With a recent leak it would seem that Grand Theft Auto VI might, if we are to believe what is an unverified espousing of finances which I would take with an extreme grain of salt given the popularity of the brand in question and it's penchant for drumming up fake attention, have cost 2 billion to develop. Now I question that figure merely because I heard something in the ball-park of 3 billion. But the point is, we're looking at one of the most expensively developed pieces of art in history- actually, upon saying that I'm reflecting on whether I need to be so conservative about that statement. And considering the most expensive movie to make doesn't even cross the budget of the original Destiny game, I actually think that GTA VI might be the single most expensive product ever produced in the world of art- wow, that is quite the legacy to live to, is it not? I wonder how they'll fair.
Rockstar really is that studio at the end of the day. The people who's job it is to stab at the rump of the industry when its getting a little complacent in order to jar it forward. They don't always drag the industry forward by dragging the bar further than it has ever been on all accounts, sometimes there are games that are prettier or play sharper, but Rockstar always set the floor. Their general rising of the tide means that whatever their games achieve generally becomes the limited-barrier to entry that every single proceeding AAA game is expected to hit- Which itself can be a jarring shift for those around them. And thus, as vangaurds of expectation, Grand Theft Auto is expected to change the world and stun the audience just a little bit with every new game. Especially when that game has taken more than a decade to come into fruition!
After all, that has been the single longest stretch of time that any previous Rockstar game has taken- to such a degree that even the producers have acknowledged that issue and the general need to cut down on development time for future games. (Which opens the door for AI development taking the place of actual development jobs but that's a whole other kettle of fish right now.) But what is really the reason for games that have bigger budgets and bigger studios taking longer and becoming more expensive? Well that's actually a complex mixture of factors. There's the general rule that the scaling of teams makes development slower as every avenue of development needs to be taking into account, the rising of the tide which pushes expectations for the trend-setters to be the best they can possibly be at all times. And, of course, the bottlenecking of improvement.
Back in the day, when you needed to up the quality of a game's visuals the goal was very clear- to reach ever closer to fidelity. Make a game look more realistic, create more convincing faces that can emote better, separate fingers so they can be used in cutscenes, match skin tones better, achieve more realistic lighting and reflections. But we've been scratching at the ceiling of that particular pursuit for a couple of generations right now. There isn't much further to go and revelations that do happen don't feel as stark as they used to. The same goes for gameplay innovations. We've pretty much figured out how to make an action adventure game feel good. How to make shooting feel responsive. Rockstar alone have a decent formula on how to make open worlds pop off and feel alive. What else is there to really innovate upon?
It's within that train of thought we find ourselves locked in the recent thought experiment of "will people be disappointed by Grand Theft Auto VI". To which the answer is yes, there are always idiots who expect the game to be exactly like their ill-formed wet dreams of a perfect game and whine when it isn't, comparing the product to a half-digested orgasmic fantasy they assume they are entitled to for whatever reason- that has been a thing since the dawn of ego. What I'm really asking is if real people, with functioning frontal cortex's, find the offering enough of a step forward to justify this extended development window- can those ten years truly show on the face of the product once we get it? Or at the former developers right on the money?
In particular the former studio developer in question, Obbe Vermeji, seems to believe that there's a good chance GTA VI will feel similar enough to GTA V not to illicit that feeling of overwhelming 'newness' that people are searching for and- yeah, I can definitely see that. Red Dead Redemption 2 did benefit from a very different way of playing to previous Rockstar games but was due to a rather drastic shift in design philosophy that not everyone was a fan of when it was all said and done. I'll always prefer a game that tries something new and different rather than a sequel that attempts to hit all the same beats as the last game- but some people just want that same meal they already enjoyed again. Only this time wrapped up in a different package- and that ultimately leads to a conflict wherein you won't make everyone happy. It's just a matter of what will make the most people happy.
The further question I've seen brought up is whether or not the recent news about the budget of the game is proof that Grand Theft Auto is too big to experiment. Remember that many of gaming's biggest properties are shackled by their budget which precludes the promotion of anything that isn't proven to be a success- is that what will effect GTA? Although I think that particular possibility disregards the reality of Grand Theft Auto as a brand. Rockstar don't follow brand trends. Rockstar have never needed to follow Brand Trends. They are the trend. Whatever they make people will flock too- their experiments become the industry standard simply for having been made. For Rockstar alone, I don't think they need to worry about daring to be different. If they want to have a yoga minigame, but god they'll put one in!
Whatever happens, Grand Theft Auto VI is going to a cultural touchstone- that's already set in stone. Rockstar could sink the entire GDP of a small nation into developing this game (and according to these leaks- they actually have already trounced eighteen of the smallest worldwide GDP's already) and it would still cause a profit. At this point they just need to maintain their position at the top of the pack- and I just hope it's proven they can still do that with traditional sales and not by whoring out the online service. In that light, such transient properties as 'disappointment' and 'revolution on the brand' are meaningless in the face of a capitalistic machine that simply cannot be stopped. As cheery and happy as that sounds.
No comments:
Post a Comment