Ah, actually, one point I want to make. I'm not talking about the new X-COM game. I'm talking about this X-COM game:TheTygerfire said:
[img src="http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/gs/action/enforcer/enforcer_screen001.jpg" /]
Why do developers miss the point of their own games?
- Thread starter NickCaligo42
- Start date
Recommended Videos
[img src="http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/gs/action/enforcer/enforcer_screen001.jpg" /]
what about Ubisoft and their inept handling of Prince of Persia?
I think part of it would be from the higher ups wanting to fondle power they can't comprehend, part idealistic members of the team that want to leave a mark, and part lack of playtesting/ability to change shit once they do playtesting.
I think part of it would be from the higher ups wanting to fondle power they can't comprehend, part idealistic members of the team that want to leave a mark, and part lack of playtesting/ability to change shit once they do playtesting.
On RE4-to-RE5: RE4 is still relatively consistent with the rest of the series in terms of its adventure gaming elements. Its perspective and controls are different, but the core values of exploration and careful inventory management are still present. RE5 marked a shift to pure action. It's kind of a gray area, I'll admit, maybe I should've picked Silent Hill instead. :\KalosCast said:
On the greater point: If that were true, all of these franchises would be doing top-notch. As it stands, each of the examples I've given is an established series that has been damaged by their alteration of focus to some degree or another and, in many cases, has yet to recover. R&C eventually did, but as of Crack in Time excitement for the series seems to have dropped dramatically, nobody's getting all that hyped for "All4One," so I threw out my now-retracted R&C bullet as a suggestion as to why.
The point I want to make, though, is that I can't think of a single example of a positive shift for games that change their focus like this, either in the quality of their product or their sales. No matter what, it seems that games have a sense of product identity and that it's ill-advised for developers to compromise it. If you have counter-examples, please, share.
They try to freshen up the series with new ideas and ideally they should'nt becuase usually people want more of the same but improved like with the DA2 fiasco. Points for you not bringing up DA2 in the opening thread good sir. They did a good job with Resident Evil 4 but as good as 5 was just felt more like a *generic white marine guy* FPS. You could have slapped Doom 4 on it and everyone would have just thought it was a coincidence that Chris Redfield showed up.
Money, basically. They have to keep making games of the same series because fans will most definitely buy them but something has to change or else it's the exact same game as before. So they add a bad twist or an element that is demanded and go with that.
Thinking of a new game and launching it is more risky than redoing an old game.
Thinking of a new game and launching it is more risky than redoing an old game.
The development of games is a creative process, and many games take years of development time. Are you really saying that after spending, let's say, 2 years of developing a title the only option for a developer should be to spend another 2 years making and remaking essentially the exact same game?dolgion said:
As a fan of a developer I feel that you should support their efforts and their creativity. If you don't like what they produce, then simply don't buy it. As you said yourself. Simple. As. That.
I get what you mean, but what I'm saying is that it's not really your choice on what the "core values" in a product are. That's up to the one creating the game. If you feel that a game series is no longer appealing to you because the aspects of a game you find to be necessary are removed, then so be it.NickCaligo42 said:
In the case of Ultima, maybe Garriott wanted to try something different with the Ultima games. Maybe he got sick of making essentially the same game for 14 years and thought the series could be improved by adding more action elements. Maybe after trying the more action oriented approach, he decided he didn't like it much and wanted to try something else (which is what he pretty much did with Ultima Online). Heck, maybe he just bowed to corporate pressure and a desire for better sales figures. It's not a glamorous truth, but it may be a truth none the less. Either way, however, the game is his, the series is his, and the final product, core value and all, is what he wanted it to be at the time.
Simple. Marketability.
Make your game less niche', and more accessible/appealing to the masses, you will make more money.
Why not do it with a new IP? Name recognition. You also get the side benefit of looping in existing fans via "bait and switch" logic.
Now, there is a distinction between "missing the point" and "expanding a concept".
With most remakes, pseudo-sequels and re-imaginings, they're just trying to milk the name/brand without being tied to existing canon. Most of these works do miss the point. As do many inexplicable sequels and prequels (Such as the anachronistic elements found in the FF7 compendium or the upcoming Deus Ex game).
However, there have been instances where a concept is taken in a different direction, and succeeds without missing the point. Metroid Prime is a perfect example of such a concept.
Make your game less niche', and more accessible/appealing to the masses, you will make more money.
Why not do it with a new IP? Name recognition. You also get the side benefit of looping in existing fans via "bait and switch" logic.
Now, there is a distinction between "missing the point" and "expanding a concept".
With most remakes, pseudo-sequels and re-imaginings, they're just trying to milk the name/brand without being tied to existing canon. Most of these works do miss the point. As do many inexplicable sequels and prequels (Such as the anachronistic elements found in the FF7 compendium or the upcoming Deus Ex game).
However, there have been instances where a concept is taken in a different direction, and succeeds without missing the point. Metroid Prime is a perfect example of such a concept.
You seem to have not understand what I meant. I'm not saying they should make the exact same game over and over. By all means, they should improve their franchise with change. My point is that changes must be considered. Will it change the nature of the game? A too drastic departure from the things that make the core of a franchise can backfire, just look at the DA2 disaster as the most recent example. Also, if you loved a game, you're more likely to buy the sequel without much second-guessing. After all, you sort of expect a similar experience, only improved in the things that weren't working well before, or maybe some exciting new features. The argument that "Don't buy it if you don't like it" doesn't really hold up in my opinion.StriderShinryu said:
Also, while it IS a creative process, often it's not really that creative, especially if your publisher has you by the balls and whats to tap a new demographic, you're suddenly limited creatively.
How are we any more qualified to tell developers what the "point of their game" is any more than those greedy pig-swine hogs who make changes we don't find satisfactory?
I personally find that Majora's Mask is a parable for the 5 stages of grief. I'm not gonna tell Nintendo to bear that in mind when remaking it for the 3DS because for all I know all of the symbolism I found in Majora's Mask was an accident. I have no clue what the "point" of that game is. All I have is my interpretation.
I personally find that Majora's Mask is a parable for the 5 stages of grief. I'm not gonna tell Nintendo to bear that in mind when remaking it for the 3DS because for all I know all of the symbolism I found in Majora's Mask was an accident. I have no clue what the "point" of that game is. All I have is my interpretation.
You don't even have to have a SERIES of games for this to happen. I see this come up in games where the main character is given some super-powered ancient artifact that allows him to defeat enemies in interesting and amazingly unique ways....and then he never uses it because he's also given an assault rifle.
But that's the issue. You say publisher limitations on creativity are bad, which I agree with. I fail to see why you consider "fan" based limitations as different. Today's Extra Credits does a pretty good job of explaining why making games purely based on gathered statistics and "fan" reaction can be a bad thing.dolgion said:
As for DA2, by all published accounts on the developer side, it was a bit of an experiment but it was a successful one at least as far as their creative and design tastes are concerned. Some players loved the changes, some players hated them, and Bioware has stated that they are happy with the game but looking into player feedback in a few areas they know they may have dropped the ball on. Maybe they'll go back on some of their design decisions, maybe they won't, but I'll be happy either way as long as they follow their creative vision for their next title. If that means I think it looks like garbage then of course I'll be disappointed, but the best way to show that is to simply not buy it.
While it may not necessarily be true on the dollars and cents behind the scenes side of things due to publishing contracts and whatnot, gamers should stop looking at buying a game as funding its sequel. They need, in a sense, to start looking at it as rewarding the developer for the game they are buying. True loyalty to a developer is trusting and respecting their artistic vision even if it means they sometimes falter, not buying a game because you want the next game to simply be a slightly evolved version of the one you just played.
I suppose, overall, my biggest issue with this subject in general is found right in the subject of this thread. I can't help but view that thought as, quite frankly, blindingly arrogant. It's not so much about not wanting to see what you like in a series continued as it is about players thinking they run the show simply because they put their $60 down.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
This usually happens because developers want to open up their game to a broader audience, so they change the gamplay, or the story into something more familiar, or something that sells better. This of course pisses off the core audience who liked the game/series the way it was, and it doesn't really draw much attention from the people that the developers are trying to cater to because it takes away all uniqueness from the game and just puts it into a new market that's already saturated with games of that type.