My Stand Against Annual Releases - Article
by Brandon J. Wysocki , posted on 06 November 2015 / 8,221 Views
An impressive selection of new titles will be available this holiday season. In the span of less than three weeks, we will have seen the release of Halo 5, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Fallout 4, Assassin’s Creed: Syndicate, and Call of Duty: Black Ops III. It’s a good time to be a gamer, although for me personally, I've found that to be the case for virtually all of my life. But I have an issue with the latter two titles.
For better or worse, I hold to certain principles and ideologies. Many of them factor into me having problems with series such as Assassin’s Creed and Call of Duty. It’s not as simply a case of whether or not I like the games (for the record, I have enjoyed entries in both series). If I had to sum up my complaint in one sentence (which I don’t, and likely couldn’t), it would be that annual releases in those series are a plateau in the evolution of games. They represent the disappointing complacency of gamers and game creators alike. See, I already used two sentences; I can’t control myself.
It may be a bit extreme, but I believe you evolve or you die. As a long-time gamer, I’ve been witness to many evolutions in gaming. Some steps have been more pronounced than others, but on the whole, beginning in the mid to late nineties, gaming started reaching levels I would have never imagined possible just a few years earlier.
While simpler adventures like Mario games will always have a special place in my heart (and gaming library), in my mind, it was around that time that games began to establish themselves as works of art. The worlds they created, and the way you were able to interact with them, were literally awe-inspiring. Videogames are the epitome of immersive entertainment, and it was in that time that they began to establish themselves as such.
Super Mario 64 had a world so big I could hardly believe it fit on a single cartridge. Final Fantasy VII and Metal Gear Solid had presentational qualities that rivalled films for me. Star Wars: Rogue Squadron II on the GameCube was stunningly beautiful, and for as big of a world as Mario 64 had in its time, Halo tore the fence down and took it to another galaxy. A noteworthy peak for me would be the first Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. It was the total package of graphics, atmosphere, gameplay, and story that pulled me in and showed me just how engrossing a game could be on every level.
As I was never much of a PC gamer, when Call of Duty II released on the Xbox 360 it literally stopped me in my tracks when I saw it in action at a local retail store. Assassin’s Creed’s initial entry essentially swept me off my feet with its look. It was far from perfect, but what it did and tried to do was incredibly exciting. Moving forward, both Modern Warfare I and II featured exhilarating campaigns and fast-paced multiplayer.
But what now? In an attempt to keep their annual releases fresh, Call of Duty games were set in different periods, with one occasionally sporting a unique mode like Zombies Mode. Prettier graphics, new maps, occasionally a new mode. The latter two of those three things could be implemented via DLC; a redundant release every year is not justified by those features alone. I don’t even want to touch on the fact that many of us are buying 'Season Passes' to supplement these annual releases.
In my opinion, Modern Warfare set a precedence for campaign experiences in Call of Duty games (and arguably first person shooters altogether). Modern Warfare II took the torch and carried it gracefully. But after a while, that experience loses its appeal, especially when you’re overexposed to it. Now it seems to me that every Call of Duty game follows the same basic blueprint. While I often enjoy and fully encourage the “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” philosophy, in this scenario, and with the frequency of releases, I’d favor a more pronounced change of pace. A funny joke told too often stops being funny, and that principle applies here just the same.
I know that at least to some degree it’s an oversimplification, but I stand by what I say. I wouldn’t be surprised if the games looked and played nearly indistinguishably from one another to gamers who aren’t otherwise deeply experienced with all of the titles, especially with them sharing such similar settings with recent entries. Maybe Black Ops III will prove me wrong, but I’m not expecting it to do so.
While I wouldn’t try to make a case for a quantity over quality problem for the Call of Duty series (it’s more simply oversaturation), Assassin’s Creed is a different story. While many of the complaints I have against Call of Duty apply very similarly to Assassin’s Creed, Assassin’s Creed has a number of issues that have just not been improved upon as much as I’d argue they should have been, especially if they’re going to keep spitting out new releases every year.
As much as I enjoyed the first entry, the second one immediately seemed like it would be significantly better (and indeed that was the general verdict). Less redundant missions, or at least the illusion of such, was better for me, however the controls were still sporadically wonky, resulting in some of the most frustrating gaming moments I can recall. As fun and fascinating as the stories and settings are, each experience is still eerily similar, especially when they’re coming at you every year.
Unity is too easy of a target with its disastrous release, and to its credit, it tried to do something a little different. If I could offer one piece of advice to Ubisoft for the Assassin’s Creed series, it would be to take a year or two off and work on substantially improved controls.
Maybe I’m being over dramatic, but with the way I buy and play games, it’s too much. Both series have cannibalized themselves with their yearly iterations. In fact, I haven’t been anywhere near up-to-date with the Assassin’s Creed series since the second game, which came out two years after the series debut. Every entry since has been annual.
Going back to my gaming nostalgia, I’m inclined to give sports games a pass only out of habit, as really even that should be reconsidered in my opinion. I’ve played Madden since 1992, but as far back as discussions of how the 64DD would be utilized upon its eventual release stateside (that never came to be), I recall theories of how annual releases might not be needed as the internet would allow for updated rosters.
Madden became the ultimate evil in complacency when Electronic Arts bought exclusive rights to NFL titles, and quickly fell into a rut with its yearly releases. To EA's credit, the development team seems to at least have tried to implement a new feature or two each year, in addition to the obligatory fresh coat of paint. I’m not saying it’s a complete get-out, but maybe there’s a lesson or two there.
I find it not at all surprising that I view Mass Effect, Fallout, Battlefield, Uncharted, Zelda, and BioShock titles to be overall superior to Call of Duty and Assassin’s Creed titles. The years between each release of the former series don’t guarantee a technically flawless release (see, for example, Battlefield 4 and Fallout 3), or any revolutionary improvements between titles, but my relationship with those titles definitely benefits a lot from our time apart.
I don’t want to eat the same thing for lunch every day, especially if it costs money, and I don’t want to buy and play the same games every year. Collectively, we vote with our wallets, and for years we have on the whole voted yes to the annual regurgitation of these titles, and I think that’s a mistake on our part. Necessity breeds innovation, but we’re not keeping the artists and developers who create some of our games hungry enough for anything like that to manifest itself in these series. Gaming has grown and matured, and I don’t want to see that stop, but these assembly line-esque releases are not conducive to that end. For my part, I have no intention of buying any of them for the foreseeable future.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Brandon J. Wysocki is a writer for VGChartz. You're invited to contact Brandon (username SpaceLegends) in the comments below or through private messages on VGChartz, or even at his barely ever used and effectively dormant Twitter account @BrandonJWysocki.
More Articles
I don't mind annual releases as long as they keep the quality of the series up. AC has failed at this, Cod can only seem to hit it right one out of three times (when its treyarch's turn), but I think the Soul's series has been able to keep their quality up. Also for the people that get tired of the game, no one is forcing you to buy these games day 1, in fact its better if you wait because then you get it for cheaper later.
Souls is not really that large of a game in scope though. any dungeon crawler is realistic in the sense that there is a limited expanse to design art and code for
the majority of these annual franchises are games that really could use more polish. a Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed needs something NEW and needs something fleshed out to really make an impact. with COD they've been reskinning practically the same game for a while with tiny details/components added, and Assassin's Creed essentially is only changing the location
the Triple A companies need to get on board with putting in more work and love into their games because it really shows when companies do. Just look at a company like Bethesda; you can tell they really care about the individual unique nature of their games and worlds.
sure, that's a bit of an extreme with the open world and choice driven gameplay elements, and 5 years is a longgg development period, but just in terms of the creativity and effort any big game IMO should take a few years to put together
In Call of Duty's case, I don't mind the annual releases because I've liked pretty much every game quite a bit since I started playing the series with MW2 (Ghosts being the one real exception). I also tend to play for their single players, so I don't get tired of the series because the campaigns are relatively short and sweet.
AC, on the other hand, I've gotten really tired of. From the first game up to 3, I liked each entry more than the last. Liberation on the Vita was awful. Black Flag, while good, wasn't as much my cup of tea. Then came Unity, which was also pretty bad. But I think with Black Flag, the series just became more monotonous because they were longer adventures, but missions you take part in really haven't evolved much, and it just gets tiring doing those same missions for 15-20 hours in each game, every year. I do still enjoy the series, but it would be nice if they took a break for one yea.r
I think people are more burned by online complaints than anything. Those games keep on selling with high figures and the customers find them fun. Until a competitor does better, they're the king of the hill.
In the case of CoD you're right, though that franchise is off it's peak. But in the case of Ass Creed I don't think it has many iterations until it becomes a rather non-entity. If they go back to a 2 or 3 yearly cycle before they destroy the brand completely they may be able to keep making decent, profitable titles for a long time to come.
Or until the series gets burned out like Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero. Latest Tony Hawk is apparently shit but perhaps Guitar Hero will find some life. Sometimes annual releases crash and burn.
Pokemon is one that comes to mind when we speak of annual franchises.
I find it funny how the author has problems with COD and Assassins Creed but Halo, one of the worst offenders of them all, is A-OK. Halo has had 11 games with a 12th one already announced and Assassins Creed also has 11 games and COD is at 12 games. The author also leaves out many other annualized games with little or no 'innovation' like Mario and Forza among others.
I think dat he doesnt mind over serialize, what he hate is Annual yearly game like AC and COD, FIFA.
As for Forza, he seem like not a fan of racing game so he probably doesnt care at all :P.
Mario isn't annualized. In fact, the last time a Mario game received a sequel on the same console was Super Mario Galaxy 2 back in 2010.
Actually, let me be more specific. If you consider the New Super Mario Bros. games to be part of the regular Super Mario series, then yes, that series has had annual releases between 2009 and 2013 with the chain being broken last year. Super Mario Maker is technically the next one in the series.
I wouldn't say Halo belongs in that list. Yeah they have released a new/Remastered Halo game almost every year lately, but they have been in different genre's and for different platforms. The main Halo series has not been annualized like it could have been. I wouldn't count Halo Wars, Halo Spartan Assault and such an annualization of the series.
And 2 of those releases (Halo Anniversary) and Master Chief Collection are just "remasters" not new games. And it's 13 games in 15 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_(series)#Game_series
@Jon-Erich: Merging 3D Mario games with 2D Mario games to classify Super Mario as an annualized series is a very long stretch. Same thing with Halo which features a RTS game.
While I have next to no interest in any of these annual franchises, I have a hard time understanding why people buying games they enjoy somehow constitutes "complacency" on their part. How does your personal distaste with annualized franchises invalidate their tastes? And really, if people enjoy the games, why would the big AAA studios stop putting them out?
Unfortunately, sales, not opinions drive development pipelines for franchises. The only reason why the annual release model even exists is because there is a large enough consumer base to support its continuation. If I only played one or two franchises, I would support the annual release franchises, but as it were, I don't, so it comes as no surprise that if I consistently buy games from an annual franchise, I'm not doing it on day one and many of those releases are being bought for $20 or less, at which point is more for collecting than for milking months, or even weeks worth of entertainment out of. If it's a mediocre chapter, I won't even bother with that. Skip it and wait for the next release.
The biggest problem with annual releases is the limited development time. Devs are forced to make a derivative product and cut too many corners. It seems these days, even 2 years of development are a bit too tight for high budget games. COD devs actually have 3 years between their respective releases but they don't seem to get much freedom from the publisher. But I think more people would not perceive these games as stale if they didn't share the Call of Duty name. Activision would still be seen as a FPS factory, though.
COD just needs to stop ripping off Titanfall and Halo. The whole sci-fi, running on walls and jumping over buildings has turned this franchise into just another FPS. COD should go back to it's roots and focus on more believable gameplay imo.
CoD's system is not actually so bad because there are 3 different teams behind it now. I believe AC's annual releases are hit or miss because only one studio is responsible for it year in and year out.
I am not sure you can say 1 studio is equal to 1 studio in this situation. Not sure how many employees work for Treyarch and the other COD studios but wasn't there some articles about Ubi having over 900 employees working on AC? I doubt Treyarch and the other 2 studios added together are much larger than that. Just a difference in management style.
this dude said Halo is annualized LMFAO
From annual releases I am only buying RPG franchises such as Atelier, Hyperdimension Neptunia, Tales of, SAO and I don't really care that they are released every year because I find them enjoyable.
That's not a STAND!This is aa Stand: http://www.fightersgeneration.com/nx4/game/jojo-allstarbattle/char-art/star-platinum-allstarbattle.png
I agree. Franchises need time to breathe. everyone should already know that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing where that thing stops beeing good anymore.
I totally agree.
I think certain titles can benefit from the annual release, COD for example, because there are plenty of gamers who play that and nothing else except maybe... well.. other yearly releases like FIFA or something. So those sorts of games really are just something to chew on for the next 12 months.
But AssCreed as a series has definitely gone down hill as a result of its annualisation. Every new game just feels like "Assassin's Creed: Another One".
Deeply uninterested in all those five games.
Translation: "WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!"
So true.
