As a developer I'll say this:
Q for dev RandomNick: I'm not sure what part you play in the gaming industry, but can you tell me why it takes 3 years, 75 people and hundreds of thousands of dollars to make games today? It really shouldn't and doesn't have to when you look to independant publishers
hundreds of thousands of dollars? Hah! I wish.
Honestly, look at the games compared to the games of the Genesis and such.
Much of the reason is that graphics technology has pushed forwards by leaps ansd bounds, and as a result, the consumers demand more. Maybe not all gamers (look at a game like Rez or Katamari Damacy and you'll see a game that is fairly minimalist in graphics but great in terms of gameplay), but certainly those that arwe driving sales.
People demand huge leaps forwards in graphics (as well as story, writing, voice acting, etc), mainly because it can be done, and if it can be done, it better be. That seems to be a prevalent mindset for people out there -- just look at reviews...games will have reviewas that say "the gameplay is fun, but the look is outdated," and then give it a horrible score.
In essence, people have become tech and graphics whores, and have chosen to forego gameplay for those things (look at Halo 2, or Doom 3 -- one trick pmies that became quite repetitive and boring, but have also become multi-million sellers), much to the chagrin of many developers.
The publishers see this, and since, for most developers, they hold the purse-strings, they have to do what the publishers say; mor often than not that is, "make it look great! above all else it has to look great!" As a result more and more money and time is spent on the graphics of a game.
(And honestly, I doubt that anyone who sees themselves as gameplay-uber alles- would pay attemntion to a game that was stick figures rather than 5,000-polygon normal-mapped characters with full physics. We've gone too far... most people are going to look at the simpler game with derision... apparently you CAN judge a book by its cover, or so they would believe.)
Also, your question about independent publishers (I assume you mean developers -- no publishers are indie by their very nature) -- because of the way budgets and such have been, as well as the market becoming more cut-throat, there are very VERY few developers that are independednt, and even fewer that are in the position to make whatever game they want to. Most indie developers, although not owned outright, operate on a project-by-project basis, and bankrolled by a publisher. if the publisher isn't appeased, then no money to the developer, and the dev closes. Publishers are more about the "safe bet" as far as game content and genre is concerned... after all, this is still a business after all is said and done, and staying profitable and solvent is the most important thing, like it or not.
The days of the true indie developer are waning, unless someone infuses a ton of cash into them with a fully hands-off policy... and that's not going to happen anytime soon.
as a side question, when will companys get back to focusing on making games that are a BLAST to play instead of games that do the same old thing [lack any originality] and exceed to LOOK better and better?[/QUOTE]
I kinda rambled about it above, but the market needs to make it clear that graphics are secondary before the publishers will allow them to be treated as secondary. right now, (nd especially with the next-gen consoles) we're getting to a point where graphics ability is starting to level out... except for more piolygons in a character, there's nothing to add to them (until the next huge hardware leap, like 3d acceleration was), and as that levelling out happens, gameplay will again be more important because that will be needed to differentiate titles from one another, but that will only make a minor difference. Honestly, any real change isn't going to happen until people start making it apparent to the industry with their wallets.
(And don't look for that to take effect anytime soon... your EAs of the world have mad cash on hand, and again, are going to go the safe way, rather than the higher risk path of innovation)
<!--EDIT|RandomNickname
Reason for Edit: None given...|1117173462 -->