I also think it has a lot to do with technology, Reim.

I believe strongly that constraints actually boost creativity. That's why you see so many great games from Nintendo and indie developers. They're operating under (sometimes self-imposed) restrictions in terms of power and budget. Then you look at games built with blank checks and you see a creatively bankrupt experience.

This is a generalization of course. Gears of War 4 and Infinite Warfare are two of the finest games of the gen, and they cost a fortune.

But I think as technology has advanced over the past two generations it's made studios lazier, less imaginative, and much less open to risk-taking.

Sony and Microsoft don't seem to get it. With Scorpio and Pro, they're actually doubling down on power.

I don't think playstation or consoles have becoming dull / as dull as gamers.

Games that offer a new and fun experiences often get overlooked. If you look at Playstation over the this and last gen and see the games we as a group failed to support:

1) Puppeteer
2) Ico
3) SotC
4) Modnation Racers
5) Tearaway
6) Motorstorm Apocalypse
7) Buzz
8) Rain
9) the last Sly game
10) The Shoot
11) Fight: Lights Out
12) Gravity Rush

Chances are:

1) Gravity Rush 2
2) Dreams
3) TLG
4) Days Gone

Won't sell so hot and might not even break even.

Another great thing about the PS1 and PS2 generations was Arcades and the leap to 3D.

Arcades bought a lot of variety of games to consoles. From simple fighting and racing to dancing, light gun and quirky experiences.

With the leap to 3D we got a whole range of experiences and iterations of 2D games. Now that we have done it for so long is harder to bring something to add to 3D. VR might be on the table but when it will become mainstream is unknown.

Seeing a lot of good pointsbeing made, which is great!

Sometimes I forget that Rocket League was an indie. That game has seen major success and is now a semi-popular esport with some fairly decent prize pools!

*edit* I forgot to add that I agree with the rest of your post

Yea I agree. If you put a lot of money into a product, you'd be more likely to take the safest route. There's something to be said about having little to lose. The thing is, gaming technology needs to be progressive in order to keep pace with the techonological world around it.

That would be Nintendo in a nutshell, which is at odds with your praise.  They do more "more of the same" than anyone, resulting in a lot of the market moving away in order to find different experiences.  I'd easily put them behind Sony in terms of imagination and risk-taking relative to the games themselves.  If developers and publishers are being called out for cultivating a stagnant garden, Nintendo should probably be on that list.  

Is this your opinion OP? It's unclear if you are copy pasting or if you wrote that yourself.

Anyways, the issue i have is that this has nothing to do with Playstation alone. Microsoft is just as responsible as are the critics/reviewers.

Aside from that, i agree. Reviewers backed publishers and developers into a corner added to the risk of developing AAA games. Critics like to be overly critic and finding flaws to blow out of proportion. This leads to a loss in sales.
So publishers end up focusing on the genres that give them garantee's.
So, nowadays we got only a few genres: Shooter, RPG, adventure/open world, or a mix of the three. Theres sports games and a few racing games, but that's it. Even the RPG genre has really been taken over by the shooter and action/adventure tropes.

But let's not fool ourselves, the problem comes full circle. Consumers want better information from critics, critics try to be impartial and only objectively review an electronics poduct rather than an entertainment one. Graphics gain preference as they can objectively be judged, manufacturers use more powerful machines for better and prettier graphics. The price of game production rises. With more risks, more garantee's are needed for the publisher. Originality and innovation get snuffed out, gameplay takes a secondary role, sure-fire genres are adopted.

Is the problem on consumers? No, critics were the ones that forgot what service they were providing.

But there are definitely diminishing returns. Publishers keep throwing money at games and sell us on the latest in 4K tech, but is it making games noticeably better? For me, game design peaked during the 4th, 5th, and 6th gens. It's been going downhill steadily since 2006, and I blame it squarely on the movement toward the cinematic in games, which has been facilitated by HD.

But I'm talking about game design. Sure Sony can make an experiment like Puppeeter or Tearaway - something very imaginative and risky that ultimately plays poorly.

I think making a 2D Mario in 2012 and using it to launch a system is pretty ballsy, especially because prevailing wisdom among hardcore gamers is what you've summarized: it's a lazy, uninspired cash grab. But that couldn't be further from the truth. It's packed with creative mechanics and interesting ideas.

Nintendo is creative and takes risks in terms of mechanics and gameplay, which is really all that matters. Being able to superimpose myself into the sun in Tearaway is fine and all, but it's not rewarding. 

Edit: I think we're on different pages. You're talking about genre diversity and creativity, and I'm talking about mechanical diversity and creativity. In the case of genre diversity, I agree that Nintendo is too narrowly focused and reluctant to take on riskier projects. But when it does take on an unexplored genre, as it did with Splatoon, it proves how inventive it can be.

the kind of game i like the most are 2d plataformers.
i freaking love rayman legends, and the nintendo ones, and some indies.
but i can feel the lack of this kind of game on market. they are treated as small projects.
i really would like to see more games like tlbp and pupeteer. yet, ori and the blind forest almost made me buy a xbox one...

Yep it me

Interesting perspective. Game design certainly hasn't progressed as much as I would have liked it to. I'm with you that graphical fidelity is definitely not everything it's made out to be - and quite frankly, unless the game you are playing is some sort of simulator, I'd like game design/performance to take precedence. Who knows, we might even reach a point soon where graphics become stagnant, and we start focusing on other aspects of game design.

I like to think that the progression of video games is a double edged sword in all of its aspects. For example, we as consumers now have the opportunity to provide meaningful feedback to developers - and features can be patched via download as a result of said feedback. This is pretty awesome for devs, considering how complex games have become - thus opening the door for easier fixes for the increased number of possible technical problems. But then again, that means that devs can be lazier and rush their products, since they know that they can provide fixes down the road.

But now I'm rambling

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue? The variety is still there but you're arguing against games mixing elements? And is it new IPs that you mean is missing?