Hey guys. I haven't made many posts since the website was redesigned. But this is an issue i think that really needs to be addressed in this industry. It seems too many of the worlds game developers have become complacent with there attitude towards developing video games this year. It seems all they want to make is sequels and re hashes, cheap cash ins on popular fads or just taking the tried and true and not trying anything new or exciting. Since 2007; one of the most stellar years in gaming for a long time in my opinion, all we see is sequel after sequel and shooter after shooter. take a look at some of the most anticipated games this year. Halo reach, Starcraft 2, Mario galaxy 2, Mass Effect 2, Assassins Creed Brotherhood, Gran Turismo 5, Call of Duty: Black Ops, God of War: Ghost of Sparta, I mean come on. where is the originality, in 2007, Bioware went back to sci-fi and created a work of genius in the original mass effect. the orange box became a phenomenal bang for your buck, Galaxy redefined platform games and Bioshock showed us just how much a games atmosphere can affect a player, but now it seems all those big, revolutionary games don't come anymore, hopefully people start to get sick of these games and we get to see some new ideas, i'm excited for Last Guardian next year, but not much else is coming out that i haven't seen 2 or 3 times before in the last year or so. I love video games, but I miss the joy I got out of those more creative years. Developers needs to follow the examples set by games like Minecraft, Epic Mickey, Amnesia Dark Decent etc to bring about another golden year like 2007 down the track. What do you guys think, does this affect you guys at all? or are you still loving playing these games as much as you did 3 years ago?

I hear you, and I even kind of agree with you. But, I want the sequels and I will buy a lot of them.

Dont hate me!!!

PS - Edit it and give it some paragraphs. Your post is a wall of text

I liked these games when they were original, I still find them fun. To be fair to Assassin's Creed, it was revolutionary in the first 2 games, it has only been Brotherhood that hasn't added too much (but it was still 26 hours of pure joy)

The issue with making new stuff is that we have to be convinced that we like it, which makes selling games hard, so once somebody has a good new idea for a franchise, they should run with it for a bit. I would feel disappointed if something like AC hadn't been continued, or the if the even less original Uncharted series had also stopped. They may be similar games to their predecessor, but they can still be great games

There are two shooters in that list. And more to the point, every game you named is brilliant, so who cares if it isn't "original" or "innovative". Sure, you get original gems like Braid and LIMBO and... Deus Ex?

See, it's so hard to name them because it's very difficult to be original and still be good. Just being derivative doesn't make your game bad. Being a sequel definitely doesn't make your game bad.

I kinda agree with you since I miss new IP too but fantastic games deserve sequels.

And there's actually quite a bit of high profile new IP on the horizon:

Rage
The Last Guardian
Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning
From's Project Dark
CryTek's Codename Kingdom's
I Am Alive
Brink
LA Noire
From Dust
Cursed Crusade
The First Templar

2011 looks like it's bringing some innovation TBH look up Brink, LA Noire, Guild Wars 2, From Dust, Bulletstorm and Catherine all of which look to be bringing innovation in some way innovation is out there you just need to look for it. Sequels aren't going away but nether is innovation. Additionally the next generations should bring a new batch of IPs as they always do. 

It's not about being "creative". When a sequel comes, what players want is not some new stupid gimick. They want the same old game with the same formula but now they want to explore more the world (world in this case meaning the universe where the game spins around) where the game is set in, furthening it's content. It is what happened in Super Mario Bros. -> Super Mario Bros 3.

The problem is that developers don't care about what the consumers want anymore, they only care about THEY being happy. It's like parents saying who's child is better while no one cares about the child other than himself.

Also Kantor, may I ask where Limbo is creative?

No developer wants to create crappy games, cheap re hashes or anything in the bad catorgory. All want to create an great Game. 

But then people have to remember that Developers would love to have infinite money supply so they can create what ever game they wanted but in reality that isn't going to happen. Its an Business and they need to make money. When developers are prototyping the many different types of games waiting for one to be green lighted my the money men (publishers) the ones that are crazy and "innovative" are the ones that cost the most to make when it comes to an large title. On average to create an new ip major title its going to cost 30 million dollars and sequels an lot less at around 20 million. Its an huge risk for publishers to gamble that type of money on an crazy new IP. Those games above aren't exactly "New" and Portal was an small budget title that was bundled with an highly established title making it an small-zero risk which brings me to my next point. 

Games now are costing an Hell of alot to make. With today's next gen consoles it takes more time and more man power to make games and no one isn't going to work for 2 years for nothing. On top they cant release an small title on the major platforms because with internet something like $60 dollars for an 4 hour experience can really produce lack lustre sales. So games have to big, pretty and have bang for your buck now. In the eyes of the money men thats RISKY business, and its more risky then its ever been. back 10 years ago games costed several hundred thousand and pushing on that. So it was an far less risk and publishers had the cash to spend an an few 100 thousand on an crazy innovative title. Now with it being 30 million, would you risk that on an title that is crazy innovative big blockbuster. No you would have to be ballsy to do so or have an mighty good studio with an loyal following. 

Thats the reason why we haven't been seeing major leaps in games over the past gen and instead the same old same old sequels being pumped out every year.  But instead we have been seeing these games pop up on the small scale independents but that isn't comparable to the major blockbusters. 

But how can be reverse this. 1st thing as gamers is to support the crazy innovative small titles. Because if an Small title sells then an publisher would be like "hey that small title sold 2 million, we could make an blockbuster using that innovative style and could bank on that 2 million spending more for the same thing. And also stop buying the same stuff over and over again and force the developers to change there act. 

Who knows, there could be an developer trying to build an big Minecraft MMO style game right now because of its huge success. 

 IT's not that the developers don't want, it's that the publishers darn't risk money on a new IP or idea. At the end of the idea it's much safer going for a market that already exsists and putting one unique 'spin' on the basic concept for uniqueness - and the formula seems to be working. With so much money involved I don't think anyone out there seems to dare risk it on something unproven, outside of Heavy Rain and The Last Guardian, and a few others.

 The Downloadable platforms do remedy this a bit with some brilliant content, but when it's at such a small scale it's hard for it to really embed itself in your memory as the greatest games of the year, even if it's really really fun.

 Unfortunately Sales trends are going towards an industry which is going more iterative by the year - the big hits were all sequels (many yearly releases) like COD, Halo, AC, FIFA, Fallout etc whereas anything with a hint of originality or at least trying to do something slightly difference bombed - Vanquish, Blurr, Enslaved. Hell those games didn't even stray very far from the tried and tested big-hit seller formula, so it just shows how much risk there is.

 To try end on a positive note, I think we are seeing occations where by making a game 'different and interesting' it can spark the imagination of the gaming audience and lead to an unlikely hit. I'm sure every publisher suit-guy who makes the decisions on this sort of stuff would have scuffed at the idea of Heavy Rain ever having a hope in hell of being a hit, but alot of people bought it - COD / AC type yearly buyer people - simply because it was something different, and the marketing did a good job at getting that across. So there is hope.