The lights are on
Power Member - Level 10
Yearly release games in a series seem to have become a standard for certain franchises such as Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty. Though with these releases it seems the quality isn't improved much over the years. When I played Assassin's Creed II for example I was excited to play it, compared to the first one it added so much more depth and content. It made me want to go explore all the tombs, get my villa up to max, collect all the art, and get the best armor. I put so much time and effort to get Ezio at the best he possibly could be by the end of the game. Then Brotherhood came out, being a poor college student, I couldn't buy it right away, but once I did, the fun I had with two faded away. First it made a lame excuse as to why Ezio had to start out at the bottom again, and second it didn't add that much in the way of new content like two did from the first one. I still played and beat the game, but overall it didn't feel nearly as satisfying. Then when Revelations came out I waited until a sale before even bothering to buy it, but again they did a lame thing to make it so Ezio would have to start out at the bottom yet again. This time I didn't even bother with playing through the entire game. I grew tired of it and eventually traded the game.
My point being is that it gets old playing through yearly release games when not much is really changed or improved upon. For the most part it seems as though they are more like what expansion packs used to be rather than an entire new game. I know the argument can be made for games that don't have yearly releases still feel and play the same way with minor improvements, but take something like Skyrim vs Oblivion. The core gameplay isn't changed that much, but they make enough improvements and make enough changes to it that made me feel like it isn't just some cheaply done game made to be pushed out within the small development time frame a developer is given. Yes, I do know that the publishers switch developers, Infinity Ward makes a CoD game one year then Treyarch does one, but even with that they are only given two years to make their games. Versus the time gap when Rockstar goes into development for a game, or Bethesda, the time frame is more around 3-4 years depending. And they end up making a game worth the sixty dollar price tag.
I guess the entire point of this blog is just I'm tired of having to pay $60 for a game that feels like it should only cost half that. Yes, I know it is my choice to buy the game, but I think publishers should try a little harder to give their developers more time to come out with a game that feels more worthy of the price tag. I'd like to feel that at least sometimes they aren't in it purely for the money and do it because they have a passion for video games.