Support NeoGAF

[RetroGamingUK]

Developers have pretty much maxed out what they can do on realistic budgets. Development time and costs have reached their limits and as a result, the power leap this gen has been focused on resolution and a shift to 60fps standard.

Next gen will hopefully see a big visual leap when we get GPUs capable proper ray traced global illumination and path tracing.

Imagine how much better current-gen games would look if developers could flip a switch and enable photo-realistic lighting.

 

[tmlDan]

God of War 2 came out 2 years after the first one.

I don't think anyone would be complaining if we were getting these games every other year. But even then, it wasn't always like that - Jak 2 came out 2 years after the first game and was an entirely different game.

i don't understand how a studio needs thousands of people and 5 years to make the same game over again with light tweaks here and there techically that you only notice when you put ti right next to the old one in a YouTube video. Something is majorly broken, but I have a feeling that nobody is talking about it because it benefits the friends of people like Schreier.

of course you don't understand, that's fine, you don't and have never made games (probably). Even indie studios make a 2D side scroller sequel in 5 years, not sure what you're trying to argue other than you want 7 hour games every 2 years at full price

 

[TintoConCasera]

you don't and have never made games (probably)

Have you? Maybe you can explain us why sequels take so long to develop nowadays then.

For reference, Baldur's Gate 2 took 20 months to develop, and Fallout New Vegas took even less. Both sequels that look the same as the previous game but still managed to be really, really good games.

 

[freemandos]

It can be sum of things: years of waiting, how much these sequels improved or not, the previous one being less praised months or years after its release, etc.

I will say about a VERY praised sequel and a the same time considered as a megaexpansion: Doom II: Hell on Earth. Graphics were similar and base mechanics too. So what happened then? it pushed a lot of strengths of the previous game to its limits: much more enemies at the same time, the abstract level design became even more varied and experimental, levels became bigger, the challenge was pushed, the new enemies and the new weapon were very game changing for its formula, not more losing your arsenal two or three times because not following the episodic structure anymore, etc. If we focus on values out of quantifiable ones, it was a sequel clearly made for people who mastered the first one, not for any new audience, without any pull of its punches. Oh, and it was released only 8-10 months after the original (still a powerhouse at the time), and it's an even bigger platform for modding, being the real "Eternal" Doom game.

You put a list of sequels (at least a some of them, I won't talk for all of them) not following the natural step from the previous one, repeating or making worse their previous mistakes, not enough improvement for such a long development or following the tiring "being of everybody (anyone actually)". And of course after years of waiting and expectations you think "is that all?" . And we can't forget their prices. Like I said, there are lots of reasons and not just a single one.

 

[Raven117]

There are a million reasons. From Covid, to lowest common denominator (writing and gameplay), to flat out having to be extremely risk averse due to the size of the corporations.

Hence why the games that have captured the minds of gamers (BG3, expedition 33, Elden Ring) were all done by smaller and focused teams who made a game they wanted to play.

Turns out, gamers like to play what other gamers like to play. And don't like playing what corporations say they all should like.

Clearly, we are witnessing a shift in the industry right now. Where it goes, I don't know, but this has been a very uninspired generation (but for a few glorious exceptions)

 

[Bartski]

Living in an echo chamber of jaded crusty old fucks does this to you

 

[diffusionx]

of course you don't understand, that's fine, you don't and have never made games (probably). Even indie studios make a 2D side scroller sequel in 5 years, not sure what you're trying to argue other than you want 7 hour games every 2 years at full price

An indie studio with 3 guys working on it part time? Yea it's going to take forever.

A game that barely iterates upon the last one when you have 500 people and 2000 contractors working on it full time? No reason to take 5 years, none. And I keep going backk to AC but we know Shadows had major issues with its development. They should have been able to get Shadows out in 2022 or 2023 at the latest.

 

[MiguelItUp]

AAA studios stopped taking risks and being more creative a long time ago, especially after the cost of development got so insanely high. They don't want to fail, shut down, etc. It's why I loved Death Stranding as much as I did when it first dropped. It felt like the most unique and risk taking AAA title we had seen in a LONG time. It felt like a breath of fresh air, even if it wasn't for everyone. I feel like the sequel did the same as well, if not even more so.

The result is a bunch of games that are safe, pretty similar, etc. The most "unique" things you'll see in them in a small mechanic or two to make them stand out, but then everything else just kind of feels like a been there done that kind of thing.

The AA and indie market has been the complete opposite, where you tend to see more unique and creative titles being released there. That's something that has always been the case, but it continues to as well.

That being said, while some of the games in that list may be considered "safe" or "the same", I still think a number of those games are actually solid. I mean, they cater to their previous players, as well as new ones. You can't expect AAA studios to just completely rewrite everything when it's existed in their previous titles. They just need to improve and build off of it. Make it look and/or play better, add more content, etc. If there's any kind of improvements anywhere and the game is a solid experience then I think it's safe to say that they will have accomplished their goal.

oh right obviously

Yeah, I don't understand that one at all. It looks like GoT, but more/better, kind of like what you'd expect from a sequel. But I guess you know, women bad, or something, I don't know, lmao. GoT as a title had some unique properties, but as a whole it too felt like a pretty safe title IMO. So, seeing a pretty safe sequel doesn't really seem like a stretch. It's the same experience, but there's more. You know, kind of what you'd expect in a sequel. It's not suddenly going to be first person or add some kind of wild mechanics or systems that didn't exist in the previous game. They want to cater to their previous fans, while maybe acquiring some new ones.

 

[Hypereides]

Two words: BIG DATA. Most major corporates these days are looking to validate every business decision with a stack of data. Sadly, data can only show you what worked previously. As such, they iterate rather than innovate, taking what was successful and making more of it. The big crash we're seeing in games right now is almost wholly accountable to this: an assumption by corporate middle-management that you can take an industry predicated on risk and innovation and run it on iteration and restatement.

What most of these corporates refuse to accept is that there is no safe and predictable way to drive success in this industry. You have to be unpredictable and disruptive: in an era that driving grey-brown realism and cinematic action you have to build a game like Minecraft; when every other studio is driving fast-paced real-time action, you have to build a game like Baldur's Gate 3. And importantly, you have stick to your vision, even when it doesn't set the world on fire the first try: accept middling success with a few attempts (DOS1&2) before you finally crack the nut.

This is part of the problem The industry went from intuition based decision-making into an era where they began using data as "raw facts" to rationalize the creative decisions/designs they reigned in, from above devs, in the present and in the future. Its resulted in a near fullblown conceptual stagnation on the AAA side. Especially, in the west. Pure creativity is a chaotic beast that can't be wrangled or tamed like some number crunchers and pencil-pushers believe.

This is in combination with AAA pubs and studios getting ill advice from industry consultants about mass hiring and chasing GAAS, supposedly. We're seeing the consequences from that right now.

 

[Shubh_C63]

I thought most sequels falls into the category of disappointments because they bring nothing new but reiterated and refine their first game (which was probably were made with less budget and a huge question mark)

Among modern games which were the sequel that had been really good ?

RDR2 (Rockstar shouldn't count)
Borderlands 2
And that's it.

We are comparing PS3 level with PS5 developments.