Blood Brain Barrier said:
I don't know anything about development, so maybe I'm wrong and developers really do sit down and say "Right. Let's make a first-person shooter" instead of actually planning out a game from scratch, sans genre.
From what I've heard, the reality is much worse than that. In general, it starts with the publishers going "what sold the highest last month? Gritty brown war game? Awesome! Let's fund one of those. And see if you can get them to shoehorn in multiplayer and micropayments, while you're at it. And if it's not a sequel, slap a movie license onto it because the name alone will move units." So then when developers come in and elevator pitch 20 interesting new game ideas and one boring brown shooter, the publishers greenlight the boring brown shooter.
But Bioshock is a special case. Even though Bioshock swiped the story from SS2, it pretty clearly had no intention of transcending anything other than graphics. Bioshock was all about taking what worked in System Shock 2 and repackaging it in a slick modern interface for console players and FPS noobs. And it worked. Antisocialfatman goes into it better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBJUJXOxztE
But the point is, Bioshock taught the gaming industry the unfortunate lesson that if you dumb down your gameplay, you will sell more units. Then Metal of Duty and Gears of Killzone and all the other brown games somehow pushed the FPS genre to the top of the charts, and the industry further learned the equally unfortunate lesson that (Halo notwithstanding,) if you make everything brown and grey and set in the modern day and use real guns from real gun manufacturers, you will create a best-selling franchise out of whole cloth overnight.
Puzzles, story, NPC support characters, skyhooks, respawn chambers, and even the whole steampunk aesthetic are all just seasoning as far as publishers are concerned. Gimmicks which differentiate this shooter from all the other shooters out there. If anything, we're lucky we got this much variety. The successor to System Shock 2 could just as easily have been called Patriot Shock or Desert Shock or something and been all about shooting people in the middle east with an MP5.
I don't think Irrational Games is capable of creating an actual spiritual successor to System Shock 2. Even if they wanted to create it, I don't think they would be allowed to publish it. If it ever happens, I think it'll come from some indie developer, possibly with one or two names from SS2 on board. It won't be named Bioshock or System Shock unless by some miracle of kickstarter they can afford to rent back the System Shock lisence from whoever owns it. It'll be PC-only and it won't sell well. But if we're very, very lucky, maybe it'll get on steam, maybe it'll sell a little, and maybe they'll go on to make another one.
Same goes for Thief, Descent, Deus Ex, Serious Sam, and all those other quirky little first-person games that were born in the 90's. These games are the extinct species that died off throughout the evolution of the modern shooter. Even the ones that had sequels are gradually becoming homogenized into Spunkgargleweewee. (I know I shouldn't need to link you guys to the origin of this term, but here we go for posterity's sake: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/6492-Medal-of-Honor-Warfighter-Doom-3-BFG-Edition )
And I know as little about the design process as you do. Everything I just said is based on an outsider's observation of industry trends, and from reading articles and watching commentary videos like the ones here on the Escapist.
If people actually sat down to create a brand new game from scratch every time, starting from a story or an idea or an innovative new core gameplay, I think very few of them would be first person shooters in the first place. Because the first person perspective is only really useful for pointing and clicking in a 3D environment. No, the reason we have so many shooters is because of sales trends. And the reason the shooters keep getting less cerebral and less challenging is also because of sales trends.
It's tempting to blame us, to blame gamers, but the problem isn't that we're selecting dumber and dumber games. It's that new gamers are selecting dumber games than we would select, and they have more purchasing power than we do.
I do appreciate that Bioshock Infinite had the balls to do anything novel or interesting with its setting at all. I'm not surprised at the lack of puzzles, though. My expectations going into this review were low, the effusive praise and 10/10 scores only lowered them, and hearing from people who have played the game bumped them back up, but only a little bit. I think it does live up to the hype to an extent. It just doesn't live up to the natural expectations of people who've played System Shock. And I'm honestly starting to think that nothing Irrational touches ever will.