie gaming doesn’t really have this issue as it’s mostly new ideas from people who want to create things, rather than saying “I want to be like Resident Evil 4.”

We’ll come back to this train of thought in a minute.

Brand recognition no longer works.
Unless your parent company is Nintendo, it's very unlikely that people will buy your game based on a franchise anymore. We've seen colossal failures from franchises such as Mass Effect, Halo, Avengers, Saints Row, Assassin’s Creed, Tomb Raider and, most recently, the Arkham series. There are exceptions to the rule of course, such as Red Dead Redemption 2 and DOOM (2016). 10 to 15 years ago, you could sell a game based on a brand and people would get hyped; These days however, saying your game is connected to a beloved superhero genre, or a continuation of a franchise that ended with the third entry, is likely to turn people off and avoid it.

Overpriced and lacking substance (until you buy the Ultimate Edition).
For this next point, I'd like to compare two games I recently reviewed. I picked up Tekken 8 for £64. The story mode, while entertaining, was over in a day and I haven't touched the games since the review. Meanwhile, I paid roughly £50 for RoboCop: Rogue City last year, and I have proceeded to replay that game over fifteen times (I recently platinumed it). It’s kind of amusing to me that a low budget shooter based on an 80’s action movie has more content and replay value than the latest entry in the Tekken series.

This has given rise to another irritation when it comes to video game pricing: The practice of releasing three versions of the same game at launch. This tends to come in the form of a Launch Edition (between £50 to £60), a Deluxe Edition (between £70 and £80) which just includes some extra costumes and story content. Finally, you have the Ultimate Edition (between £90 and £100) that features everything that should have been in the Launch Edition. Essentially, they've taken a complete and fully functional game, hacked it to pieces and want to sell the rest of it back to you. As a side note, I don’t consider physical releases of digital games or a ‘Game of the Year’ edition a part of this practice. They tend to be lower than the original asking price and come out a year or so later.

I’d say “wait for the bargain bin,” but certain retailers no longer accept preowned games. CEX and Ebay are going to make a fortune because of this.

They go on forever.
As I said earlier, I've recently been replaying Batman: Arkham Knight (as a form of tribute to the late Kevin Conroy). The game wants me to take down Scarecrow and the titular Arkham Knight, but they also throw all of this meaningless crap in my general direction. I don't mind dealing with the likes of Penguin, Two-Face or Professor Pig, it’s everything else that makes the game more a chore than a relaxing power fantasy. Rescuing firefighters, shutting down military checkpoints and lookout towers, disarming bombs, destroying tanks, and the endless fucking Riddler trophies are things I don't have the time or patience for.

Now to be fair, I can understand the developers point of view on that. You spend £80 on a brand new video game so you may as well get your money's worth. It's why I don't like Call of Duty, because I've taken longer shits than those story campaigns.

Here's a wild idea. If all these games have the graphical and memory space for all these towers, collectables, militia goons, gear drops etc etc. Maybe you could fill that space with content that people might actually want? Things like extra characters, more weapons, more boss fights, a longer story campaign and extra vehicles. You know, shit that actually matters.

"Make the thing into the thing that makes money!"
There's an old expression I heard when I was growing up. “There are two kinds of people in this world: those who create and those who follow.” What that means is when a new or popular idea comes along, everyone has to copy it. I like to summarise it with the phrase: “make the thing into the thing that makes money!” You'll have games like Resident Evil 4, Batman: Arkham Asylum or Fortnite and everyone remodels their game to be like them; so they can ride the coattails of their success. When they say “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” I don't think that's what these copycats have in mind.

My favourite example was a little gem from 2005 called “Shadow the Hedgehog.” While it’s one of the internet's favourite punching bags -for being an absolutely garbage video game- it’s the best example of making the thing into the thing that makes money. Unless I’m mistaken, it was a blatant attempt by Sonic Team to capitalise on the popularity of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Halo and Devil May Cry. Having played all 3 of those games, I can tell you that “Shadow’s Trigger-Happy Adventure” didn't even reflect any of those and came across more as subpar Ratchet & Clank bollocks.

Someone needs to tell these developers to stop trying to be something they’re not or compare themselves to others, when their individuality and unique qualities is what people admire and adore about them.

Thankfully, we don't live in a world where Animal Crossing has become a Dark Souls clone... yet.

People with Agendas.
Some of you don't wanna hear this, but I think it's time we addressed it. Because of my current bet with Di’Aniss, I have to tiptoe around this very carefully.

A pretty jarring example was Injustice 2. I had slogged through hours of beating up every member of the Justice League, all for the privilege of a final encounter with Brainiac - and he gave me a lecture about climate change. I understand that a lot of these messages are important, but the way they are shoehorned into certain games comes across as tone deaf; as well as the developer using an established character to be their soapbox, while contradicting what said character stands for.

Let's use Suicide Squad as another example. We have the character of Lex Luthor: the greatest criminal mind of our time and an ego maniac who believes everyone is beneath him - yet gives us a little speech about toxic masculinity. That’s like the Green Goblin giving us all a speech about “infidelity is bad!”

To keep this nice and short: This kind of preachy nonsense would have been shocking and controversial about fifteen years ago. They have been repeated so often that I can't even begin to give a shit.

And now for something completely subjective.

They try to be funny (and fail miserably).
A big issue I have with AAA games is I'll be sitting there between 18 to 24 hours on one of the campaigns; Equally frustrating if I’m playing as the “funny character” for that duration of the time. This wasn't so much an issue during the Playstation days because character dialogue was mainly in the cutscenes. Unfortunately, thanks to technological advances, characters can now chirp as much as they like during gameplay - much to my neverending irritation.

I don't mind the occasional hint like “there might be a hidden item in that wall” or “I hear enemies around the corner!” That's perfectly fine, but when I've heard the same joke five times in the last two minutes, it does begin to get on my nerves. The primary offenders here are characters like Spider-Man, Deadpool, the Joker, Sonic the Hedgehog, and any protagonist from the Watch_Dogs series. If I had it my way, I would staple all of their mouths shut as violently as possible!

It wouldn't be so bad if anything they had to say was witty, clever or somewhat original. What qualifies as a clever joke in modern gaming? It’s endless snarky quips, pop culture references and self-deprecation, that makes every character sound like a snarky millennial still living with their parents. That tends to happen when you hire writers that consist of a comedic diet of Family Guy, the Big Bang Theory and Rick & Morty: the holy trinity of unfunny comedy.

There are exceptions to the rule. I found every second of Persona 5 to be gut-bustingly hilarious; largely because I developed a connection with the characters and they felt like human fucking beings. Not constantly making pop culture references or breaking the fourth wall. They just looked, acted and spoke like normal teenagers going through wacky adventures.

I think it's worth pointing out there's nothing inherently wrong with all the things I've talked about, and I understand how writers need to get these character’s comedic personalities across to the player. However, they need to do things in moderation and not repeat the same joke over, and over, and over again.

It's like a friend who has a gizmo that makes a funny sound effect. It’s cute and funny the first 3 times he does it, but by the 17th time, you wanna shove it up his ass.

Prioritising online multiplayer over a solid single player experience.
I truly don’t understand this mindset of: “everyone needs to play together, and it can only be online play.” Usually said by clueless arseholes who think everyone has a wide social circle and fibre optic broadband. There are some games that need online play; titles such as Left 4 Dead and Call of Duty are perfect for this setting, but do I really need online co-op for something like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Shredder’s Revenge?

The cool thing about local multiplayer was getting your friends around to play Goldeneye 64, Mario Kart or Timesplitters 2 back in the day, as you were in the same room and could have more fun. Nowadays, I’d rather drink a glass of piss (also known as Budweiser) than sit in an online server and be informed by a 14 year old kid he ”fucked my mother last night.”

The need for online multiplayer does squander certain titles, as development from the base game is pulled away to develop something nobody was asking for. Mainly thinking of the Resident Evil 3 Remake that had a pointless Dead-by-Daylight clone tacked on for no reason whatsoever. If you’ve ever wondered why they cut the clocktower segment, there’s your answer.

The slow and painful death of live service games.
Instead of a game lasting maybe one or two months after release, you get a game that's constantly updating with new story, characters, weapons, vehicles etc etc. Creating a video game experience that never truly ends because it's constantly updating to keep it fresh in the minds of the general public.

A nice idea on paper. In practice however, that's not exactly what we get.

The live service model is essentially selling the player useless crap they don't really need in order to get better at the game. Prime examples of this kind of failure include Anthem, Marvel’s Avengers, Gotham Knights, and of course, Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League. The kind of games that selfishly let you grind away to get the right currency in order to unlock a certain costume or weapon for your favourite character. Or, you could wave a white flag and actually purchase those cosmetics with real money.

One of my favourite games of all time is the legendary Timesplitters 2 on the Nintendo GameCube. What I loved about that game was that it had a ridiculous amount of characters, weapons, maps and modes to play from that to this day, I still haven't unlocked everything their game had to offer. If Timesplitters 2 was made today, eighty percent of the game's content would be cut out and sold back to the player via loot boxes, dlc and live service models.

Here's a wild idea. Instead of loot boxes for looter shooter live service games, hHow about you reward the player with extra characters, weapons, and costumes by completing objectives during the game. If it's a superhero based game, there's more incentive for this kind of thing. Imagine if you can complete the game on hard difficulty, you can unlock the tuxedo costume for Octopus-Man from issue #179. Or if you complete on the really hard difficulty, you unlock the bikini costume for Nymphomaniac from issue #279. You reward the player by being good and skilled at the task at hand - not asking them to get a credit card out if they want to play as a character in their pants.

They take no risks.
Gaming finds itself in a similar problem to Hollywood, as there are no new ideas or franchises to plunder because nobody is brave enough to take that bold step. They constantly hide behind flow charts, market research and agreeing with whatever Twitter tells them to put into a game. That last one really confuses me because if you're trying to market a game to a core audience, why don't you just ask that core audience what they want, instead of asking a bunch of random strangers who don't give a shit.

It all comes down of course to editor interference and pleasing the shareholders. I like to imagine this scenario where the corporate interference (let's just call him Ian for ease of dismissal) gets in the way of pioneering new ideas.

The developer: I've got this great idea for a new IP. We make a new platformer that has challenging puzzles and likeable characters.
Ian: No, we can’t do that. Market research shows that audiences like looter shooters, so let's make another military shooter.

The developer: Ok fine, but can we at least have a male protagonist who is very stoic, confident and is ready to take charge?
Ian: No, we can't do that. According to Twitter, we need to take a stand against toxic masculinity.

The developer: (slightly frustrated) Alright fine. In that case, the female character can be likeable and energetic. Also, she’ll have multiple unlockable costumes to reflect the player’s playstyle.
Ian: No, we can't do that. Our feminist consultant said we need to take a stand against the dreaded male gaze. Can you make the female character look like my wife? Because I don't understand what nepotism is.

The developer: (frustrated) Okay… You’re weird, but okay. I've also had a lot of ideas for weapons and extra vehicles that this female character -that happens to look like your wife- could use during combat.
Ian: That's a really good idea. I tell you what, let's lock every single one of them behind paywalls and downloadable content. Because charging the player more is our top priority.

The developer: You do realise that's going to piss a lot of people off and they're going to complain about it.
Ian: (shrugs) Just called them neckbeards or something. That usually works.

What I'm basically trying to say is “everything is Ian's fault!”

Profit is prioritised over everything else.
This right here is what I consider the number one reason why AAA gaming is on the decline. The powers that be do everything to nickel and dime the player with Ultimate Editions, day one purchases, DLC, microtransactions and live service models. There's no risk, no creativity, no imagination and no art in these games anymore. They only exist to please the shareholders, tick the boxes, pander to the right people, and critics will be paid to give it a nine out of ten.

The funny part of course is the fact they never learn their lesson. Warner Bros put out a terrible live service game called ‘Gotham Knights’ that bombed and nobody liked it. Yet they responded in kind with yet another live service game that’s currently bombing and nobody liked it. What was it Einstein used to say? “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Is it any wonder this Suicide Squad shit is currently getting its ass kit by a Pokémon knock off?

So that's the problem with AAA gaming, but what can be done to fix it? Not to waste any more of your time, let’s just bullet point these quick fix solutions.

Take more risks.
Remove the glut.
Stop hiring Sweet Baby Inc.
Bin the entire live service model.
Stop bringing back franchises if they’re finished.
Make new IPs.

And on a personal note to Warner Brothers: Stop trying to make the Suicide Squad a thing. It's not happening.

Description
Okay, I think it's time to stop milking this joke. You get the idea.

I did consider playing Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, but ultimately cancelled the idea when I realized that the ‘offline mode’ for the game wouldn't be patched in for a good six months after the initial release. So, in their desperate bid to remodel their live service game into an actual single player one, they forgot to include the actual single player mode. And of course, it’s not really an offline mode, because the game still requires an internet connection regardless.

I’ve been replaying Batman: Arkham Knight as a form of non-hostile protest.

To get the big question out of the way first, I don't think AAA gaming is in any danger of going away anytime soon. What I think is happening is it desperately needs a new thing to latch on to, because gamers and audiences in general have grown tired of the constant repetition, and money grubbing tactics from certain publishers.
If you would like me to be specific, I think it boils down to the following points.

A lack of innovation.
Maybe I’m showing my age here, but gaming between the NES to the original Playstation were a wellspring of new and out-there ideas. Things like a blue hedgehog in tennis shoes who could run really fast, a chef flattening sentient burger ingredients, or playing as a criminal by stealing cars and killing people. The problem came when this creative wellspring went away and we saw the regurgitation of the same cookie cutter formulas. There was a brief period during the 2000s when gaming became oversaturated with endless Call of Duty clones and other military based shooters. After this, games like Destiny and Fortnite became the go-to ideas for developers to leech off of.
The problem with this approach is nobody is truly pioneering new ideas, but rather just waiting for the next big thing to copy. Indie gaming doesn’t really have this issue as it’s mostly new ideas from people who want to create things, rather than saying “I want to be like Resident Evil 4.”

We’ll come back to this train of thought in a minute.

Brand recognition no longer works.
Unless your parent company is Nintendo, it's very unlikely that people will buy your game based on a franchise anymore. We've seen colossal failures from franchises such as Mass Effect, Halo, Avengers, Saints Row, Assassin’s Creed, Tomb Raider and, most recently, the Arkham series. There are exceptions to the rule of course, such as Red Dead Redemption 2 and DOOM (2016). 10 to 15 years ago, you could sell a game based on a brand and people would get hyped; These days however, saying your game is connected to a beloved superhero genre, or a continuation of a franchise that ended with the third entry, is likely to turn people off and avoid it.

Overpriced and lacking substance (until you buy the Ultimate Edition).
For this next point, I'd like to compare two games I recently reviewed. I picked up Tekken 8 for £64. The story mode, while entertaining, was over in a day and I haven't touched the games since the review. Meanwhile, I paid roughly £50 for RoboCop: Rogue City last year, and I have proceeded to replay that game over fifteen times (I recently platinumed it). It’s kind of amusing to me that a low budget shooter based on an 80’s action movie has more content and replay value than the latest entry in the Tekken series.

This has given rise to another irritation when it comes to video game pricing: The practice of releasing three versions of the same game at launch. This tends to come in the form of a Launch Edition (between £50 to £60), a Deluxe Edition (between £70 and £80) which just includes some extra costumes and story content. Finally, you have the Ultimate Edition (between £90 and £100) that features everything that should have been in the Launch Edition. Essentially, they've taken a complete and fully functional game, hacked it to pieces and want to sell the rest of it back to you. As a side note, I don’t consider physical releases of digital games or a ‘Game of the Year’ edition a part of this practice. They tend to be lower than the original asking price and come out a year or so later.

I’d say “wait for the bargain bin,” but certain retailers no longer accept preowned games. CEX and Ebay are going to make a fortune because of this.

They go on forever.
As I said earlier, I've recently been replaying Batman: Arkham Knight (as a form of tribute to the late Kevin Conroy). The game wants me to take down Scarecrow and the titular Arkham Knight, but they also throw all of this meaningless crap in my general direction. I don't mind dealing with the likes of Penguin, Two-Face or Professor Pig, it’s everything else that makes the game more a chore than a relaxing power fantasy. Rescuing firefighters, shutting down military checkpoints and lookout towers, disarming bombs, destroying tanks, and the endless fucking Riddler trophies are things I don't have the time or patience for.

Now to be fair, I can understand the developers point of view on that. You spend £80 on a brand new video game so you may as well get your money's worth. It's why I don't like Call of Duty, because I've taken longer shits than those story campaigns.

Here's a wild idea. If all these games have the graphical and memory space for all these towers, collectables, militia goons, gear drops etc etc. Maybe you could fill that space with content that people might actually want? Things like extra characters, more weapons, more boss fights, a longer story campaign and extra vehicles. You know, shit that actually matters.

"Make the thing into the thing that makes money!"
There's an old expression I heard when I was growing up. “There are two kinds of people in this world: those who create and those who follow.” What that means is when a new or popular idea comes along, everyone has to copy it. I like to summarise it with the phrase: “make the thing into the thing that makes money!” You'll have games like Resident Evil 4, Batman: Arkham Asylum or Fortnite and everyone remodels their game to be like them; so they can ride the coattails of their success. When they say “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” I don't think that's what these copycats have in mind.

My favourite example was a little gem from 2005 called “Shadow the Hedgehog.” While it’s one of the internet's favourite punching bags -for being an absolutely garbage video game- it’s the best example of making the thing into the thing that makes money. Unless I’m mistaken, it was a blatant attempt by Sonic Team to capitalise on the popularity of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Halo and Devil May Cry. Having played all 3 of those games, I can tell you that “Shadow’s Trigger-Happy Adventure” didn't even reflect any of those and came across more as subpar Ratchet & Clank bollocks.

Someone needs to tell these developers to stop trying to be something they’re not or compare themselves to others, when their individuality and unique qualities is what people admire and adore about them.

Thankfully, we don't live in a world where Animal Crossing has become a Dark Souls clone... yet.

People with Agendas.
Some of you don't wanna hear this, but I think it's time we addressed it. Because of my current bet with Di’Aniss, I have to tiptoe around this very carefully.

A pretty jarring example was Injustice 2. I had slogged through hours of beating up every member of the Justice League, all for the privilege of a final encounter with Brainiac - and he gave me a lecture about climate change. I understand that a lot of these messages are important, but the way they are shoehorned into certain games comes across as tone deaf; as well as the developer using an established character to be their soapbox, while contradicting what said character stands for.

Let's use Suicide Squad as another example. We have the character of Lex Luthor: the greatest criminal mind of our time and an ego maniac who believes everyone is beneath him - yet gives us a little speech about toxic masculinity. That’s like the Green Goblin giving us all a speech about “infidelity is bad!”

To keep this nice and short: This kind of preachy nonsense would have been shocking and controversial about fifteen years ago. They have been repeated so often that I can't even begin to give a shit.

And now for something completely subjective.

They try to be funny (and fail miserably).
A big issue I have with AAA games is I'll be sitting there between 18 to 24 hours on one of the campaigns; Equally frustrating if I’m playing as the “funny character” for that duration of the time. This wasn't so much an issue during the Playstation days because character dialogue was mainly in the cutscenes. Unfortunately, thanks to technological advances, characters can now chirp as much as they like during gameplay - much to my neverending irritation.

I don't mind the occasional hint like “there might be a hidden item in that wall” or “I hear enemies around the corner!” That's perfectly fine, but when I've heard the same joke five times in the last two minutes, it does begin to get on my nerves. The primary offenders here are characters like Spider-Man, Deadpool, the Joker, Sonic the Hedgehog, and any protagonist from the Watch_Dogs series. If I had it my way, I would staple all of their mouths shut as violently as possible!

It wouldn't be so bad if anything they had to say was witty, clever or somewhat original. What qualifies as a clever joke in modern gaming? It’s endless snarky quips, pop culture references and self-deprecation, that makes every character sound like a snarky millennial still living with their parents. That tends to happen when you hire writers that consist of a comedic diet of Family Guy, the Big Bang Theory and Rick & Morty: the holy trinity of unfunny comedy.

There are exceptions to the rule. I found every second of Persona 5 to be gut-bustingly hilarious; largely because I developed a connection with the characters and they felt like human fucking beings. Not constantly making pop culture references or breaking the fourth wall. They just looked, acted and spoke like normal teenagers going through wacky adventures.

I think it's worth pointing out there's nothing inherently wrong with all the things I've talked about, and I understand how writers need to get these character’s comedic personalities across to the player. However, they need to do things in moderation and not repeat the same joke over, and over, and over again.

It's like a friend who has a gizmo that makes a funny sound effect. It’s cute and funny the first 3 times he does it, but by the 17th time, you wanna shove it up his ass.

Prioritising online multiplayer over a solid single player experience.
I truly don’t understand this mindset of: “everyone needs to play together, and it can only be online play.” Usually said by clueless arseholes who think everyone has a wide social circle and fibre optic broadband. There are some games that need online play; titles such as Left 4 Dead and Call of Duty are perfect for this setting, but do I really need online co-op for something like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Shredder’s Revenge?

The cool thing about local multiplayer was getting your friends around to play Goldeneye 64, Mario Kart or Timesplitters 2 back in the day, as you were in the same room and could have more fun. Nowadays, I’d rather drink a glass of piss (also known as Budweiser) than sit in an online server and be informed by a 14 year old kid he ”fucked my mother last night.”

The need for online multiplayer does squander certain titles, as development from the base game is pulled away to develop something nobody was asking for. Mainly thinking of the Resident Evil 3 Remake that had a pointless Dead-by-Daylight clone tacked on for no reason whatsoever. If you’ve ever wondered why they cut the clocktower segment, there’s your answer.

The slow and painful death of live service games.
Instead of a game lasting maybe one or two months after release, you get a game that's constantly updating with new story, characters, weapons, vehicles etc etc. Creating a video game experience that never truly ends because it's constantly updating to keep it fresh in the minds of the general public.

A nice idea on paper. In practice however, that's not exactly what we get.

The live service model is essentially selling the player useless crap they don't really need in order to get better at the game. Prime examples of this kind of failure include Anthem, Marvel’s Avengers, Gotham Knights, and of course, Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League. The kind of games that selfishly let you grind away to get the right currency in order to unlock a certain costume or weapon for your favourite character. Or, you could wave a white flag and actually purchase those cosmetics with real money.

One of my favourite games of all time is the legendary Timesplitters 2 on the Nintendo GameCube. What I loved about that game was that it had a ridiculous amount of characters, weapons, maps and modes to play from that to this day, I still haven't unlocked everything their game had to offer. If Timesplitters 2 was made today, eighty percent of the game's content would be cut out and sold back to the player via loot boxes, dlc and live service models.

Here's a wild idea. Instead of loot boxes for looter shooter live service games, hHow about you reward the player with extra characters, weapons, and costumes by completing objectives during the game. If it's a superhero based game, there's more incentive for this kind of thing. Imagine if you can complete the game on hard difficulty, you can unlock the tuxedo costume for Octopus-Man from issue #179. Or if you complete on the really hard difficulty, you unlock the bikini costume for Nymphomaniac from issue #279. You reward the player by being good and skilled at the task at hand - not asking them to get a credit card out if they want to play as a character in their pants.

They take no risks.
Gaming finds itself in a similar problem to Hollywood, as there are no new ideas or franchises to plunder because nobody is brave enough to take that bold step. They constantly hide behind flow charts, market research and agreeing with whatever Twitter tells them to put into a game. That last one really confuses me because if you're trying to market a game to a core audience, why don't you just ask that core audience what they want, instead of asking a bunch of random strangers who don't give a shit.

It all comes down of course to editor interference and pleasing the shareholders. I like to imagine this scenario where the corporate interference (let's just call him Ian for ease of dismissal) gets in the way of pioneering new ideas.

The developer: I've got this great idea for a new IP. We make a new platformer that has challenging puzzles and likeable characters.
Ian: No, we can’t do that. Market research shows that audiences like looter shooters, so let's make another military shooter.

The developer: Ok fine, but can we at least have a male protagonist who is very stoic, confident and is ready to take charge?
Ian: No, we can't do that. According to Twitter, we need to take a stand against toxic masculinity.

The developer: (slightly frustrated) Alright fine. In that case, the female character can be likeable and energetic. Also, she’ll have multiple unlockable costumes to reflect the player’s playstyle.
Ian: No, we can't do that. Our feminist consultant said we need to take a stand against the dreaded male gaze. Can you make the female character look like my wife? Because I don't understand what nepotism is.

The developer: (frustrated) Okay… You’re weird, but okay. I've also had a lot of ideas for weapons and extra vehicles that this female character -that happens to look like your wife- could use during combat.
Ian: That's a really good idea. I tell you what, let's lock every single one of them behind paywalls and downloadable content. Because charging the player more is our top priority.

The developer: You do realise that's going to piss a lot of people off and they're going to complain about it.
Ian: (shrugs) Just called them neckbeards or something. That usually works.

What I'm basically trying to say is “everything is Ian's fault!”

Profit is prioritised over everything else.
This right here is what I consider the number one reason why AAA gaming is on the decline. The powers that be do everything to nickel and dime the player with Ultimate Editions, day one purchases, DLC, microtransactions and live service models. There's no risk, no creativity, no imagination and no art in these games anymore. They only exist to please the shareholders, tick the boxes, pander to the right people, and critics will be paid to give it a nine out of ten.

The funny part of course is the fact they never learn their lesson. Warner Bros put out a terrible live service game called ‘Gotham Knights’ that bombed and nobody liked it. Yet they responded in kind with yet another live service game that’s currently bombing and nobody liked it. What was it Einstein used to say? “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Is it any wonder this Suicide Squad shit is currently getting its ass kit by a Pokémon knock off?

So that's the problem with AAA gaming, but what can be done to fix it? Not to waste any more of your time, let’s just bullet point these quick fix solutions.

Take more risks.
Remove the glut.
Stop hiring Sweet Baby Inc.
Bin the entire live service model.
Stop bringing back franchises if they’re finished.
Make new IPs.

And on a personal note to Warner Brothers: Stop trying to make the Suicide Squad a thing. It's not happening.