[japsander]

I don't think its the fault of the developers entirely. Many devs are paid employees and their bosses want fast returns at little extra cost.

Hell in my job some of my work can seem a little lazy but mainly due to my bosses not willing to invest in anything new that could get the job done better.

[OoZic]

Originally Posted by alienkid Aliens are aways good...

Your comment made me think about the Southpark episode with Spielberg and Lucas raping Indiana Jones
(episode: the china Problem, 1208)

http://www.mahalo.com/south-park-indiana-jones-rape/

[cookie42]

I think you need a 4th option. "Game companies are lazy and greedy"
The devs I have no issue with.

[LoverboySimer]

Compare Uncharted 1 with Uncharted 3
In ps4 you will see a good graphics leap after 2 or 3 years when develpores will learn the Hardware
It takes time to learn.
Compare any game with its sequel which came after atleast 4 years of original
u r comparing it wrong
compare like this
Assassin's Creed 1---> Assassin's Creed Revelations
Call of Duty 3 ---> Modern Warfare 3
Uncharted 1 ---> Uncharted 3
Gears of War 1 ---> Gears of War 3
Killzone 1 ---> Killzone 3
Mass Effect---> Mass Effect 3
NFS Carbon--->NFS Run(Now they are milkin it)
Battlefield Bad Company--->Battlefield3
Transformers The Game--->Transformers Dark of the Moon
It just Take time first n then needs power

[kipabc123]

Well, since we're talking about games on Sony consoles and improvements therein, I'm surprised no one's mentioned the FF series... If you want to see a prime example of the bastardization of a genre, I think that the multiple releases per console within that series is a prime candidate.

PSx - FF7 to FF8, Huuuuuuuuge leap. FF8 to FF9, not a massive leap, but at least it integrated changes to the combat style, as well as the feel of the storyline. FFTactics was a whole new game style in and of itself, yet still on the same console

PS2 - FF10 to FF12 (11 doesn't count, it's a P2P MMO, and X-2 doesn't count cause it blew chunks) Another massive leap, even though I didn't really care for the combat or summoning systems of 12. That said, even if you DID include the 2 discounted FF titles, they both brought a whole new look, feel, and storyline to the franchise, which is unheard of nowadays.

PS3 - FF13... A disgrace in every sense of the term. Linear gameplay, predictable storyline, cheesy beyond all reason, with no new features to speak of beyond graphical improvements, which were to be expected anyway considering the advances in hardware between the previous consoles and the current one. Every aspect of the game is borrowed from the previously mentioned titles, incorporating not ONE new feature. There's a new storyline, but it's not one that's enjoyable to play. They completely nixed the concept of exploration and free-roam, as well as "Role-playing", which is what the franchise was built on.

With those points having been made, I'm forced to agree, from marketing, game planning and game development standpoints anyway, that companies would rather "play safe" than "innovate".

It takes less time to grab pre-existing game physics, items, and storyline, and just give them a face-lift, than it would to create a truly new game, and with that we see the dying of entire branches of the gaming pass-time, in exchange for quick cash-grabs.

Do I think game developers are lazy? No. Do I think the people who commission them to create games want money? Yes. And it's killing what has always been one of my favorite pass-times. =\

Also, for those of you who keep citing graphical improvements as "jumps ahead", gtfo. Game graphics are just the icing on the cake. Truly good games have no need whatsoever to depend on eye-candy to please their fans/fanatics; They use GAMEPLAY. Shocking, I know. But then I can understand where you're coming from, given there's only been MAYBE 20 games in the last 5-6 years worth the money you spend on them. My 0.02$.

[KillerBug]

Originally Posted by kipabc123 Also, for those of you who keep citing graphical improvements as "jumps ahead", gtfo. Game graphics are just the icing on the cake. Truly good games have no need whatsoever to depend on eye-candy to please their fans/fanatics; They use GAMEPLAY. Shocking, I know. But then I can understand where you're coming from, given there's only been MAYBE 20 games in the last 5-6 years worth the money you spend on them. My 0.02$.

Good graphics do help immersion. Gameplay is important for sure, but it isn't everything. I tried playing Hitman Blood Money on a PS2 once and everything was going good at first until I got a tight camera angle and noticed that the back of his head was an octagon...broke the immersion instantly.

Graphics can also be things that you don't necessarily consider to be visual. Good graphics in a war game might mean less fake fog in the distance, changing the game to the point that long range weapons are now useful. The game might "look" just as good in a screenshot either way, but the gameplay is changed by the graphics quality.

[FunkyGanja]

Sequels are just a developers way of milking as much money out of the series as they can. As for the pioneering of new, innovative games, developers put a lot of effort (Kazunori Yamauchi who delayed GT5 because a building on some circuit wasn't the right "blue") into attracting potential users to the series. So they can milk as much money from them as possible.

It's easy to see that there is a difference between the originals and their sequels of late but comparing the consecutive sequels just shows how much game developers think they need to implement in order to reel in unsuspecting buyers. It angers people more than makes them buy it. SF4 and SSF4, and all other stupid sequels as such.

[superfurry]

Simple, if something works it makes money so let's make more or then .


Thanks, superfurry

[DallasArbiter]

I think advancements, especially in graphics are more a representation of hardware limitations than the work ethic of developers.

The post about the FF series illustrates this. Not that I have played or would play an FF game. The great advancements of that series (according to kipabc123) came with new systems. This should not be a surprise. This is also why PC games show a more steady increase in...well, all areas. I am not saying faster increase but one without major leaps and dry spells.

Claims that developers are responsible for lousy graphics are unfounded. Fog is actually a good example. Fog is a technique devs use when a system's hardware can't process/draw/store in RAM the entire "map". As far as graphics are concerned the limit is not the developer’s intelligence(or work habits) but hardware capabilities.

I work for a development shop. We don't make games but I can tell you I don't know a single lazy developer. Also, I am not writing this because I am offended in any way. I think I am being fairly unbiased.