Are games becoming all the same?

How different was call of duty modern warfare, to call of duty modern warfare 2? It takes two years to add just a few things here and there, people dont seem to care that it is basically the same game they had been playing for the last two years, and dont seem to ever get bored of it.

Im just sick of buying new games and finding out the are pretty much the same game I bought last year or the year before that.

Left 4 dead 2 is another example, same game, few more levels, different guns, oh yes and the real selling point, frying pans. Is this what it takes for them to take our money from us? Yes it is, every year games come out which are practically identical to the ones that went before and end up making millions.

Gears of war 2 another example, oh yes but they added co op.

GRAW 2 exactly the same as GRAW 1

Rainbow six vegas 2, same as vegas 1

Skate 2, same as skate 1

Halo 3, was it that much different from halo 2???

Am i the only one around here that is bored out of there mind of playing the same crappy games for the last 3 years??

All the games yu say that are the same are not you say gears of war 2 is the same as the first. Well there not gonna turn it into an rpg are hey. It has a hole new feature of horde, new maps and a massive new campaign and same wih most of the games your talking about.

Halo 3 --- forge theatre new campaign

CoD MW2 --- came out 2 years after because of WaW new guns and new map and new campaign.

thats like saying a PS3 is the same as a PSP because its made by sony 1 after the other and plays games on it

I agree, the majority of big games developers these days do seem to make similar games again and again. Take the FIFA franchise for example every year the same game is released with new team rosters and slightly better graphics. Yes they may add a new feature here and a through ball function there but is this really worth my £40. I don't think that it is. This trend of fast turn around games is becoming more obvious to me as time goes on.

The Halo series is a good example of this. When Halo: Combat Evolved came out it really was an evolved FPS. Then with the release of Halo 2 it became apparent nothing much had changed. Except of course improved graphics, a new storyline and new charecters. As the subsequent Halo's were released they seemed more like updates or expansions rather than full blown sequals. I think that the reason some developers do this is to make money however in the case of Halo and even Call Of Duty I dont think that the developer is entirly to blame. Take Bungie, once Microsoft Studios had jumped on the Halo band wagon would they ever be allowed to make a sequal they wanted to? unlikely.

It's the same as when a big Hollywood studio takes control over a director and ends up changing the original movie because it wont appeal to enough people. The Hollywood studio gets what they want (money) but the director and crew will be left with a film they didn't intend to make and don't perticulary care for. Now back to games, I think that this is the likely reason why games of late haven't been quite the sequals we were expecting. Developers haven't been allowed to make the games they want because the big game studio are worried that it wont sell as many copies for want of being to different and new. This is just my opinion however and it still hasn't stopped me from buying and enjoying the Halo, Call Of Duty, Assassins Creed and Forza Series.

like i said before if your doing a game then you release a new one are you going to change the game from a FPS to a RPG, no you wouldnt because it wouldnt make sence also if you make a story you not going to change to a completely new charectors nd forget about all of the ones that where in the first one

Modern Warfare 2 has a completely different campaign, it added the new 2-player co-op mode "spec-ops", it has new and more weapons, new kill streaks, new perks, customizable killstreaks, the weapons categories have been completely rearranged, titles, emblems, new challenges and the improved graphics.

Left 4 Dead 2 has five new campaigns, survival mode, new guns, melee weapons, ammo mods, new special infected and realism mode.

Halo 3 added theater mode and the ability to take photos, forge mode, customizable game types, file share, better graphics, the ability to rip turrets and carry them, deployable equipment, new weapons, new vehicles, the meta game campaign scoring system, the ability to activate the campaign modifying skulls from the lobby in any level, online 4-player co-op, infection, VIP, the ability to veto in match making, customizable player models, some weapons perform differently than they did in predecessors and a new ranking system.

Gears 2 added the ability for players to play on seperate difficulties in campaign, a new campaign, Horde mode, wingman, king of the hill, submission, party lobbies, the match making system has been over hauled, a new ranking system(twice), the ability to use meat shields, new enemies, new weapons, the new portable shield, new executions, matches allow two more players to participate than the original, The ability to vote over what game type and map to play in matchmaking, improved graphics, bots in multiplayer, ghost cam and the ability to take screen shots while in ghost cam and share thiese photos with friends, chainsaw duels, the ability to plant grenades as proximity minds, the player no longer grows tired from roadie running, players can now crawl while downed, achievement progression tracking, players move more slower if running into a stream of bullet fire and some weapons perform slightly differently than they did in the original.

I don't know about Graw 2 or Rainbow Six Vegas 2 since I haven't played them and I haven't played the original Skate.

I can maybe understand your disappointment with Left 4 Dead 2 but If Gears of War 2 wasn't enough change for you then you're probably never going to find a sequel you think changed enough other than spin offs like Halo Wars that completely change genres.

The problem isn't really that these sequels don't change enough. it's that you seem to not have reasonable expectations for these sequels. First of all changing a million + unit selling game series is a very risky maneuver. You are changing a game that alot of people already liked. People expect sequels to be like the original game, so drastically changing the formula is pretty stupid unless the game series itself is growing stale. And looking at the games you mentioned. All them aren't that far along, the farthest being Halo 3. Like I said, if Gears 2 wasn't enough change for you then no sequel short of a reboot to a game series would please you as a sequel. I suggest just never buying a sequel again.

Exactly Completely new things in every sequel and that is true every 2 or 3 of a game is apparently the same to these two people

Im not even blaming the developers as I am fully aware of their objectives, to make money.

I blame us gamers, for not demanding more from our games, as you were saying about halo 1, great game, blew me away, played through it a number of times, halo 2, played through the campaign but didnt even finish it as i was not impressed hwever the new addition of an online multiplayer totaly made up for the poor campaign. Now we come to halo three, is the theatre system and forge and a few extra weapons and vehicles supposed to blow me away? Or be enough for me to pay 40pounds for, or should this game be a mere update, an optional download in addition to the last game.

The same goes for left for dead 2, that should now way be a separate game, that should be sold as downloadable content.

Gears of war 2, is the same, so what it gave us horde mode, is that all it takes for you to be happy, that and a few other weapons, and a slightly different campaign???

I knowthat sequels are not supposed to change genra as from a fps to rpg, but cant you see how some sequels are more real sequels than others. Look at the new splinter cell for example, this looks to me to be a real sequel, not something they have just re hashed out to make another quick buck, this is something that has taken a bit longer as they have come up with some new ideas and therefore significantly added something to the game.

The additions may or may not work, but its through trying to improve a genre that new and great games come out like the ground breaking halo 1 combat evolved.

Its just a pity that for the last five years everyone else has just blatently copied it over and over.

the reason developers and produces make it partially the same is because the prequel made so much money and so much good feedback the players obviously want more so if you base the game around the first one of course some things are going to be the same some things are going to be better the reason for this is because when the first one came out the players liked a feature so much that they thouht they might keep the feature or add to it since it made such a hit in the firs one be it customizations creating a charachter or driving/flying something. If the sow that the customers liked something developers and co and going to try to make it around the things that they like

Im not even blaming the developers as I am fully aware of their objectives, to make money.

I blame us gamers, for not demanding more from our games, as you were saying about halo 1, great game, blew me away, played through it a number of times, halo 2, played through the campaign but didnt even finish it as i was not impressed hwever the new addition of an online multiplayer totaly made up for the poor campaign. Now we come to halo three, is the theatre system and forge and a few extra weapons and vehicles supposed to blow me away? Or be enough for me to pay 40pounds for, or should this game be a mere update, an optional download in addition to the last game.

The same goes for left for dead 2, that should now way be a separate game, that should be sold as downloadable content.

Gears of war 2, is the same, so what it gave us horde mode, is that all it takes for you to be happy, that and a few other weapons, and a slightly different campaign???

I knowthat sequels are not supposed to change genra as from a fps to rpg, but cant you see how some sequels are more real sequels than others. Look at the new splinter cell for example, this looks to me to be a real sequel, not something they have just re hashed out to make another quick buck, this is something that has taken a bit longer as they have come up with some new ideas and therefore significantly added something to the game.

The additions may or may not work, but its through trying to improve a genre that new and great games come out like the ground breaking halo 1 combat evolved.

Its just a pity that for the last five years everyone else has just blatently copied it over and over.

ULYSSES2004

You dont get it do you? When you're saying there are only a few changes like from halo 2 to halo 3 just forge and theatre system. Well the developers work extremely hard on maxing out the graphic engine to make it as best they can for the players, the forge system as well took them months and months of work. I read on the Bungie site or N4G back in August 2007 that if they left forge they could have had it finished and out in the market since january that year.

And for so called nothing different on games. Ok so a few changes? what about a whole new campaign, new weapons, maps, innovative ideas to gameplay mechanics. Such as on MW2 the killstreaks. Also they are part of a franchise, so what is modern warfare 2 or halo 3 suppose to be completely different? If you think that games are getting to be all the same, become a developer or a game director and think of a game, you design the game.

The reason i'm getting so annoyed is because my cousin is a game designer and he works for EA. I know how much he has to work and how hard it is to design levels, work out all the bugs etc, even though they can never get rid of all of them.

So you become a designer.

Its just a pity that for the last five years everyone else has just blatently copied it over and over.

ULYSSES2004

[QUOTE="ULYSSES2004"]

Im not even blaming the developers as I am fully aware of their objectives, to make money.

I blame us gamers, for not demanding more from our games, as you were saying about halo 1, great game, blew me away, played through it a number of times, halo 2, played through the campaign but didnt even finish it as i was not impressed hwever the new addition of an online multiplayer totaly made up for the poor campaign. Now we come to halo three, is the theatre system and forge and a few extra weapons and vehicles supposed to blow me away? Or be enough for me to pay 40pounds for, or should this game be a mere update, an optional download in addition to the last game.

The same goes for left for dead 2, that should now way be a separate game, that should be sold as downloadable content.

Gears of war 2, is the same, so what it gave us horde mode, is that all it takes for you to be happy, that and a few other weapons, and a slightly different campaign???

I knowthat sequels are not supposed to change genra as from a fps to rpg, but cant you see how some sequels are more real sequels than others. Look at the new splinter cell for example, this looks to me to be a real sequel, not something they have just re hashed out to make another quick buck, this is something that has taken a bit longer as they have come up with some new ideas and therefore significantly added something to the game.

The additions may or may not work, but its through trying to improve a genre that new and great games come out like the ground breaking halo 1 combat evolved.

Its just a pity that for the last five years everyone else has just blatently copied it over and over.

NevecLP

You dont get it do you? When you're saying there are only a few changes like from halo 2 to halo 3 just forge and theatre system. Well the developers work extremely hard on maxing out the graphic engine to make it as best they can for the players, the forge system as well took them months and months of work. I read on the Bungie site or N4G back in August 2007 that if they left forge they could have had it finished and out in the market since january that year.

And for so called nothing different on games. Ok so a few changes? what about a whole new campaign, new weapons, maps, innovative ideas to gameplay mechanics. Such as on MW2 the killstreaks. Also they are part of a franchise, so what is modern warfare 2 or halo 3 suppose to be completely different? If you think that games are getting to be all the same, become a developer or a game director and think of a game, you design the game.

The reason i'm getting so annoyed is because my cousin is a game designer and he works for EA. I know how much he has to work and how hard it is to design levels, work out all the bugs etc, even though they can never get rid of all of them.

So you become a designer.

There is no need to get annoyed, Im not even blaming the developers, they want to make money, fair enough, i blame us gamers, we shouldnt be happy with paying 40 pounds for upgrade on games. Thats right UPGRADES, same game, just better graphics, few new weapons, theatre mode, new mission ect. These shouldnt be valued as full price titals as they are not fully different games.

Your idea of the same could nearly be placed on every game. Every shooter is like the other shooter, every RPG does the same type things as other RPGs, etc. However, there are new additions to games, new stories, upgraded graphics, different gameplay modes, more characters etc. etc. This stuff is there clear as day & always has been, why do you find yourself incapable of seeing it?

Im not even blaming the developers, they want to make money, fair enough, i blame us gamers, we shouldnt be happy with paying 40 pounds for upgrade on games. Thats right UPGRADES, same game, just better graphics, few new weapons, theatre mode, new mission ect. ULYSSES2004

There are ocassional new or innovative games within a genre. I'm familiar with shooters, so I can name some in that genre: Quake, Half-Life, Halo. I'd go as far as to put Gears in there. Inbetween all of these are lots of expansions, sequels, and imitations, for better or for worse. It's always been this way.

Your idea of the same could nearly be placed on every game. Every shooter is like the other shooter, every RPG does the same type things as other RPGs, etc. However, there are new additions to games, new stories, upgraded graphics, different gameplay modes, more characters etc. etc. This stuff is there clear as day & always has been, why do you find yourself incapable of seeing it?

shawn7324

There are ocassional new or innovative games within a genre. I'm familiar with shooters, so I can name some in that genre: Quake, Half-Life, Halo. I'd go as far as to put Gears in there. Inbetween all of these are lots of expansions, sequels, and imitations, for better or for worse. It's always been this way.

Palantas

[QUOTE="shawn7324"]

Your idea of the same could nearly be placed on every game. Every shooter is like the other shooter, every RPG does the same type things as other RPGs, etc. However, there are new additions to games, new stories, upgraded graphics, different gameplay modes, more characters etc. etc. This stuff is there clear as day & always has been, why do you find yourself incapable of seeing it?

ULYSSES2004

[QUOTE="shawn7324"]

Your idea of the same could nearly be placed on every game. Every shooter is like the other shooter, every RPG does the same type things as other RPGs, etc. However, there are new additions to games, new stories, upgraded graphics, different gameplay modes, more characters etc. etc. This stuff is there clear as day & always has been, why do you find yourself incapable of seeing it?

ULYSSES2004

Your idea of the same could nearly be placed on every game. Every shooter is like the other shooter, every RPG does the same type things as other RPGs, etc. However, there are new additions to games, new stories, upgraded graphics, different gameplay modes, more characters etc. etc. This stuff is there clear as day & always has been, why do you find yourself incapable of seeing it?

Well all the games are sequels that you talk about, why would a game deoper change a great formula if it works. would you be happy if the next halo was in 3rd person, probably not and that risk could cost them. games are not the same, i.e. fighting games like tekken, soul calibur and street fighter all have something else to offer. I would be every annoyed if a game I love change the style of it in the next one because they wanted to be diffrent barh :x

[QUOTE="NevecLP"]

[QUOTE="ULYSSES2004"]

Im not even blaming the developers as I am fully aware of their objectives, to make money.

I blame us gamers, for not demanding more from our games, as you were saying about halo 1, great game, blew me away, played through it a number of times, halo 2, played through the campaign but didnt even finish it as i was not impressed hwever the new addition of an online multiplayer totaly made up for the poor campaign. Now we come to halo three, is the theatre system and forge and a few extra weapons and vehicles supposed to blow me away? Or be enough for me to pay 40pounds for, or should this game be a mere update, an optional download in addition to the last game.

The same goes for left for dead 2, that should now way be a separate game, that should be sold as downloadable content.

Gears of war 2, is the same, so what it gave us horde mode, is that all it takes for you to be happy, that and a few other weapons, and a slightly different campaign???

I knowthat sequels are not supposed to change genra as from a fps to rpg, but cant you see how some sequels are more real sequels than others. Look at the new splinter cell for example, this looks to me to be a real sequel, not something they have just re hashed out to make another quick buck, this is something that has taken a bit longer as they have come up with some new ideas and therefore significantly added something to the game.

The additions may or may not work, but its through trying to improve a genre that new and great games come out like the ground breaking halo 1 combat evolved.

Its just a pity that for the last five years everyone else has just blatently copied it over and over.

ULYSSES2004

You dont get it do you? When you're saying there are only a few changes like from halo 2 to halo 3 just forge and theatre system. Well the developers work extremely hard on maxing out the graphic engine to make it as best they can for the players, the forge system as well took them months and months of work. I read on the Bungie site or N4G back in August 2007 that if they left forge they could have had it finished and out in the market since january that year.

And for so called nothing different on games. Ok so a few changes? what about a whole new campaign, new weapons, maps, innovative ideas to gameplay mechanics. Such as on MW2 the killstreaks. Also they are part of a franchise, so what is modern warfare 2 or halo 3 suppose to be completely different? If you think that games are getting to be all the same, become a developer or a game director and think of a game, you design the game.

The reason i'm getting so annoyed is because my cousin is a game designer and he works for EA. I know how much he has to work and how hard it is to design levels, work out all the bugs etc, even though they can never get rid of all of them.

So you become a designer.

There is no need to get annoyed, Im not even blaming the developers, they want to make money, fair enough, i blame us gamers, we shouldnt be happy with paying 40 pounds for upgrade on games. Thats right UPGRADES, same game, just better graphics, few new weapons, theatre mode, new mission ect. These shouldnt be valued as full price titals as they are not fully different games.

Well all the games are sequels that you talk about, why would a game deoper change a great formula if it works. would you be happy if the next halo was in 3rd person, probably not and that risk could cost them. games are not the same, i.e. fighting games like tekken, soul calibur and street fighter all have something else to offer. I would be every annoyed if a game I love change the style of it in the next one because they wanted to be diffrent barh :x

jackelzx

Wow I listed nearly every big upcoming release & you found 1 game interesting. You most definitely need a different hobby. Hey try paint ball, it's great & I think you will enjoy it.

Wow I listed nearly every big upcoming release & you found 1 game interesting. Why I even posted in a thread where someone basically just wants to constantly cry about everything I don't know.

shawn7324

[QUOTE="shawn7324"]

Wow I listed nearly every big upcoming release & you found 1 game interesting. Why I even posted in a thread where someone basically just wants to constantly cry about everything I don't know.

ULYSSES2004

It is not just me, you basically have just stated that nearly every single person on these forums have poor tastes & don't know what a good game is.

[QUOTE="ULYSSES2004"][QUOTE="shawn7324"]

Wow I listed nearly every big upcoming release & you found 1 game interesting. Why I even posted in a thread where someone basically just wants to constantly cry about everything I don't know.

This guy makes no sense. So basically he wants no sequels to a game, because they will all be similar. No more FPS shooters because they're all similar. Every game must be a new title, IP and something completely different? wtf? you dont make any sense.

[QUOTE="NevecLP"]

This guy makes no sense. So basically he wants no sequels to a game, because they will all be similar. No more FPS shooters because they're all similar. Every game must be a new title, IP and something completely different? wtf? you dont make any sense.

ULYSSES2004

This guy makes no sense. So basically he wants no sequels to a game, because they will all be similar. No more FPS shooters because they're all similar. Every game must be a new title, IP and something completely different? wtf? you dont make any sense.

[QUOTE="shawn7324"][QUOTE="ULYSSES2004"] You obviously have not read through the entire thread or you just have trouble reading, maybe you dont understand english, there are a number of reasons why you could have understood what you did from what i wrote, but im not in the mood in understanding why as the answer will most likely be that you are young and not of the highest IQ, therefore let me just quickly try an enlighten you towhere you have gone wrong... YOU say i basicaly dont want sequels, however i had said i thought a decent sequel was san andreas as it had enough changes to consider it a significant imporvement. YOU say i said no more FPS?? Where the hell did i say that, please quote me if you can find where i said that. YOU said i said every game should be a new title IP??? Errm no i didnt, i said it should have a substantial amount of difference to it to warrant it costing the same price as a fully new game. Finally YOU said i made no sense??? I say go learn how to read and if you are going to make a comment, dont just skim read and then pretend to know what im talking about...ULYSSES2004

If they are the same franchise they can have the same gameplay, same characters etc... because it's a sequel, not a spinoff. I don't like shooters much, but I've played Halo and CoD, and I don't think think that Halo 3 does too little. It's not a re-hashed mess, it's a great FPS. The issue with FPSs is that there is not much to them other than running around shooting things with different weapons, and that's really why I've never got into them, but I don't really understand what you expect them to do

I suggest you read the story behind Left 4 Dead and the whole boycott thing, you'll understand why it became a 2nd game.

MW2 is just Activision's cash cow. But for those of us who didn't have COD4, we have a valid excuse to buy it.

And Halo isn't just multiplayer...so what would you expect to change?

There's a story back there too, and it was quite a bit different.

Eerybody chill the fugh out!

It took 15 years for us to get tired of WW2 Shooters , so take out your calculators and DO THE FUGHIN MATH (and man Im trying hard to bypass censorship)

Considering that the games you listed were all sequels, what the hell were you expecting when you bought them? It's a continuation of a series, not a reimagining.

And look at what Capcom did with Resident Evil 5, they changed the game A LOT and although the game achieved both popular and critical success most of the "hardcore" Resident Evil fans ******* and moaned about how they had ruined the series. When someone buys a sequel they're expecting the same basic game mechanics, only a different storyline and hopefully some new features.

The real kicker is that all of those series were pioneers when the first game was released, and surprise surprise the sequels were somewhat similar to the originals and so on.

Innovation comes frequently from new IPs, not the old ones that everyone knows and loves.

When it comes down too it, their just games. Something to give us a little entertainment from a hard days work. sure some a similar, But that's not a bad thing. People like `em and it's seemed to work out for the developers so far. So just enjoy them. And stop complaining, because I doubt their changing any time soon.

How different was call of duty modern warfare, to call of duty modern warfare 2? It takes two years to add just a few things here and there, people dont seem to care that it is basically the same game they had been playing for the last two years, and dont seem to ever get bored of it.

Im just sick of buying new games and finding out the are pretty much the same game I bought last year or the year before that.

Left 4 dead 2 is another example, same game, few more levels, different guns, oh yes and the real selling point, frying pans. Is this what it takes for them to take our money from us? Yes it is, every year games come out which are practically identical to the ones that went before and end up making millions.

Gears of war 2 another example, oh yes but they added co op.

GRAW 2 exactly the same as GRAW 1

Rainbow six vegas 2, same as vegas 1

Skate 2, same as skate 1

Halo 3, was it that much different from halo 2???

Am i the only one around here that is bored out of there mind of playing the same crappy games for the last 3 years??

ULYSSES2004

Usually sequels are similar to previous games..

Were you expecting MW2 to be an RTS with RPG elements and are you expecting Halo Reach to be a side-scrolling platformer?

Also, L4D2 was a big improvement over the original and the only people who keep saying "all it did was add a few levels/guns/melee weapons" when it did much more than that. You should actually try playing the game, it'll help.

Games can be repetitive if there are upgrades. I jus like seein new stuff or the samestuff done differently. like the madden series.

Yeah you named sequels. What are they supposed to do, redefine the genre? No, they take the same gameplay elements, add new content, campign/story, gameplay options. Not much else you can do.

whatever happend to providing an amazing new story.....

Yes, but I never expect much variation in sequels, and I actually frown upon huge changes made to a game in it's sequel.

As far as devs tapping into there inner creative child and coming up with some fresh ideas to turn into AAA games, I would love to see that done. I like seeing devs taking daring steps to bring a concept/story to life. This is one of the reasons why I'm so intrigued by games like The Last Guardian. The kind of games where you'll either like them...or not. A lot of games today fall inbetween because they try to cater to EVERYONE, which is extremely hard to do.

Something just occured to me. In another topic, the thread creator was complaining about the newer Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon games not being like earlier ones in the series. In this topic, he's complaining about a lack of innovation and change.

:question:

lol this topic is ridicuously terrible. Those games you listed are sequels of each other so if they were not extremly similar they would not be a sequel!!! It would be a completly different game!!!