We can all name more than one game franchise that’s essentially a recycling of sorts. A lot of R&D goes into improving features and adding new ones, but they still "feel" the same once gameplay begins. Why does this happen? Are such games not receiving enough hard work? Or is it just us feeling that way while the truth is different?
I think it often has to do with cost management. If Ubisoft makes an Engine for Assassin's Creed, it is cost effective to reuse the Engine on multiple games rather than start from scratch each time. – Sean Gadus1 year ago
The Sims 4 cops a lot of flack for this very reason. Could be an interesting game to explore in such an article. – Samantha Leersen1 year ago
@J.D.: I have a few games in mind. Source engine based ones, Unity based ones, Pokemon, COD, Sims, NFS, Elder Scrolls primarily. And yes, the amp is coming because the symbol isn't allowed to be formatted into here, but won't be a problem in the article. @RedFlame: I will definitely specify more than a few franchises so readers have a clear idea of what exactly we're talking about. And valid point - perhaps, I'll tackle both types of recycling separately. Makes sense to let people learn there's not just one kind of recycling that goes into games. – Abhimanyu Shekhar1 year ago
I think this article can do very very well if you also throw in some numbers in terms of development cost and creating new IPs in general. It wasn't touched on extensively, but I remember when watching the documentary on developing God of War (2018), they briefly mentioned how tough it was starting a new IP in general with new mechanics. If you have numbers or at least quotes of reputable people in the industry talking about the numbers then this article can go far. – Daniel Ibarra1 year ago
I think this could be an interesting thing to do a comparison with. Recycling in gaming vs. recycling in other media (Literature, film, Music).
– Bct4171 year ago