Sure. Bayonetta 3 had some insane setpieces but was clearly held back by the switch. it looked like a 240p pixelated mess. Arguably the worst looking AAA game ive ever played despite some of the most insane setpieces ever. But DMC and Asura's Wrath pale in comparison to both games.
In what way do they pale? With FF16 it's a few giants fighting in a big landscape with some cuts to shots at people at their feet, sometimes switching to rail shooter gameplay, the impressive thing is the texture and lighting quality which will obviously be better due to being on hardware, not the scale of the fight, there is nothing really impressive about having a fight take place in a 3d large environment and we have other games that are just as good on a technical level.
Like don't get me wrong I like Bayonetta, Utimate Ninja Storm and Asuras wrath but I won't pretend they are mindblowing on a technical level.
I dont agree. In terms of the basics, yes, ever since the silent era, movies have largely remained the same format, but you cant watch Oppenheimer and tell me its the same boring biopic as Stephen Hawkins or even Oscar winning ones like the beautiful mind. Nolan shot it like a fast paced thriller defying genre conventions. Same games for Batman. It's a serial killer movie not a super hero one. Id hardly call those movies formulaic.
It's no more impressive than the new style and gimmicks of Mario wonder or Zelda totk really, both require ridiculous amounts of work and play testing.
There's also achieved with Baldurs gate 3, even ff16 battle system tried unique things by implement FF14 concepts in an action game as will FF7rebirth by implements. Hi Fi rush based the entire game around fighting, platforming and having the entire world move to the beat.
Now there is tons of samey stuff, I won't act like cod is totally different game but if you can't see the ambition in games it's cause you don't know what it takes to make em.
Point we are trying to make is that movies are far more ambitious than games despite game budgets ballooning to $200 million per iterative sequel if Sonys own figures are to be believed. Nolan chose not to rely upon CG for his war movie. Sam Mendes got 2000 extras on screen at once for 1917 when CG wouldve done just fine. Tom Cruise is continuing to push practical effects and stunts. James Cameron is doing insane things with Avatar. Avatar 2 in 3d at 60 fps was a spellbinding experience. The underwater scenes felt like I was there. If thats not innovative or ambitious i dont know what is. And this is coming from someone who HATED Peter Jackson's 60 fps hobbit movies.
And game devs continue to push visuals to their limits on the hardware they have available, Horizon 5 implemented a realtime surfel based GI solution, Returnal continues to improve their in house particle engine, and again tons of devs working to make their own implementation of Raytraced lighting effects, Fifa, Spiderman and Re4 implementing strand based hair solution. Forbidden west has fantastic foliage tech. Spiderman custom system for filling the building with lit interiors.
Again, with tons of developers working to implement and improve extremely new ray traced lighting systems.
I see tons of ambition either gameplay or graphics wise throughout the entire industry, Which is why I laugh when people go "NOW THIS IS NEXT GEN" with spiderman, Matrix or FF16 when they are clearly just taking a small step further than what came before.
You can call Marvel and Disney movies generic, but Dune, Batman, Oppenheimer, Top Gun Maverick, Avatar 2 are all your summer popcorn blockbusters that are far more ambitious than your AAA games from first and third party A-tier developers.
Just not true, tons of ambition in both fields as well as tons of samey stuff, even when it comes to the same work I'd say, Avatar 2 has great visual effect and cool high frame rate scenes but was also incredibly bland story and action wise.
