TLDR: Third parties began to dominate the market, similar games became popular, the strive for realism has taken precedence

This is an opinion piece brought to you by a PS fan. I was spurred into writing this by reading this chain of posts on another thread, which I am inclined to agree with. Here I will explain why I believe Playstation has become "dull", in contrast to its earliest days as a console brand.

First of all we have to acknowledge that nostalgia is the primary drive for this feeling. With that out of the way, here is a further argument:

Third party developers have really taken off over the past ten years - which isn't a bad thing, but worth noting. Since 3rd parties can develop for any console, each console can therefore cater to similar markets - and subsequently consoles lose points of distinction. Anyone can look at the Chartz and see how the patterns in software popularity shifted from PS1 to PS4 - AKA first party dominant to third party dominant (this is something I probably say about once a week lol). I argue one reason why PlayStation seems so shallow and dull is because it isn't first party dominant anymore. Of course, this is in combination with the idea that third party developers and publishers thrive on making very similar games.

The most popular games of the seventh and eight generation share so many elements and mechanics that they blend together. If I could create the most average game for the 7th and 8th generation, I would create an action/shooter with RPG elements and some aspect of exploration and item collecting, and some sort of online multiplayer mode. I could buy this game on any system. It would be impossible for my game's protagonist to be a console mascot - more likely to be the face of the franchise. My protagonist would share so many character traits with other popular franchise protagonists that you could swear they were related. It would be published by Activision or Take 2 or EA or Ubisoft.

Let's compare that with the Playstation 1's most popular offerings. Gran Turismo games were great racing simulators. Metal Gear Solid was stealthy and cinematic and made us feel like we were living in a James Bond type movie. Final Fantasy games were - well, fantasy role-playing games with a turn-based battle system. Tekken games were good, simplistic arcade fighters. Crash Bandicoot and Spyro were colorful and charming platformers with a variety of environmental level designs. Resident Evil was a good survival horror that didn't rely heavily on action elements. Tomb Raider was a fun 3d action game. THPS was a new and addicting arcade-type skateboarding game. Etc. Most were published by SCE.

The above games are easily distinguishable from one another. Sure they shared elements with each other, but it is obvious they did not try to create a game using the same proven formula. Male and female protagonists/characters, where applicable, were about equally represented. Genres encompassed: more than 5. Franchises listed with shooter elements? Well, 3 had guns I guess. How many of these games could you play on Nintendo or PC? Few, if any. Playstation was an exclusive home of diversity. More than that, it was a home for fantastical diversity. As our hardware has grown more powerful, and games continue to strive for increased realism as a result, we don't need to suspend our disbelief in order to find our own place in a game world. It's more about our own participation and player agency than it is about being an omniscient spectator. You have a lot more room to play with as a developer if you aren't realying on realism.

The above is an observation that can be taken at face value. If I could take the liberty of making on small plea, however: I want to see more fantastical games with this new hardware we have. Pretty please! At any rate......

We do still have some variety on Playstation. Perhaps not as noticeable as it was, but it does exist; although games too far outside the norm are rarely commerically or critically succesful; perhaps even ignored (we call these games: Indies LOL). Remember last year, about this time, voting for games which we considered to be 7th generation's classics? It wasn't that 7th generation was dull for Playstation - but that many of the games we enjoyed on Playstation shared similar mechanics and story elements. Same on the top Metacritic charts, and the top VGChartz. They are critical and commercial success stories - creating a message from gamers that clearly reads: "THESE ARE THE GAMES WE WANT TO PLAY NOW!" Is that a bad thing? Well, not really. We enjoyed them, didn't we?

That being said, will we ever get back back to "glory days" of Playstation content, with more variety in games? I think we will, yes. To put it all into one sentence: our interests as a population have shifted, and the market has responded. What's stopping that from happening again? Be honest with yourself. If you want variety, then BUY VARIETY when you see it. We can't say that we are worse off now than we were before. We can only say that Playstation gaming is a bit more dull now - and if it isn't because we are older and feeling nostalgic, then it is because we don't widely accept variety in games anymore. Perhaps with Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Death Stranding, Gran Turismo, Days Gone, Tekken, The Last Guardian, Dreams, Detroit and Horizon, we will be satisfied.

Or, maybe not. Maybe we should realize that we won't see content diversity exactly like the early days of Playstation anymore. And maybe, that's ok.

What do you think? Has Playstation become dull since the days of PS1 and PS2? Is there anything else you'd like to point out, or disagree with? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

Thanks for reading.

If that is how you define dull, then the entire industry is suffering from it, not just Playstation. AAA games take years to create and cost enough to bankrupt entire companies if they don't sell well, which understandably leads to fewer companies willing to take risks with their games, and also leads to fewer releases. You yourself noted what companies can take the chance to create something that differs from the norm - the indie companies, and their releases make for a ton of variety, if sometimes a little less quality, due to their lack of funds. 

FFVII REMAKE!! Enough said.

you have to ask this question to gaming as a whole

I do agree with both of you; it is affecting gaming as a whole. However, I feel like it was the worst on Playstation, as third parties never really took over Nintendo, and Xbox didn't really have a shift in first party output. Furthermore, the comparison between PS1 and PS3/4 is the most obvious one, and the example I am most familiar with. Finally, I really want first party output from Playstation to thrive again - and that is something that I think will happen soon.

Well, you do have a point(Just read your TL DR)

Its more of companies playing safe.So far, few games have been really either innovative or done something groundbreaking in a estabilished genre or game structure.And this generation so far, there have been few examples:The Witcher 3, Bloodborne, and some others.In that sense, yeah, its became dull.But on the other hand, we have excellent games that have mastered their respective genre, so we dont lack great games.

I personally miss games having epic music.Most western games just have that generic, hollywood Michael Bay style music(for when you are in a fight or battle).A nice exception was the Witcher 3.That game had a good soundtrack.

Well, I'd argue first party software has never been Sony's strength. It's made its name by creating an environment attractive to third parties. Same for Microsoft.

Since neither Sony nor Microsoft have a lot of talent in their first party studios they're both dependent on the quality of games from Activision, EA, Ubisoft, Take Two, etc. Those big-name games have been getting worse over the last ten years so both ecosystems suffer as a result.

Nintendo, with its amazing first party content, is somewhat shielded from that problem.

The problem unique to Sony is that it's made cinematic and experimental games its focus over the past two generations, which tend to have low replay value and/or shallow gameplay.

So I agree that Sony has entered a decadent period, but so too has the entire industry.

I don't really get what you're saying, exactly. Gaming seems plenty diverse to me. The big difference would be that some types of games have fallen out of favor and been replaced by other types of games.

Otherwise, there is diversity with games like Until Dawn, Ratchet & Clank, Batman, Tomb Raider, The Evil Within and Bloodborne. Persona 5 and Final Fantasy are coming up. We have Overwatch, X-COM 2, and Dragon Quest Builders.

The only real difference I see is that some types of games get a lot more exposure, now, though that's more because of consumer preference.

Naaah, I think the problem is people are just looking at chart toppers, when the reality is that there is a lot of fun, varied content (not only on Playstation, but also on Xbox. I'd say Nintendo too, but they are exempt from these complaints because unlike on Playstation and Xbox, the fun, varied and unique games are also the chart toppers, so it's easy to see what sets them apart). Last gen was Sony's strongest gen in terms of content. This gen hasn't gotten warmed up properly yet though, so I'll reserve my judgement, although I'll have to admit that it's not looking quite as good as last gen so far, but that's to be expected after such a great gen. It's hard to constantly exceed oneself.

Nice post. I'm sorry I'm too lazy to make a comprehensive comment....I'm quite happy with the state of the PS4, and the industry as a whole. I feel my PS4/Vita library is as strong and diverse as it was last gen. Voted PS3 as most exciting era. Off topic: Is the trouble I'm having with the site fairly widespread? Can't do much but post a quick reply right now.