[madbro]

Originally Posted by aya this is so not fair, I mean, are you complaining for graphics ? come on, wait for ps4 and xbox 720 and you'll see the big jump, and the difference in all those games are the storyline :o most of us cares about the story of the games and not just graphics, and for MVC those are a bunch of thieves the could easily give some chars for free in dlc but the rather charge for each one and which is worse, sell a new "game" but with 8 more characters.

We won't. Notice the jumps when Xbox360 arrived. Also, nowadays it's difficult to be innovative.

[TizzyT]

In a graphical sense I think the game developers might be lazy as I see there is barely any difference in a game franchises (most of the time). Story line wise I can understand as it is probably something similar to a writers block and what comes out is what they barely came up with. What I really find lazy is that Crysis 1 is more interactive then Crysis 2. The way I see it games are developed with many things to keep in mind like level of details (graphics, physics, etc) that a game can utilize, for PC gamers there are vast differences in computer configurations and a game (technically) has to be able to play on most of them. In my opinion this model is kind of making games and game developers lack and more restricted. I think the ideal model in my opinion would be that the developers make the game how complex or vast they want and there will be demand for hardware capable of playing such titles which in turn will push technology ahead. like in the medical field, there is a problem that already exists and so they find a solution for it, unlike now were we have to see if a solution exists and develop based on that.

PS: This is entirely my opinion and also I was thinking more on a PC as a basis.

[Annelies]

I hear a lot of you telling me that is unfair to compare a PS2 title to a PS3 title. These games are both on the same console. It hasn't changed it's core mechanics, but has made a notable jump from it's predecessor. This is what a sequel is. You can't say this could have just been DLC.

[ModIt]

@ TizzyT - Crysis is more like a demo what CryEngine can do . I guess they try to sell the engine not the game (like Epic did it with the Unreal engine)

The main problem is : You're disucssing that the most games are looking to similar, but there are 2 (maybe 3) decent engines to built the game, so the studio has the choice : buy a eninge or develop a new one.
For a story telling game it is a waste of ressources to built an engine , so the buy one -> games looking similar.

The most important part about a new game is : Does the game evolve ?
Does it look better isn't the main goal to achieve.
(e.g. look at Super Mario Galaxy 2 - in my eyes one of the best games ever made. But i'm pretty sure, that the engine is 10 years old and the gameplay hasn changed since the N64, but the game is ****ing perfect)

And like someone said : If i buy inFamous 2, you buy it because you liked inFamous and you want more...

Btw.. most innovative thing on the ps3 was made by Rockstar : Red Dead Redemption : Undead Nightmare was epic.
You take a blockbuster and change the key aspect of the story... it was so much fun, and a whole new gaming experience ( but probably it took them at best a couple of months to create it). Same with inFamous : Festival of blood.
It was sooooooo cool to play with Cole as a vampire - change one key aspect and you got a whole new gaming experiance.

Rockstar guys - someone reading this ? How about Aliens in L.A. Noire ?

[start it up]

I can agree with what the OP is saying. Graphical improvements are expected, but extra content is a must. How much do these games change from year to year content-wise. Uncharted 3 is a perfect example. Graphical it is amazing, almost close to a movie, but when you consider that an Indiana Jones movie in HD is only 25 dollars at most what the justification for the extra 35 dollars I spent. In my opinion Uncharted 2 lasted a lot longer with more of the original awe factor.

[alienkid]

Originally Posted by ModIt How about Aliens in L.A. Noire ?

Aliens are aways good...

[mosstopher]

Originally Posted by Annelies I hear a lot of you telling me that is unfair to compare a PS2 title to a PS3 title. These games are both on the same console. It hasn't changed it's core mechanics, but has made a notable jump from it's predecessor. This is what a sequel is. You can't say this could have just been DLC.

Comparing a game that isn't out yet to one that is is as ridiculous as comparing games from different generations. The fact is, publishers will pour money into things which will make them money back whether that happens to be "shoot the evil darkies 12," "hit the zombies with a hammer 9," "awful party game with a company mascot 4" or "score one more than them 2012". This is how it has always been and this is how it always will be.

I'm sure there are a load of games that, due to them being way out there, have been cancelled which would have been released years ago, likewise I'm sure there's a lot of games which are released which would never have been in previous years. You've also got to add in the digital download market to that, look at games like Limbo, Flower and the Pixeljunk games for e.g.

[KillerBug]

Originally Posted by Annelies I hear a lot of you telling me that is unfair to compare a PS2 title to a PS3 title. These games are both on the same console. It hasn't changed it's core mechanics, but has made a notable jump from it's predecessor. This is what a sequel is. You can't say this could have just been DLC.

Blood Money was on the 360, and thus the sequel will be on the same console, but for Sony it was only on the PS2, with the sequel on a different console.

Think of it this way...to make a whole new game takes at least 4 years, usually 5 or more. You can either sell one game really well for a year and go 4 years with almost no sales, or you can sell the same game over again every year for 4 years and then make the new release you would have made anyway. Honestly, wouldn't you do the same thing they do if it was your game company and the profits went into your pocket? Obviously MMOs can function differently, making money from subscription and item purchases, but I don't think we are talking about MMOs here.

Anyway, the fans want it. People would have bought a new hitman every year since blood money happily, even if the new games were just glorified DLCs. The publisher would have made more money, and the new one only would have been delayed slightly, as the extra revenue from the intermediate sequels could have hired more programmers and artists. Personally I wish they had done that. I own every Hitman game and I would have been first in line for all the glorified DLCs.

[itskamel]

i for one myself think that repackage the same **** year after year with only a few new features. not all games but most. imo.

but most of all what gets me is when a game will sell for 60 dollars and then they release 3 or 4 dlc for 15 dollars earch.

60
15
15
15
15
=
120 for a game ?

thats just insane.

or even more insane is having to pay for dlc to unlock that is already on the disc. "ie mk9"

[KillerBug]

Originally Posted by itskamel or even more insane is having to pay for dlc to unlock that is already on the disc. "ie mk9"

Those are crap, but if it is a choice between buying a DLC for $15 or a sequel the same size for $60, then I'll go with the DLC.

Better yet, I usually just wait for them to release the game with all the DLCs included for $30.