Are Game Developers Lazy?
 

For as long as I can remember, gamers have accused game developers of being "lazy" when a game is released that doesn't feel "finished" or when a game feels too short, or even when it's too similar to its predecessor. I didn't understand what they meant by "lazy," and it was hard for me to agree because sometimes game developers would try their hardest and their game would still fail to meet expectations, but recently I gave it a second thought and I think I finally know what they meant and I have Skyrim to thank for that. To the members of PS3Hax, I ask this question:

(I know I am forgetting a lot of games)

It is just economics.... the game companies only want to invest in proven concepts and not in experimental new games... Only easy money counts these days to survive the economic war :dontknow:

$ony is doing the same with upgrading old PS2 games to PS3 HD games ...

yes some companies like rockstar actually improve and work damn hard in their games
and they end up selling millions

not like the cod series that make millions withount doing a damn thing

so yeh some developers are lazy

Well you can see this whole problem that simple:

The main reason for sequels is "making money" but thats not all.

For COD it doesnt matter what they do in single player mode , even grafics isnt that important - most people just playing it online.

Uncharted made a huge jump from part 2 to part 3 (till it reached the limitations of a ps3) - maybe not in the gameplay, but part 3 is like an interactive movie.

Same with inFamous 2, they took a good part 1 and just fixed everything annying.

I think it is not easier to make a sequel as it is to create a whole new game.
A sequal has a huge baggage - it must be better as the previous part.

(good example is COD MW 2 and BO - BO could never catch up to MW2)

i think deadlines and pressure from publishers have a lot to do with little to no improvement in games nowadays (dragon age 2 anyone?).. every publisher wants easy money annually..
especially EA.. COD is the blame for this..
with a new game out every year.. and the worst thing is ppl continue to pay for the same game each year..
When ppl wake up and relies then maybe we can get some good games like previous generations..
multiplayer is also to blame for bad games... if a game doesn't have a good campaign (10+ hrs/ and a good story) then imo it isnt worth buying..

also im not completely against multiplayer (i occasionally play online) but i really think multiplayer is the downfall of the gaming industry.. why make a beefy campaign.. when u can throw together a half @ssed one and add multiplayer..

Most of the people involved in sequels didn't really want to be doing this; they created some game that they thought was good...it might have been great or it might have been crap, but it sold and the company they worked for said, "We can sell it again". At that point, it is a choice between quitting development (they have anti-compete clauses in their contracts) or remaking the same game with a different plot. Sure, GTA4 is a big advancement from GTASA, but it is on a different platform. GTA3, VC, SA, and stories were all basically the same in terms of gameplay, graphics, etc. They need to release a new game every year to keep the egg counters happy and it takes much longer than that to write a new engine, create new models and textures, and do everything else involved with making a whole new game. Taking the old game, adding a few small features, writing a new script, and throwing together some new maps takes much less time. You can even use the same bugfixes in many cases (not that anyone ever fixes all their bugs to begin with).

So no...they are not lazy. They are cheap, or more specifically, the people who write the paychecks are cheap.

Im not sure how your image comparisons can convey developers being lazy.

The GTA images are of a PS2 game and a PS3 game, so its obvious the quality change and improvements are going to be noticeable.

Where as the second group of images look like two PS3 games, which wont show much difference because they are on the console/same hardware.


Even all the games you mentioned are all on the one console/same hardware, so comparison isn't really fair as there wont be a huge difference, wait until the PS4 is release and compare the two

I don't want to lease another game console in the (far far away) future ;)

There's a few replies here that are really interesting, it kinda makes my post obsolete but I'll write it either way.

I'm not sure GTA is a good example of somebody working on their games... going from GTA2 to GTA3 was a huge step but since GTA3 it's pretty much the same game only looking prettier with every new version so it's not that different from COD or whatever it is in your other 2 screenshots.

You're only mentioning sequels in your list, that's another interesting thing too and it doesn't really help you in making your point. Assasins Creed 1 was a guy jumping around the buildings without breaking his neck so all the sequels should be the same thing only with a different story, in a different place and with improvements in those areas that needed improvements, stuff like that. If the concept of the game would change so much that Assasins Creed 2 is nothing like Assasins Creed 1 but more like Plants vs zombies (or whatever) then it wouldn't be Assasins Creed 2 but Assasins vs zombies.

I kinda got lost up there but I'm sure you get my point. What the gaming industry REALLY needs is less sequels and more original titles, with original ideas and concepts. Unfortunately, that's usually not a profitable way of running business and that's the problem.

I don't see how it is unfair to compare them...there are lots of games on the PS3 that look and play completely different. BF3 and MW3 look much different while MW1, MW2, and MW3 are virtually identical.
************* [ - Post Merged - ] *************
Yes, I get your point...Assassins vs Zombies would be great!