Honestly, I agree. That's why I tend to enjoy playing older or at least more niche indie games. These older or more niche games often don't have horrible modern gaming practices like microtransactions all over the place.

As a casual fiction book reader (8 or so per year), I'd argue that the same observation can be applied to books, and when I think about it for 2 more seconds, movies as well. I don't think AAA is the issue here. Large studios are simply a different level of competition, and they have more at risk (more people and more money and more brand recognition involved) than a smaller studio. So, a big studio is going to stick with tried-and-true gameplay loops (or tropes like book stories) with the addition of a few cool ideas. A small studio may go way out on a limb... and a lot fail in terms of sales and word-of-mouth advertising. But some find a sweet spot, and then others (large and small) copy the aspects that work well. Same as books. Same as TV.

I'm not dismissing your observation, but I don't think it's just AAA games. Think of all the Stardew Valley and Minecraft clones. Most of those are small studios. A few are large. But maybe you didn't buy them or you easily forgot them because they're not AAA and don't have big brand presence.

Quoting: 14I'm not dismissing your observation, but I don't think it's just AAA games. Think of all the Stardew Valley and Minecraft clones. Most of those are small studios. A few are large. But maybe you didn't buy them or you easily forgot them because they're not AAA and don't have big brand presence.

I think the difference is that on the big picture, within the indie scene "clones" are a relatively small fraction, while in the AAA it is the vast majority. Copying good things (or rather, building upon them) is good and healthy, so long as it isn't the only viable option.

But other than that, I very much agree. It is 100% the same thing with movies - the problem is with large studios being too risk averse.

Quoting: eldakingI think the difference is that on the big picture, within the indie scene "clones" are a relatively small fraction, while in the AAA it is the vast majority.

Yeah, that may be true.

Similar to the OP topic, I've been wishing Ubisoft would make another Splinter Cell game for a while. Yes, it would be the "same game," but I want more. Indeed, that's why they do it. Anyway, I've been playing Assassin's Creed: Valhalla lately, a game I'm greatly enjoying. And I realize: the reason they're not making Splinter Cell games is because they're making too many Assassin's Creed games! Probably including the same developers, if they're still at the studio. The stealth bits in Valhalla have a slice of a similar feel to Sam Fisher. (Honestly, feels closer to Horizon: Zero Dawn, but my point still stands.) And I do like the stealth bits in Valhalla.

I guess I have to admit that I am one of the many that enjoy more of the same when I find something I like, to an extent. Thinking about my Steam collection, I have a decent sprinkling of sort of unique games, but most of them, even the indie ones, could be compared to others pretty easily.

(I don't like too many sequels, too often, though. I was never one to buy all the Madden games for example. I beat the original two Assassin's Creed games, then took a break for over ten years because the second was too close to the first.)

I guess, except I could not possibly care less about the mechanics. I care about the story, and Fallen Order, Tomb Raider, Shadow of Mordor....these games have writing and stories that drew me in. I like that the mechanic is familiar; the mechanics get the heck out of the way and let me play the game without a learning curve.

That's why I play old games, although the graphics are lagging there, but I can enjoy the game and the story