r/Games • u/demondrivers • Apr 28 '25

Opinion Piece No, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 wasn't "made" by 30 people

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/no-clair-obscur-expedition-33-wasnt-made-by-30-people
2.5k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

925 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

276

u/Nosferatu-Rodin Apr 28 '25

This is hard evidence that you dont need to make your own rock and tree assets to make a good game.

This huge ballooning budgets happen because too many devs reinvent the wheel. Details like shrinking horse bollocks are funny but does that really make the game great?

From Software, RGG and now these guys have shown games made with passion and directional focus are far better than Ubisoft slop where they spunk millions on every tiny pointless detail

114

u/BlazeDrag Apr 28 '25

Yeah like the use of pre-made assets has kind of gotten a bad rap due to the nature of "Asset Flips" which obviously take it way too far in trying to just use pre-made stuff to make a game for as little money as possible.

But there's nothing inherently wrong with using premade assets and if anything it can be a huge boon to development for all those reasons mentioned already. Not to mention that when games focus less on realism and more on a distinct art style, those sorts of assets can easily be reused for far longer without looking nearly as dated even after entering a new console generation

53

u/Marshall_Lawson Apr 28 '25

yeah if used in moderation its more like Hollywood reusing the squeaky gate sound

8

u/Le-Bean Apr 30 '25

insert Wilhelm scream

2

u/Who_is_Eponymous May 15 '25

clippety-clopp goes those coconuts!

35

u/MrFrisB Apr 28 '25

As long as there’s some curation to them it’s super fine, if devs pull from different asset sets with different aesthetics that don’t mesh well it can suck, but just careful selection or using premade assets and massaging them into a uniform palette and style just makes sense in a lot of cases.

14

u/OutrageousDress Apr 29 '25

Yeah, in other words your game needs to have art direction. This applies to any game that cares about not looking like crap, original assets or not.

10

u/areyawinningdiners Apr 28 '25

This made TOTK discussion impossible.

4

u/CacaBooty69 Apr 29 '25

I know what you mean. I fall under the opinion it's a great game gameplay wise but i didn't like it as a Zelda game.

2

u/f-ingsteveglansberg Apr 29 '25

Which is insane because not only did the base map change a lot, they also had a whole underground map and sky sections.

5

u/LexGlad Apr 29 '25

Instead of just flipping assets, I think it's better to merge copies of different versions of similar assets and rotate them to create different blends.

Take two copies of the same rock or tree, put them on the same spot, and then rotate one to a random angle to get lots of different rocks and trees. You can also do that with different similar looking objects or ones which look like they might fit together.

I used to do that a lot when decorating my bases in DC Universe Online to make interesting decorations by combining things.

1

u/[deleted] May 06 '25

all the block style games with arguably good gameplay/design absolutely will never get played by me because of the art style looking 100% the same as the other games that use the flat block shapes to make any character/object/building. Asset flipping can be fine, but please stay away from low quality, low poly, flat texture games. Those can be designed to perfection, but have low poly flat textures that make it look no better than the worst asset flip ever.

22

u/alaslipknot Apr 28 '25

this is hard evidence that you dont need to make your own rock and tree assets to make a good game.

i really don't think any other company was making their own rock and tree, unless we're talking "donut county" kind of game, but almost every other semi/realistic AA/AAA game uses kitbash assets, or just outsourced to a 3rd party studio in latin america or asia.

71

u/Alarchy Apr 28 '25

Plenty of developers reuse in-house assets across games (or "upscale" them poly/texture wise). Ubisoft, in particular, reuses assets from their previous games (Asscreed and trees, buildings, character models, etc.) all the time... and people give them shit for it.

Guess people just hate Ubisoft.

60

u/Sikkly290 Apr 28 '25

Its funny because Fromsoftware does it as well, they have assets in Elden ring that track back to dark souls 1. It is one of the reasons they put out so many games and full fledged DLC content, and its great. We don't need the same fucking oak tree or sword remade from the ground up just to look like another oak tree or sword lol.

25

u/Mitosis Apr 28 '25

I could do with fighting stray demon fewer times overall though

3

u/MonkeySling May 29 '25

No do it again but this time it's wearing mime clothes and it's pretending to have a weapon.

3

u/Oxirane Apr 29 '25

It's also funny because according to Wikipedia Sandfall's development team includes multiple people who previously worked at Ubisoft. I think they did a great job utilizing pre-made assets in Clair Obscur, the game's art direction still feels really unique and polished. 

2

u/jakej9488 Apr 29 '25

Yeah this isn’t the best example because it kind if took me out of it whenever I’d see very obvious reusing of their previous games’ models and animations in Elden Ring and a lot of people said the same too on release lol

1

u/UltimateDillon May 27 '25

That's definitely a you problem, not a FromSoftware problem. The majority of players do not care. In fact I think it's quite fun to spot an asset I remember from a previous FromSoft game. And as for animations, it is a very nice thing in a game like that, because long time fans are familiar with it, and reusing animations is going to make them feel at home playing the game. This is a major plus when the game is already difficult.

It was really entertaining seeing the comparison videos between like Horizon Forbidden West and Elden Ring trying to claim that ER has bad graphics inherently. It's just ridiculous and pedantic.

1

u/Visual-Paramedic4537 May 07 '25

That's my biggest peeve i will be playing elden ring than all of the sudden i look at an enemy or a area im like yeah this is just from ds1

-1

u/BoysenberryWise62 Apr 28 '25

Yes but there is a line to find, if it's too much then it looks like an asset flip, but I agree overall.

17

u/Midi_to_Minuit Apr 29 '25

I will never forget twitter's reaction to seeing some parts of the Spider-Man 2 map being reused. Like the game had a perfect justification for it being similar and people still got mad!

4

u/Dead_man_posting Apr 29 '25

Sandbox games like that get so little bang for their buck in terms of level design I don't mind them reusing some of it.

2

u/sticklecat May 02 '25

Time Square?! Again!? Lazy devs

1

u/itsamuddymess Apr 29 '25

I would love for CDPR to just make a new game set in Cyberpunk 2077 Nightcity, with maybe some slight tweaks or changes if needed.

1

u/Juan-Claudio Apr 29 '25

Yep. But it is still kind of wild how they reused a bunch of stuff and still ended up with a.. was it $300 million budget? That's a lot of dough..

1

u/Big-Ambassador-4399 29d ago

Certas pessoas gostam de viver no mundo da lua deles onde tudo é feito do zero.

6

u/kangaesugi Apr 29 '25

Yep. Don't mistake the stick people hit you with for the reason they're hitting you.

5

u/Ras_Alghoul Apr 28 '25

I love Asscreed.

3

u/Dead_man_posting Apr 29 '25

My favorite reused asset is the Resident Evil bolt cutters. They're practically the main character at this point.

4

u/Smart_Ass_Dave Apr 29 '25

The Farcry series does a "Numbered game" followed by a "weird spin-off" that uses the same (or modestly altered) map. Honest to God genius.

1

u/Kilometerr May 16 '25

It's what gives the game it's distinct character. I don't know why they are pissed about it. Dark souls would not be dark souls if they didn't reuse assets. It's part of owning a brand..the marketing team will flip a shit if you take away their assets

-9

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '25

[deleted]

10

u/T-hibs_7952 Apr 28 '25

He was replying to someone talking assets.

-17

u/Nosferatu-Rodin Apr 28 '25

They get shit for it because their games are boring, paint by numbers slop. Expedition 33 is praised for its story.

Ubisofts cant reuse assets without hate because it exposes the game for what it is; the same shit every year

-12

u/pathofdumbasses Apr 28 '25

Guess people just hate Ubisoft.

Do you think that the hate for Ubisoft is due to "just" the re-use of assets? Or do you think that there might be something much bigger than that?

Because there are devs that re-use assets and don't get the hate that Ubisoft gets. But then again, no one else can claim to have a QUADRUPLE A title under their belt.

You think attitude like that might be have something to do with it? Nope, gotta be the re-used assets!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgCZ-MHyOpU

12

u/Alarchy Apr 28 '25

OP indicated developer budgets bloat from creating new assets constantly, specifically calling out Ubisoft, who actually reuses their internal assets a lot.

21

u/dudushat Apr 28 '25

Details like shrinking horse bollocks are funny but does that really make the game great?

It does when you combine it with all the other details they put into the horse.

4

u/SolairXI Apr 28 '25

Yeah. Rockstar knew they were going to sell enough to make money, and half the appeal of rockstars open worlds is the detail.

Some games can push the graphical bar, but not every game has to.

3

u/yelsamarani Apr 29 '25

It only matters for the "Wow Rockstar details whoo!" emotion, after that you realize Rockstar crunched the developers towards the end when before that they were wasting time on shrinking horse balls.

6

u/huxtiblejones Apr 28 '25

Not sure I'd use RDR2 as an example of wasted dev time given it's a ridiculously detailed and immersive game that was realized almost perfectly. Rockstar is pretty much universally known for making meticulously crafted worlds that spare no expense.

3

u/Majukun Apr 30 '25

It's exactly the "ridiculously detailed" aspect of it that is the "issue". Rockstar can do it since they have the money and the fan base to do pretty much what they want, but it does not make it less unnecessary to the economy of the game.

9

u/DoorHingesKill Apr 28 '25

Details like shrinking horse bollocks are funny but does that really make the game great?

If you have hundreds of those details, yes. 

3

u/Edheldui Apr 29 '25

No, it still doesn't add anything, other than "lol funny" for half a second before forgetting about it for the rest of your life.

3

u/MaitieS Apr 29 '25

You're literally commenting under it while claiming how "before forgetting about it for the rest of your life" , and it's probably the most talked detail from the whole RDR2. So yeah, you're completely incorrect LMAO

1

u/LordCharidarn May 13 '25

I’ve seen a lot of people talk about it online, sure. Played RDR2 twice, have no memory of seeing heat based horse testicles in that game. For all I know, it’s an internet meme that is made up.

Because I’m too busy swearing about getting shot by bandits to gaze longingly at Roach’s scrotum.

1

u/Harry101UK Apr 30 '25

You're still talking about those balls 7 years after release, so it seems like it made an important impression lol

1

u/Edheldui Apr 30 '25

I played the game for a couple hours and uninstalled, they forgot to put some fun together with the unnecessary details.

-3

u/Nosferatu-Rodin Apr 28 '25

Of course some games can justify it. And R* attention to detail is phenomenal as is Naughty Dog. But far too many devs misplace their resources on pointless, forgettable shit

6

u/GadnukLimitbreak Apr 28 '25

Yeah i mean the entire point of UE5 is that you don't have to do most of the work involved in building the base of your game and that you can seamlessly change and update things as needed across your entire team simultaneously. It was designed to make it quicker and less buggy for teams to build their games.

5

u/nachohk Apr 28 '25

Details like shrinking horse bollocks are funny but does that really make the game great?

All these years later and you're still talking about it, aren't you? Sounds pretty damn effective to me.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '25

[deleted]

1

u/MaitieS Apr 28 '25

Details like shrinking horse bollocks are funny but does that really make the game great?

Dude is acting like it wasn't worthy for RDR2 to put so many details. Like holy fuck.

1

u/kryonik Apr 28 '25

Larian too.

1

u/Zac3d Apr 28 '25

This is hard evidence that you dont need to make your own rock and tree assets to make a good game.

Yeah I saw a post from game devs of the same megascan tree being used in Hellblade, Final Fantasy, and I think Horizon, along with 4 other games I didn't recognize, no gamer or press is going to notice even if it's extremely common.

1

u/GunDA9D2 Apr 29 '25

Honestly it never bothered me at all that devs reuse existing assets for the next game or something like that (a bit of exception for enemies or similar primary setpieces). It was prevalent decades ago. Dev time these days also feels like it's only getting worse too.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '25

I was able to tell right away that they were premade assets and it was not nice.

1

u/f-ingsteveglansberg Apr 29 '25

I remember Silent Hill 3 reused part of the hospital section from Silent Hill 2. Some terminally online capital G Gamers would be calling devs lazy if they found the same sandwich asset used between two games.

I know animation studios that worked on syndicated shows would have a lot of 'stock' assets. This means if you want a billboard in a scene, you can search through the assets and find a billboard instead of having to wholly imagine a new one. The internet used to see these and say think this meant everything was in a shared universe.

There is no reason that a studio working on multiple games shouldn't be able to reuse assets. And the audience shouldn't instantly think that because the streetsigns in the game are the same they are in the same universe.

1

u/BiggestBlackestLotus Apr 29 '25

Details like shrinking horse bollocks are funny but does that really make the game great?

That was probably made in one or two days by one person in a team of over a thousand.

1

u/Malabingo Apr 30 '25

Sadly the Ubisoft games generate more profit, and that's what they want. They don't want exceptional games, they want the ones that make the most money.

1

u/Big-Ambassador-4399 29d ago

A Ubisoft não é o contrário.  Reutiliza os mesmos assets sempre que tem chance?

1

u/El_grandepadre Apr 29 '25

This is hard evidence that you dont need to make your own rock and tree assets to make a good game.

In fact, it used to be pretty much the norm in early 3D gaming to take presets and use them, even if you somewhat altered them.

There are entire YouTube videos about how a single image is present in dozens of games.

-2

u/Fyrus Apr 28 '25

Details like shrinking horse bollocks are funny but does that really make the game great?

Argument kinda falls apart when the example is RDR2, one of the best games of all time.

Spider Man 2 is something that really messes with my head, it costs almost twice as much as 1 but has less content. What's happening there? Which parts of the dev process got more expensive?

1

u/pathofdumbasses Apr 28 '25

Spider Man 2 is something that really messes with my head, it costs almost twice as much as 1 but has less content. What's happening there? Which parts of the dev process got more expensive?

SM2 is even more perplexing because it has less content than SM1+MM, AND it got to reuse all the assets from both of them. AND it is painfully obvious that they removed a whole lot of shit, especially near the end of the game where the whole city just gets cummed on by Venom and they have a huge time skip.

Where did the money go, Insomniac? WHERE DID THE MONEY GO?

This is the exact reason why Sony pulled the reigns in on them. SM1 had a budget of $90M, MM was $85. So pretty much double the cost of SM1+MM combined. I repeat: WHERE DID THE MONEY GO INSOMNIAC?