I have recently been disturbed by the laziness of developers. I know this sounds pretentious and stupid but I'm frankly tired of playing the exact same game every year with prettied up graphics and different skins on the areas. Extreme or not, this is seen in many games, such as Call of Duty, God of War, Gears of War, and most importantly: Mario. Let's be honest, Galaxy 2 is just Galaxy 1 reskinned with Yoshi. Thoughts? Feelings? Agree/disagree?
Laziness?
I have recently been disturbed by the laziness of developers. I know this sounds pretentious and stupid but I'm frankly tired of playing the exact same game every year with prettied up graphics and different skins on the areas. Extreme or not, this is seen in many games, such as Call of Duty, God of War, Gears of War, and most importantly: Mario. Let's be honest, Galaxy 2 is just Galaxy 1 reskinned with Yoshi. Thoughts? Feelings? Agree/disagree?
"Let's be honest, Galaxy 2 is just Galaxy 1 reskinned with Yoshi. "Yeah, because you've totally played the game to prove that point.
As for the other games that you've mentioned: It's a business. Developers make products that sell.
It's playing it safe and your argument on Mario, Gears of War and God of War isn't that great. The last Galaxy game came out three years ago, last one came out (not including PSP GOW) 4 years ago and the next gears of war comes out in early 2011, over 2 years from the last one. Besides, they want to make games that sell so they put in the proven stuff people already love. If they change it drastically enough people will either hate it or be extremely cautious of the game and thats a risk developers don't want to take.
Hmmm, You haev played those games so you are part of the problem. If you were real up on this whole, I want to play something different thing you would not have even made this thread. Face it, you are the problem, buying the same game every year. No one is making you. Its not like there is a shortage of original games any more so than any period of time except the SNES or 8 bit era. Why? Because Sequels are just that much bigger in terms or marketing and sales, but there are plenty of original titles out there. You just dont notice them because you are busy playing sequels and getting sick of playing them.
You need to research the amount of money and the amount of effort it takes to make games in the first place, as well as the amount of money devs themselves get from game sales.
It's harder than you think to make games, especially new IPs with new engines and new production pipelines and new approval process and new....etc.
To make a new engine and all new assets would suck up money, and more importantly, time. So you would get nice new shiny models and textures, but probably no new gameplay elements or varied level design.
Consider the fundamentals that define groundbreaking titles for a minute. Most involve modification of either a user's attributes, play style, or the way in which they can interact in the environment. I've posted in my blog about this very subject. It's my hunch that Brink is gonna "break the wall" again as far as major efforts in gaming innovation go for shooters.
" @lostaddict1993 said:For money, to buy cocaine. To help sit at the desk for more games to be made."Let's be honest, Galaxy 2 is just Galaxy 1 reskinned with Yoshi. "Yeah, because you've totally played the game to prove that point. As for the other games that you've mentioned: It's a business. Developers make products that sell. "
Lazy isn't the right word. They're still making awesome games that take tons of work. You really played God of War 3 and said, "Wow, this... this game was made by some fucking lazy people, look at these epic, colossal boss fights! Look at 'em! L-a-z-y!
It should be noted that most requirements for attempting into the main games development companies include having worked on several published games. This basically means that games companies are only hiring from the same pool of people, leading to less innnovation.
They sell, you don't really have to buy those games anyway, a lot of people are fine with the same games and formula, there's nothing wrong with that if the mechanics are still fun. It has nothing to do with laziness as some of those games you listed still take years to develop. Just be glad they're not actually taking away stuff instead of adding to the formula.
" @lostaddict1993: I see a lot of sequels on your favorite games of all times list. "Look again, all of the sequels there took major steps to improve on the formula of the previous entries. The story of Final Fantasy VI is outstanding and epic and was, at the time, unlike anything else available. Majora's Mask innovated, and succeeded, with the masks. Chrono Cross was entirely different than Trigger. Persona 3 brought the series to the front of everybody's mind and was very different from the originals. Kingdom Hearts 2 added new gameplay elements so that it actually felt different from the first. Fucking pay attention to what I typed. I'm not saying sequels are inherently bad, I simply despise developers who do the same thing over and over again.
"Why should I have to settle there? Is it too much to ask for innovation and excitement in my games. They're not making games for themselves, they're making them for consumers, and if consumers are no longer happy playing the same game over and over again, something needs to be done.They sell, you don't really have to buy those games anyway, a lot of people are fine with the same games and formula, there's nothing wrong with that if the mechanics are still fun. It has nothing to do with laziness as some of those games you listed still take years to develop. Just be glad they're not actually taking away stuff instead of adding to the formula.
"
OP is right to worry about the willingness to ride on the coattails of success. It makes for some fun, but it doesn't lead to creative, new, and interesting IP. Novelty is a huge part of entertainment.
I think Bioshock II is the best example of this, in my personal experience. I loved Bioshock 1. And Bioshock 2 wasn't a bad game in any really definable way. But I HATED Bioshock 2. It felt ancillary, pointless, rehashed, and derivative of a far greater experience (the first game).
" @emkeighcameron: A sequel I felt better than the original Freedom Force vs the Third Reich way more epic story cooler choices too. "I'm willing to concede that there's been a LOT of "improvement" sequels that trump their preceding entries by a wide margin. This is absolutely true. Which is one of the reasons why pursuing sequels isn't a bad thing to do.
I'm just saying that I applaud the developers who go off on tangents and explore new ground (Deadly Premonition comes to mind).
The simple truth is that we need both teams to pursue new entries in established series and forge into wild, uncharted territory. I think the industry is definitely biased towards the former, but there are still some teams that manage to handle the latter.
That's like saying the music sucks cause you listened to songs with guitars last year, and again this year
From what I know about the industry (and I am currently studying for a degree in computer games programming) one thing game developers don't seem to be is lazy. It's a very competitive industry and to have a chance at getting into any real job in video games it seems developers must bring a very large amount of effort to their work. Yes, often sequels of games come across as similar to their predecessors but that's because for the most part that's what gamers (including me to a certain extent) want, as the saying goes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
The other thing is that the argument can run the other way, imagine there is a game you play and love, then they announce the second one is coming, your all excited but when you get it, everything is different. All the things you loved from the first one have been changed.
Why should I have to settle there? Is it too much to ask for innovation and excitement in my games. They're not making games for themselves, they're making them for consumers, and if consumers are no longer happy playing the same game over and over again, something needs to be done. "
Well you have the right to not buy them as a consumer, you could complain of course, but your question is whether dev are lazy and doesn't want to be creative, the answer is that they still took the same amount of development time and effort, it's just that a high percentage of gamers are gobbling those games up and wants more of the same thing, they're not unhappy consumers, they're happy that their favorite series are back with a new different story (or a continuation of the previous), some even are happy that they're taking out all the substance and making games with the formula they preferred. Look at all the people raging on reviews because the reviewers thought said games doesn't provide anything new.
I agree with you some of those games are boring to play for the 50th time, but some gamers aren't bored of them yet, as sales data suggests, and some games with identical formula are actually attracting more new gamers and they're selling better than ever. So the suggestion is to vote with your wallet, if you're tired of a genre, you don't have to buy them, I don't.
yeah, i know what you mean, fallout new vegas will be fallout 3 with a slightly different story and menus, they should use a whole new engine though.
" yeah, i know what you mean, fallout new vegas will be fallout 3 with a slightly different story and menus, they should use a whole new engine though. "I frankly don't even care about graphics or a new engine. I wouldn't care if they took 3 years in development and had it look the same as the last, as long as it's new and exciting. Also, I don't think New Vegas is going to be bad in that manner because they will also be working on the next main entry. This is almost an expansion pack which we shouldn't expect to change things up too much and simply use it to hold us over 'til Fallout 4. However, if when Fallout 4 comes out they've done the same thing, then we will have a problem.
Also everybody stop saying, "If it's not broke don't fix it". You all sound unintelligent and juvenile when you say that. I agree that that may work to an extent, but that does not mean you must practically remake the game with different character names and areas. There's a limit to that already shaky logic, and developers cross it time and again.
@addictedtopinescent said:
" That's like saying the music sucks cause you listened to songs with guitars last year, and again this year "That doesn't make sense. That would be me saying I don't like any games on the PS3 because I played lots of PS3 games last year. That's not what I'm saying. Guitars are simply a fundamental part of music and it's how you use them that counts. Same with video games. I'm not saying I flat out hate sequels or genres, just when they do the same thing repeatedly. Go listen to Dragonforce and you'll know what I mean.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment