"Lack of innovation". The phrase that seems to describe what the game industry has become. Game developers are being seen as lazy. Rarely has a new game come out that has caught my attention. We can still expect some great sequels from companies like Rockstar, Konami, Naughty Dog, and Bethesda just to name a few. GTA 5 which was pushed back because Rockstar felt the game needed more work to be the best it can be when it's released. Why is this a forgotten concept? When did spending a little more time to polish a game become a bad idea? The problem is greedy publishers. Publishers base their investment on a game on a few key things. How many people will buy it and how much of a lost they will take if it doesn't meet expectations. So naturally the publishers will give developers money to work on a sequel because the previous installment was successful, or the game is based on similar principals and design philosophies of another popular game. Sounds logical right? They made money before, obviously they will make money again. But that's where the problem starts. Constant sequels, reused content, and over milked IPs destroy the industry. OK, so we have addressed the problem right? Easy problem to fix right? Well, not exactly. Firstly, anyone with a good amount of brain cells in their head probably already knew this, and I'm more than likely preaching to the choir. The real problem is the amount of success these low quality games receive. Sequels not only prevent innovation, they also lower the standards for whats acceptable for quality video games. With each release, most people discuss the scores these sequels receive, be it positive, negative or neutral. Overall, the scores are getting lower and lower, at least from critics. Developer's reuse the same engines and game design, change a few key assets and update the story a bit and release a game with a relatively short turnaround time. And even though it seems very similar to the previous installment with little change, it's still has a high success rate due to customer loyalty(Thanks Apple!). Now yes, sequels are by design suppose to be similar to the previous game. But how similar is Metal Gear solid 2 and Metal Gear Solid 3? Yes, I know. I completely bashed sequels when there are so many good ones out there. But the problem is, most are doing it wrong. The reason games like Metal Gear Solid and Grand Theft Auto (notice how the titles have 3 words) are successful is because the developers understand how important narrative, production, and storytelling is. The biggest problem isn't that the game reuses the same engines(although I feel this is cheating the consumer if they don't step up their visuals and features in some way at least), it's the fact that they do not do anything to make the game feel like an addition to the series instead of the same game with a new logo. It isn't needed that the game engine be as powerful as possible, but I feel it should compliment the progression of the story(Konami has me spoiled). They may add a new feature in here or there, but at it's core it's generally the same as the previous installment with the new features not changing much in most cases. I could go on and on in detail about how bad sequels can be, but I would rather speak about optimism. Sequels are about progression. Either I'm progressing in a story arc, or I'm being introduced to the developer's narrative told through new technology or means. With companies like Konami and Rockstar that deliver excellent quality games, they will more than likely continue to provide quality sequels with proper development time and high standards. And with developers releasing sub par sequels they are hurting the gaming community. It hurts new and smaller developers who are trying to be original but ultimately can't compete in this market due to the success of games that are only acceptable because of the company they came from. Big companies don't want to invest in something new as long as whats old keeps working. This was brought on by Dead Space 3. I LOVED Dead Space 2 and couldn't wait for Dead Space 3. I didn't buy it, but I read tons of reviews and watched tons of gameplay footage. I passed on it. For 2 reasons. Firstly, Micro transactions. Could be bypassed, but this is NOT a feature that should be in a single player game EVER! This is just a sign of company greed. Include a cash shop in a "survival horror" game? And 2, roughly a 9 hour single player campaign. Other notable reasons were the same old scare tactics, lackluster storytelling, and a lost identity. I really thought they were going to knock it out the park, but it's just not worth the 60 dollars to me. And of course, these are my opinions. I feel that the consumer deserves quality for the money they are going to spend. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a date in Bronze Hell with with Panda Annie.