Why are there so many remakes, spinoffs and meaningless sequels? Why can't people just fucking create something anymore?

why are there so many remakes, spinoffs and meaningless sequels? Why can't people just fucking create something anymore?

and I've noticed that a lot of deviations from the norm these days are blatant political pandering. Look at watchdogs, BF1, Deux Ex "muh racism apartheid", LOU dlc "muh lesbianism", Dishonored, the new ayy lmao effect, Mafia 3 "WE WUZ". I'm so jaded by this trend that I play Skyrim just to indulge muh white supremacism

Because not only in video games, but in nearly every single form of media out there, people are pathologically tied to series that they know and love and will NOT buy new IPs.

Publishers have picked up on this trend and are absolutely scared shitless of putting new IPs out there, instead taking the route of forcing developers to turn what was originally a new IP, into a new entry of a big, recognized series, or sometimes they will have some new ideas for a new IP and they'll be cancelled, and it's parts stripped down and added to a pre existing IP new entry, forced in games where they don't belong.

Everyone is guilty of this state of affairs.
The average casual is guilty of this buys the same shit over and over.
The publishers are guilty of this being constantly scared out of their mind that they won't make billions off a games sale because they spend insane budgets focusing on graphics.
Holla Forums is guilty of this sticking to the same series and rarely exploring new IPs, and often pirating games from new IPs even if they end up liking them.

The best thing about the industry today is also the bane of it and why its stagnated so much. The tech today means we can make a game about fucking anything we want and we'd only be limited by our imaginations because now we're at the point when technology has made just about everything possible in the gaming world. However, this means games are now really expensive to make. So despite having the tech to make anything the human mind can think of, companies make what is basically the same thing over and over, relying on nostalgia and brand loyalty to turn a profit. The only changes they'll ever make are ones their fans basically demand on mass they make, which in today's disgusting society, typically translates to political correctness. And with no real backlash to shake the industry up like the crash did, we're currently in a state of gaming where experimentation is discouraged in favor of turning a profit.

Basically we're fucked despite having the capability of fixing it.

then how does an IP get big in the first place?

...

Are you fucking retarded? The main expense in AAA comes from licensing fees, excessive marketing, and bowing down to VA unions and hiring stars for your games. Cut the fat and you'll reduce 80% of the budget.

Games DON'T need to be cinematic masterpieces that comment on humanity. They aren't movies or art. They're GAMES.

Risk adversity.

Forgot to mention, there's been an increase in the Hollywood tactic of sharing profits with people but then outsourcing huge expenses to third party studios (that you also own) to reduce or eliminate how much you need to actually pay out

Greed cannot create, it can only steal. Only love can create.

Originality no longer sells.

You still need lots of people that would probably want to be paid to actually make the game and that shit is still expensive. Not every game can be a basement project, user. I agree that there's a fuckton of fat, but the mere making of the game's mechanics and such can be time consuming and require lots of work if you want to be original.

That's a very good question.
It's a mix of elements that come together at the right time and place and capture the attention of the biggest possbile demographic because SOMETHING in the IP itself is able to break the barriers between demographics to appeal to a big number of people, somehow.

In the publishers minds, this translates to "guy with a gun shoots things", so we get all these IPs that are just guy with a gun in brown and bloom shoots things, etc.

But then you have shit like the souls series, where it just wanted to be it's own thing and it got big by word of mouth, then exploding once DaS1 got released.

So you see, IPs can get big in a numer of ways, but some ways are safer than other.

Let's put it this way:

You're the CEO of a video game company.
Someone suggests to you two possible projects you can invest in.
On one side, a brand new IP with unique mechanics and new ideas that might sell, or might fall into obscurity resulting in a huge monetary loss for your company.
On the other side, you can choose to finance a new entry for an already estabilished IP with estabilished mechanics using the same formula that made you millions so far, a very stable, secure investment.

Factor in the fact that shareholders are breathing down your neck every day and want more money, then you gotta pay all the people that work in your company, and add to that your own greed.
Of course the braindead decision is to invest in the pre estabilished, already succesful IP.
And thus this is how this industry shits out the same things over and over again and when something new makes it big is mostly pure luck mixed with word of mouth.

My biggest advice to Holla Forums is, explore new, obscure games.
Buy those fucking games.
Shill those fucking games to other video game enthusiasts, and make them buy too.
That's THE ONLY WAY new, original IPs will ever make it big.

This is how Souls got big, this is how Monster Hunter got big, and so on, create, mantain and take good care of the communities for small, new IPs and make them big over time.

Well it was always hard work and it DID use to be basement level, but those basement dwellers put their entire lifeforce into making those games and there were only a handful. As soon as studios get over 25 people that is lost (see: Lionhead).

Nowadays all of 'muh big budget' is wasted on shitty textures that can be used to fudge the illusion of good graphics. In fact I'd dare say its 2nd after marketing in terms of budget usage.
Once computers and algorithms get better this will no longer be necessary and we should be able to get back to the good old days (by which I mean it will become possible, not necessarily saying it will happen though because of the Ubisofts,EAs,and Activisions of the world.

Procedural generation of content is the only way forward. Such a shame that fucking SHAMs like No Mans Lie have to set the whole industry back by making developers averse to the idea.

Risk of a flop

Roughly know what amount will sell.

No, you are the one who doesn't understand business. The way a small business works is efficient, once you get more people you have to trade efficiency for stability, which translates to security, which translates to not taking risks. I bet you haven't even worked a day in your life kid.

short answer: capitalism

Good small vidya studio produce as much garbage as the big ones then.

Except it is new garbage like No Mans Sky.

It should also be kept in mind that a small business would likely take more time. Granted, they could work fast, but this would lead to one of three things: a rushed product, a bigger team, or constant crunch time. Small businesses may cost less, but the product would take longer to come out.

Nope. If the team only worked on mechanics and not muh assets it would take LESS time. Engines are all cookie cutter nowadays anyway.

Hello Ghostbusters

oh, wait, I guess that makes you the retard

Depends. If the mechanics are simple, then it probably wouldn't take long. But if you're going for something deeper and likely more original, it will definitely take more time to get right. Though licensing an engine is always smart considering that they've proven to be a pretty nice boon to the development process.

And that was a case of bad marketing. If they had a male cast they could've reap the benefits of it.

For your argument to make sense, you'd have to explain why new IP were created and successfully post gen 3. Why is Silent hill successful when resident evil exists?
Why was SotN successful when Super Metroid exists?
How about the simple fucking fact that now, more than ever, the devs/producers listen to the stock board owners/PR instead of just making a solid game?
Almost every well recieved game had, "No one will like this" behind it. But they made it anyways. It's just about making the cheapest and easy return kind of games.

Well, my point is that just having more people work on it doesn't work for mechanics to begin with. There is a critical number of employees that can work on shit like that. Any more and you just get Too Many Cucks syndrome. The best you can do is hire more debuggers and testers.

Absolutely agree. Again, if the company is big and has to have outside investment you're in for a gay old time. Small companies have been and will always been the answer.

Anyone who says otherwise needs to go back and look at the Dreamcast.

...

I can see where you're coming from. I'm just trying to point out that no matter what, you're probably going to need to pay people to make something original and halfway decent. Because its either spend more money to try something new or save money by trying something that's been done before and proven.

see

I don't accept your premise that creativity has a necessarily high cost given the current state of the art of development tools. It didn't cost more when teams had to build everything from scratch, your argument basically boils down to 'creativity costs a lot because Unity/ Unreal Engine/ etc cant handle it out of the box.
Which at a surface level seems to be a good argument, but if you look at history what has scaled up since the era of revolutionary shit like GTA3? Graphics? Not really, its still just polygons. Assets? Yes, but like I've already said theres a way around that. Physics? Maybe but the engines can handle fantastical uses of physics, you just need to debug a lot.
I just dont feel like the problem is a technical one, its more of a motivational one. There's a perceived barrier on what one can do with the tech, not an actual one.

Anyway I will stop talking now since no-one will really believe this until someone actually proves it true.

I'm not saying that its not something the engine can't handle. I'm saying if you're going to be making something brand new, you'll be going through a lot to make sure it works properly and doesn't play like ass. After all, if you're introducing a new concept, you'll need to make damn well sure it works. And that's what takes time. Making sure your mechanics work and your game is built around them. Otherwise you get a cobbled together mess that doesn't live up to any of the potential it could have had, making your game essentially a martyr for others to work on, which may be fine and dandy for the concept, but not so much your game or self-esteem. Making a game is more than just having people program, regardless of how much you cut out.

Profitability. Not even going by the socialist "greed kills everything, we need to make games out of love and flowers and not brains and numbers", but if you can't cover your costs from selling your shit then it's just a bad idea.

The issue is that nowadays people have huge expectations when they buy a game. Every new game has to look better, have better sounds, better VA, larger and more detailed maps and an expansive multiplayer mode. All of this costs a shitload of money, partially because of ever growing teams but those are required to reach the goals set. So you fall back on sure values.

This is partially shown in the indie crowd, that even if all the ideas coming out aren't gold, they come out because games with shit graphics, barely any voice acting, shit animations cost a lot less.


I'm partially with you, I'm convinced the actual cost of programming in most games these days is minimal. And that's not even taking into account shit like UE4's blueprints, which boils down the work of programmers to write libs and let the level designers handle the scripting.

if it ain't broke don't fix it

Throw yourself into the trash.

I was being sarcastic, Skyrim was attacked during GG as being racist

Because the jew cannot create. It can only pervert.

Because people want more content based on that property you fucking communist faggot. Welcome to capitalism, hang your faggot ass by the door and cry about how you're tastes aren't catered to.

Is it really just nostalgia though? My admittedly biased and subjective opinion tells me that someone isn't capable of feeling the same nostalgia over Modern Warfare 2 as I feel over Jet Set Radio or Ocarina of Time.

It's what people want. You can sit there and bawl all you want. It won't change anything.

Is it helicopter time?

You don't have all the facts to know this with 100% certainty. It's rarely the case that we are served with exactly what we want, you have to consider other factors like what is convenient and safe for the company as well as any possible biases in their own research about what people want, they themselves could be misguided. Simply restating your opinion with harshly sounding terse sentences doesn't change the fact that its based on evidence which is dubious at best.

tl;dr ur a fag

If we're talking purely mainstream stuff then its half creative bankruptcy, half risk. Games are too expensive for publishers to want to throw down money on something that doesn't have a history of making a return.

Precognitive bias. You remember those standout deviations because they go against what you want. Not least that, again, those titles are very mainstream and so will be more likely to stick in your head regardless thanks to bombardment from media.

It's financially successful, which means it aligns with consumer demand. This is an objective fact.

...

So you're just the other side of the same coin then

"Selling well" is a relative term. No control to compare it to, no basis for your theory. Eat shit.

You know, except hardware sales, sales of other games.

Consider this:

If the game is turning a profit after more than one game has been released, then obviously there is demand. If copies are being sold compared to being overstocked, there is demand. It isn't a theory as much as it is straight up logic. If something is wanted, that means there is demand for it. Its not that complicated. Not to mention points out that it has plenty to compare to. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean there isn't demand. If there wasn't a demand, it wouldn't fucking sell. How hard is this to grasp?

Because with the expensive and ballooning cost of developing games (or movies or tv series), Executives want some sort of assurance that their capital is going to net a good return. This results in companies chasing trends that are popular and sell well until they're run into the ground and a good few miles below that. We saw this with the Modern-Military-shooter boom after COD:MW1, The sandbox genre that hit its stride in the late oughts and only recently seems to be slowing down some. It is the same thing with the revival and milking of existing franchises at the expense of investment into new IPs. In times of financial uncertainty, or at any time from just plain ol' greed, going with the trend that appears to have the greatest chance of producing a good return is going to appeal more to the people holding the purse-strings than going into unexplored territory.

If this seems like a short-sighted strategy that short-changes the creative potential of the medium for what will become increasingly diminishing returns, then you'd be absolutely right. But you'd be surprised at how many company executives refuse to see beyond their next four quarters (or their next performance bonus).

...

...

There is artificial hype generated by 60% of the games budget spent on marketing. This is not the same as true demand, it just means the game is compatible with marketing. You haven't ruled out confounding variables. Eat shit.

You seemed to miss the part where I said

And by the way, just because hype is involved, doesn't mean it isn't true demand. They still want it and are still buying it. If they're unhappy, then it affects future sales. You obviously don't seem to realize what "demand" means.

The only real argument for inflated sales is games that have two versions with no real connection between the two.

Like with fire emblem fates having bloated sales with people buying 3 copies of the game.

I did not miss that part, nor did I miss the part where it completely fails to address the fact that manufactured demand doesn't have to equal the true desires of consumers, which was the original argument.

Funny, considering it does. I mean, I dunno about you, but if they're buying it, with their own money, rather than say, being forced into buying it, then I'd say they'd desire it, no? Hype doesn't factor. Because no one is forcing them to buy shit. Its their own fault if they CHOOSE to buy it based off of trailers and videos.

Your argument doesn't work unless the customers are puppets. made a better argument.

Either you're truly deluded or you're feigning ignorance in order to evade admittance of the flaw in your argument. Either way you're a bit of a turd.

I believe the word of the day is –projection–

Nigga, I just disproved your shitty argument. If you legitimately think hype bloats sales, then you're stupider than I thought. This isn't sci-fi where commercials hypnotize people. In the end, they're choosing to buy the game. They're doing it because they chose to, be it because they liked how it looked, their friends are playing it, or whatever, they're still buying it of their own accord.

why dont you create something then
fuck you parasite

It's called marketing user, and it isn't sci-fi but a major industry. There's a reason the marketing budget is always high, and it isn't because execs are stupid.

Political correctness is a corporate strategy to not offend anyone such that you can not exclude them. I don't know what you expected from soulless AAA publishers. It's just another facet of their risk aversion.

I think you've missed the point so badly you jumped the horseshoe and went headfirst into the SJW virtue-signaling narrative. There is no themes of racism, only that of augmented vs non-augmented creating an apartheid-like situation.

Its to get the name out, user. To let people know it exists and show them what it is. Or in some cases, what it supposedly is. Its to grab your attention, but ultimately the choice is your's in the end. Its literally letting you know it exists and showing you shit from it. Saying hype and marketing bloats sales is like saying that telling people my dick tastes like chocolate bloats the amount of blowjobs I get. Might make people curious, but it isn't forcing people to suck my dick, is it?

That's a good part of it, but I wasn't arguing against the user you pointed to. Say that vidya doesn't get enough attention all you want as well but vidya existed before internet got big. What i mean by this is that there were games in gen 3, gen 4, and gen 5 that were far more new IP classics created than, compared to now. Even made from scratch and sold at a far higher retail price than today.
Thing is, stock brokers want to make the same money other companies make off games like CoD and Madden and give no fucks how it is done. So with those fuckers being more present than ever before games will take a quality hit to make thise board members happy.

not only that but 'fantasy racism' has been a theme since forever.

Objection
There is no racism in hating the filthy elves. It's just a fact of life.

golly what a reaction, got something weighing on your conscience?

jews.
a good product and lots of profit are 2 completely unrelated concepts and when they aren't the good product normally means less profit. Games now are an agenda pushing and shekel making medium only.

If you take a series that has a devoted but non-normalfaggy fanbase, and make a sequel that's trash for normalfags, you can theoretically sell it to both groups for at least one or two games before the old fanbase catches on and the normalfags' attention span drives them elsewhere.