"If it ain't broke..." Does it apply to game design?

[TehKnuck]

So, I've been playing Crackdown 2 all day today, and I've been enjoying the hell out of it. It's fun, it's simple, and it's got all the things I loved about the first. And I loved the first. Of course, reading around and hearing from a few friends, it's apparently been receiving mediocre reviews. One of the common threads in these lukewarm opinions, is that it didn't change enough, it was like the same game. Therein lies my question. Does it HAVE to be? We've all heard the old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Why can't this apply to games? Ruffian took a concept that they knew worked, gave it a new coat of paint, tossed in a few new bells and whistles, and gave it right back to the community that eagerly gobbled up the first edition. Sure, if it's going to be exactly the same, it could have been DLC, but I like how the supply points have been replaced with strategic positions, and I love how the time of day in-game can affect your missions, depending on who you're fighting. Mechanics like these are just fresh enough to make me feel my money was well spent on another gaming experience, even if it's very similar to its predecessor. What are your thoughts? Are people who want sequels to be different asking too much, or is it reasonable for developers to stick to a formula that works without taking too many risks changing up a sequel?

 

[Layz92]

I think the "if it ain't broke" idea is perfectly valid and good in game design within reason. Games like God of War are perfectly fine. They do what they do well and add new and interesting twists with each new release keeping the solid core concepts alive and kicking. It is a bad idea though when "if it aint broke" gets taken too far and the whole game stagnates being the same game just with, say, palm trees instead of forest trees.

 

[BrailleOperatic]

I think if a game has room to be better, it should be made better. The "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" ideology has the potential to allow games to stagnate, as it implies that one shouldn't change the design of a game that is merely functional--if it's functional, it isn't broken, and by said logic, it should be left alone--and then is bad for the industry as a whole.
Naturally, one should be hesitant to tweak with the fundamental design too much for fear of alienating old players, or even back-pedaling and creating a product worse than the original, but simply because something works is no reason to NOT try to improve upon it. Maybe something more to the point of "If it's already good, don't risk making it bad" would be better.

 

[scnj]

No, I think sequels should aim to improve upon the previous game, not just do more of the same.

 

[Bocaj2000]

Just because it's not broke doesn't mean that it's perfect. There is always room for improvement.

EDIT:
Also in my opinion, developers are playing it too safe. They would rather make a mediocre shooter than distribute an artistic innovation.

 

[Sgt AssHead]

No, I think sequels should aim to improve upon the previous game, not just do more of the same.

I agree with this completely. A developer should always aim to make each game better than the last in every way they can, while still keeping the core gameplay intact.

 

[rockingnic]

If it ain't broken, don't fix it apply to games already great and original. It's DOESN'T apply to games like COD, where you have so many games like it, that it lacks an identity.