# Should Games Start Taking Risks?



## Ryukouki (Dec 9, 2013)

​Over the years, we as gamers have seen the development and regression of video gaming franchises. Some franchises can hardly get off the ground, while others just skyrocket in terms of popularity. I find that a lot of these popular franchises get themselves to the top, and then they just plateau and stop progressing. I like to see games develop as a series, rather than make a quick buck from already being famous. What I would like to explore is simply whether or not it is the right way to go, making a quick and easy buck. Is it sometimes better to just bite the bullet and take a risk?​​[prebreak]Continue reading[/prebreak]​​We can easily open up with the Mario franchise. Having come out with a new title for the Wii U; it sold well, but from what I have heard from friends and the media, it felt like more of the same old thing, with Nintendo playing it safe and opting to make that quick buck. We can say the same about the newest _Pokemon X and Y _titles, which generated great sales, but felt like more of the same and, in my opinion, even taking several steps backwards. The same thing happens with popular shooting games for other consoles. They sell fantastically well, but in the end, the formula has not changed, save for fancier graphics and slightly modified features.​​Something I was thinking about exploring, and had some agreement with friends with, was the idea of "scrapping" current franchises and starting from scratch, taking the franchises back to their roots, back to its drawing board. Let's face it, we're never going to get a game like _Zelda II _again, are we? I still very much admire that title because it was something so new considering previous and later titles. If these franchises were in a way, "scrapped," where could they go to? What new ideas could happen that would change the way these franchises play out?​​What would happen though if a franchise decided to take their game and go in another direction, and fail? One case that I observed this happening in was _The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds, _for the Nintendo 3DS. This game was a sequel to the highly popular _The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, _and one of the major changes of the game involved removing the linear component of the title, allowing free exploration into dungeon choices and item progression. For me, this particular goal failed because it removed the often rewarding feel of dungeons, the staple to the games, and exploration, instead opting to give the player the power to own the entire inventory early into the game, often reducing dungeon rewards to rupees only. On a personal level, with a slight admittance to being blinded by nostalgia, I found that the game failed to live up to its predecessor, although I do admire Nintendo's boldness in attempting to take the game in a new direction. What I say technically does not matter as the game still sold well, and many fans praised the title. Which goes back to my main point, I would like to see developers trying new things, even if it takes a few stumbles.​​

_Interestingly enough, the removal of the linearity of the title killed the game for me!_​​This is interesting to me, though. Could it also be that we as gamers, having grown older and more experienced, are just not seeing it anymore? Is it that when we find games too easy, it's due to the developers not trying anymore? Or is it that we have just become experienced enough to note the patterns? Have we become so jaded that it would take a huge shock for us to realize that the franchise is changing? For me, I would like to see what the middle ground is for developers to create something new for their respective franchises. If it involves scrapping the fundamental basis of their franchise, I would applaud it as I like seeing these risks as they happen, although this is most likely suicide on the developer's part.​​I'm being a bit wordy again, and I'll close it off. If you are just scrolling to this portion (you know who you are!), the idea I want to explore is seeing developers taking risks in making changes to their franchise's fundamental elements. Would it be more profitable to take that chance and risk hurting the devoted fans, or would it be better to take the safe, current road? Chime off in a comment below, and remember, keep it clean.​


----------



## Costello (Dec 9, 2013)

Some games such as GTA V just go for "bigger, better, longer", and they sell really well and get positive critics.
For me gaming has become more about story telling; there's not much more to offer in terms of gameplay.
I like a good game with cutscenes, an actual scenario, and nice graphics, I think the perfect embodiment for that is what Rockstar offers (Red Dead Redemption, LA Noire, GTA V... these are among my all time favorite games)

As I was saying when it comes to gameplay I think over the years we've explored most of what can be done with gamepads, the next evolution would be virtual headsets with movement recognition (something like the occulus rift, but pushed even further) or similar concepts.


----------



## gamefan5 (Dec 9, 2013)

Removing the game's linearity for zelda LBW allowed for much more freedom.
Ahh and I loved every second of it.
Linearity works, but it also proves that non linear works as well for the classic zelda formula and I am hoping that they include it in the next 3D installment.


----------



## GHANMI (Dec 9, 2013)

Check Marvelous for the Super Famicom (the first one from the three -or five if you include the rebranded spiritual sucessors Tetra Trackers and Tingle DS 2- has an incomplete fan-translation) to have an idea what a Zelda game after taking risks would look like. It's sad they don't really do bold experiments like this (Doshin, Giftpia, Cubivore, Chibi-Robo, Mole Mania..) that much nowadays.


----------



## Gahars (Dec 9, 2013)

Sure, but most mainstream, AAA developers aren't going to do that because AAA games are multi-million dollar investments that need to recoup a lot of money before they can even hope to turn a profit. The problem with experiments is that there's no guarantee they'll succeed. Middle of the road is always a safer bet, and the stockholders aren't going to be too happy to hear you're throwing their money around on what may be a complete dead end. They change and improve over time, sure, but mostly with baby steps, not giant leaps.

That's not to say that AAA games can't be good (please, I'm not _that_ much of a hipster), but if you want giant risks and huge gambles, you're better off turning to the indie scene. Indie developers have a lot more freedom to experiment; by being low budget, they can afford to be weird.


----------



## XDel (Dec 9, 2013)

I dunno, maybe I'm just a Nintendo Fanboy, but I happen to have loved the new Mario and it felt very fresh to me, while bringing back a lot of elements lost from sequels from long ago. It's a cheap gimmick I guess? Rehashing the same old formula but adding a unique little twist to each one...
...but it takes careful hands to make that concept work and for Nintendo, at least for most Nintendo fans I presume, they deliver. Guess a lot of it once again is a matter of opinion.


----------



## anhminh (Dec 9, 2013)

Actually they do try to take the new road, it just not as success as main series ever were.
Just look at the spin-off of Mario and Pokemon like Mario Super Star Saga and Pokemon Dungeon. They have try to go a different route with the main series, but none of them can be as success as main series. This make the development wonder are their risk worth it?


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 9, 2013)

At this point people are often inclined to compare it to the film world. There places there which are inclined to occasionally do things for some artistic merit rather than outright profits, being so close to the main awards show for games ( http://gbatemp.net/threads/ppotw-what-did-you-think-of-this-years-vgx-awards.358844/ ) this is probably somewhat poignant, where there is not so much of this elsewhere.

Of course the film world engages in some remarkably creative accounting (indeed going so far as to have what is basically a synonym named for the it in "Hollywood accounting") so that might not be the most apt comparison. However at least some of that is a "pay it forward" approach to things. On the other hand names are a thing in the film world where game world seems far less concerned with such practices (pushing it I might be able to name 30 people responsible for games at all levels, I could probably name 30 film composers/scorers with relative ease and for the record I am the kind of person that does not even know the names of people in bands I like).

On the other hand everything (games and otherwise) might be more stale but maybe through a combo of knowing games more and knowing basic theory as far as storytelling goes with games barely attempting to go beyond that makes it more noticeable.


----------



## DinohScene (Dec 9, 2013)

AAA titles wil allways sell no matter what.
First party Ninty titles for example.
COD series being another example.

I'll just mainly stick with the game series that aren't released one year after the last installment.
And the lesser titles.


----------



## WhiteMaze (Dec 9, 2013)

A real shame so few game developers think like this topic's creator.

A real real shame.

For me, I've grown tired of playing the same old Call of Duty: PTSD, Super Mario World 5000 and Halo: Master Chef Returns.

Been losing my interest in video-games because of this sole reason. Whatever happened to things like "The Last of Us?" That was a gem in it's own way, among so many other games for numerous platforms.

But nooooo. I keep getting shoved in the face with the same crap, all over again.


----------



## Gahars (Dec 9, 2013)

WhiteMaze said:


> Whatever happened to things like "The Last of Us?" That was a gem in it's own way, among so many other games for numerous platforms.


 

Are people nostalgic for games that came out this year already?

Good grief, it's like r/gaming on steroids.


----------



## WhiteMaze (Dec 9, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Are people nostalgic for games that came out this year already?
> 
> Good grief, it's like r/gaming on steroids.


 
Just something that came to mind. I could recall many others.


----------



## Gahars (Dec 9, 2013)

WhiteMaze said:


> Just something that came to mind. I could recall many others.


 
Still, it's kind of silly to go "People don't make games like this anymore!" when they literally just did.


----------



## kakashi919 (Dec 9, 2013)

I have to admit,I've found myself running back to the old JRPGs these days to get my gaming fix. Though, I started Dark Souls the other day and have been hooked trying to get somewhere. I'll use Demon Souls/Dark Souls as developers taking a risk,simply because the gaming scene has changed. A lot of developers are targeting the casual crowd in recent years. But they made this game so difficult it forces you to spend a lot of time with it.
I would love to see a new Metroid in classic side scrolling gameplay. (Fusion 2 please? ) Not a very huge risk, but I think it's a start to going back to it's roots.


----------



## Transdude1996 (Dec 9, 2013)

I'll just leave this here:


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Dec 9, 2013)

I think after so many goddamn stale DS games..Pokemon X and Y changed things enough to get me interested back in the series....and believe me..I swore to never pick up a copy of pokemon again after the staleness of Platinum pissed me off


----------



## Youkai (Dec 9, 2013)

don't change something that is working just fine !
I agree that changes can be very good and can change anything to something better BUT why change something that works ... I have seen many great games becoming garbage because the developer thought they do something awesome .... 

good or better bad examples are Simon the Sorcerer 3D, Gothic 3 and HoMM4+ ... ...


----------



## JPhantom (Dec 9, 2013)

in all honesty they can think up new characters for a lot less risk then changing fundamental aspects of a series.  if the team behind a AAA title wants to experiment with something different they make a new series instead of risking the big money by changing the cash cows.  this has the added benefit of being able to see how the series fares on its own as opposed to just hearing the voices of overly conspicuous fanboys


----------



## Hells Malice (Dec 9, 2013)

I like when a franchise takes risks, but it still has to remain that game.
A Link Between Worlds is damn fun. I hated the idea at first that dungeons wont have proper loot, but in the end I was really enjoying having the freedom to use the items I wanted, when I wanted. But I think it was a little poorly implemented...but hey, they have to start somewhere. I think it was a valiant attempt and the game was still really good. It just really needed a bit more content. I think it would have been fine to add more interesting and "neat" but not essential to progress items in dungeons too, or item upgrades or what have you outside of the miamai or whatever upgrades.

Mario Party on the other hand, changed things and basically ruined what the game was about. It's total trash and unless it reverts, the series is officially dead to me. They went too far in the wrong direction and I bet they lost a lot of previous fans because of it.

Some games like Dark Souls really don't NEED to take risks. You can have "more of the same" but with entirely new content, and it's fun again. There doesn't need to be broad sweeping changes for a title like this, as long as there's new items, new land, new bosses, etc, it retains it's funness. I think it'd lose itself if they tried to take any real risks with the game, and there's no really too many directions it could go anyway.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 9, 2013)

the problem is that developers dump too much money into games to be able to afford to take risks.  If their expensive AAA title flops, they might be filing for bankruptcy.  If you want games that take a risk, you mostly have to look to smaller developers that aren't going to spend so much money that they can't afford to try something new.


----------



## MarioFanatic64 (Dec 9, 2013)

Anyone who has seen my recent discussions about Mario know my stance on this topic. Game developers these days tend to stick to a convention and choose to never deviate from it because it makes money.

They have no idea (or are blissfully ignorant) that they're psychologically torturing their fans. They're all waiting for the revolution that will never happen.

In a world where the fans are in the minority of consumers, their desires will be ignored.


----------



## calmwaters (Dec 9, 2013)

Nothing's small anymore; everything's big. You can't go to the store and get a 8 oz. jar of peanut butter anymore: they've only got them in 32/40 oz. And if they don't have the creamy, oh well. At least they still have some. Honestly, I wish developers could release triple A games every two/three months, but that won't happen. But wouldn't it be nicer if they would just release 8 oz. jars of peanut butter to see how they sell? And not from somebody else? Can't the people who sell the 32/40 oz jars also sell the 8 oz jars? They've got the wherewithal.


----------



## orcid (Dec 9, 2013)

I am really disappointed of kickstarter. At the beginning I thought developers can present new ideas there, get founded and can develop innovativ games without a big risk, because they got money in advance. So there would be more innovativ games. In reality kickstarter had become a platform for retro games without any inovation.



mariofanatic64 said:


> They have no idea (or are blissfully ignorant) that they're psychologically torturing their fans. They're all waiting for the revolution that will never happen.
> 
> In a world where the fans are in the minority of consumers, their desires will be ignored.


I think the complete opposite is the case. They are not ignored. Fans are the reason why there are less new ideas and the developers don`t want to change too much. Maybe they say that they want a revolution, but in reality nearly every little change results in harsh critic of the new game. Even the haircut in the new Devil May Cry was such a big problems for the fans of the franchise, so that you can read bad user reviews all over the internet. Because of that people who are new to the franchise hestitate to buy the game.


----------



## MarioFanatic64 (Dec 9, 2013)

orcid said:


> I think the complete opposite is the case. They are not ignored. Fans are the reason why there are less new ideas and the developers don`t want to change too much. Maybe they say that they want a revolution, but in reality nearly every little change results in harsh critic of the new game. Even the haircut in the new Devil May Cry was such a big problems for the fans of the franchise, so that you can read bad user reviews all over the internet. Because of that people who are new to the franchise hestitate to buy the game.


 
The fan who wants a revolution is not the same fan who complains when they get one.

As a society, we just have to stop relying on other people's biased opinions to perceive a game, movie, book or anything that is subject to the media.


----------



## aiat_gamer (Dec 9, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> , although I do admire Nintendo's boldness in attempting to take the game in a new direction. What I say technically does not matter as the game still sold well, and many fans praised the title.
> ​


​You talk like they flipped the game on its head! As a gamer who is not that much into Zelda games but has played a few of them I did not even notice any drastic changes in the game. So you can choose to do this dungeon and then that one, it wasn't a big deal. Quite frankly I struggled to grasp how some people said this was big change in the series and stuff...to me this game is exactly like the ones before it. Now an open world Zelda game with complete freedom and optional quests? that would be more like it!​​ 


orcid said:


> I am really disappointed of kickstarter. At the beginning I thought developers can present new ideas there, get founded and can develop innovativ games without a big risk, because they got money in advance. So there would be more innovativ games. In reality kickstarter had become a platform for retro games without any inovation.


 
Either you are not really aware of what is out there in KS, or you have been backing/paying attention to far few games to notice the innovative games...



mariofanatic64 said:


> Anyone who has seen my recent discussions about Mario know my stance on this topic. Game developers these days tend to stick to a convention and choose to never deviate from it because it makes money.
> 
> They have no idea (or are blissfully ignorant) that they're psychologically torturing their fans. They're all waiting for the revolution that will never happen.
> 
> ...


 
No, as *orcid *said, it is the fans that are preventing innovation, case in point:



Ryukouki said:


> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Overall, I really don't get the obsession everyone is having with innovations in the already established game series. If something is working, then no drastic change is necessary. Why not just come up with a new game and try new things, instead of changing what is already working and pissing off the fans for no reason?!


----------



## Chocolina (Dec 9, 2013)

Actually I'd argue that most gamers/fans/people shit all over games that have took risk by branching out from tradition a franchise is known for. While we're on the subject of Zelda for example, Skyward Sword has taken more risks than any Zelda game before and after it, by making it's story, pacing, and arguably gameplay, so radically different that it stands by itself. While I for one who see's such drastic changes as refreshing, others might see it as atrocity.  I see Skyward Sword as the most different, and objectively the best Zelda, while a majority of people might call this game the worst one.

Same with Final Fantasy XII, that I'd call the most innovative and standout game in the series, has been well regarded by most as the franchise's low point.

Kid Icarus Uprising, which I consider one of my top 10 favorite games ever, also took risks by taking on gameplay, story, and script thats very unbecoming of any game by Nintendo, or any game in general, but still gets shat on by way too many people, by either Kid Icarus dans who weren't expecting what Uprising became, or people who had difficulty with the very easy and intuitive controls.

Another gem, Okamiden, being pretty much the only free-roaming 3D engine game on DS is by far one of the most ambitious games on DS, took a risk by releasing on DS, and didn't recieve much praise because it was often compared to a fucking PS2/Wii game.

Though it really can be argued that video games have been taking risks for the past 30 years, and that you're just not seeing risks as risks. I'm still surprised that some of my favorite games that I regard as the best of their kind, mostly because they're different, often attract alot of hate for the very same reason I consider them special.


----------



## OrGoN3 (Dec 9, 2013)

Odd. I could've sworn the location of the items at Rovio's was different for me than in your screenshot.

The game was still a bit linear. If you played it in the order of LTTP, it was a lot easier. I was more upset about the slowdowns during the game, and Nintendo mashing bits and pieces from the Zeldas since LTTP (collecting like in Minish Cap, upgrades like Four Swords, most music LTTP but too many Wind Waker sounds). It's also rupees galore.


----------



## MarioFanatic64 (Dec 9, 2013)

aiat_gamer said:


> No, as *orcid *said, it is the fans that are preventing innovation


 
You talk as if every fanbase has a single-minded, collective opinion, which they don't. I would consider myself an avid fan of many series', and I would be delighted to see any franchise take a different direction, even if only for a single game. I don't understand why some people who call themselves fans want a sequel to a game, or a continuation to an existing series if they don't want new content or features. If I wanted the exact same thing, I'd just play the game I already have. It's just another case of majority/minority and corporate greed, which is the real problem here.

It all comes down to what has and hasn't been overused. There should be a healthy balance of different franchise conventions in between to keep the series varied.


----------



## aiat_gamer (Dec 9, 2013)

mariofanatic64 said:


> You talk as if every fanbase has a single-minded, collective opinion, which they don't. I would consider myself an avid fan of many series', and I would be delighted to see any franchise take a different direction, even if only for a single game. I don't understand why some people who call themselves fans want a sequel to a game, or a continuation to an existing series if they don't want new content or features. If I wanted the exact same thing, I'd just play the game I already have. It's just another case of majority/minority and corporate greed, which is the real problem here.
> 
> It all comes down to what has and hasn't been overused. There should be a healthy balance of different franchise conventions in between to keep the series varied.


 

Well yeah, but people like you are in the minority, as you already know. You can see countless examples of how small changes has led to these so called fans getting upset and moaning. I am a new player to the BF franchise and played a little bit of BF3 before moving to BF4, although the changes are very minor I hear people complaining all the time about the smallest of changes and how it ruined the game for them and they constantly say that they will go back to playing BF3 (but never do though!)



Chocolina said:


> Another gem, Okamiden, being pretty much the only free-roaming 3D engine game on DS is by far one of the most ambitious games on DS, took a risk by releasing on DS, and didn't recieve much praise because it was often compared to a fucking PS2/Wii game.


 

Yeah this is what I wondered,  I am planing on starting this game since I loved the original game but from reviews, I heard people criticizing the combat mostly, how different it is from Okami?


----------



## pwsincd (Dec 9, 2013)

Should games start taking risks ? . i read that and answered that as "YES" only then to read the question is : Should video game developers continue taking the safe road and rehash old ideas in new forms?   . The thread title condradicts the question lol... i answered wrongly subsequently in my morning half awake stupor...

But god damn yes they should take risks or maybe we should call it pushing boundaries.


----------



## Scott-105 (Dec 9, 2013)

I don't know, if a game is good, why change it? I mean, like Pokemon is fun to me even if the gameplay isn't different from game to game. The new things they add are enough to keep me entertained. As said before, spin off titles keep me entertained as well. It's something different. Like Pokemon Mystery Dungeon. I quite like those games.


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 9, 2013)

For me, this is a non-argument. Games are already taking risks and being innovative. I'm just not looking at the same games as the OP (and some others). So really...I can't vote on this one. I'm missing a "they already do", option.

To take an analogy...would you go to a movie forum and post something like "Should movies start taking risks?", arguing that all the large budget movies are about the world being at stake and huge explosions? No. Of course not. Because while most movie watchers know that while on a big budget movie you can expect to 'play it safe' and go for pure entertainment ("here are some famous stars! And some explosions! And a funny side character!"), you can just as well get a ticket for the movie next to it which is a completely different kind.

The same here. I recently played games like antichamber (brilliant game) or a virus named Tom (very hard, but very fun). They were not at all like the standard AAA-titles. And sure, there are some games that lack even a minimal story element (nightsky comes to mind) or controls (Eets munchies...I quit within 15 minutes), but they boldly go where no AAA-title dares going.

I know it's nice to have a familiar brand or franchise, but c'mon...this thread is like going to McDonalds and complaining that they serve hamburgers there that taste exactly like you would expect. Or that their try-outs are also fastfood.



calmwaters said:


> Nothing's small anymore; everything's big. You can't go to the store and get a 8 oz. jar of peanut butter anymore: they've only got them in 32/40 oz. And if they don't have the creamy, oh well. At least they still have some. Honestly, I wish developers could release triple A games every two/three months, but that won't happen. But wouldn't it be nicer if they would just release 8 oz. jars of peanut butter to see how they sell? And not from somebody else? Can't the people who sell the 32/40 oz jars also sell the 8 oz jars? They've got the wherewithal.


Did you ever hear about this thing called "indie games"? The only reason some games are called AAA-games is because of the budget/resources allocated to it.

I'm also having trouble understanding what your analogy is about. the 8 oz. jar is smaller and thus cheaper, but has the same amount of quality put into it. And in games, providing that quality is actually the hardest thing. In other words: the costs are relatively the same to make a game with 8 levels as it is to make one with 40 levels. That, and that the 8 level game wouldn't sell because being too small, is why everything is big (at least in games).

Oh, and...as said, I'm not sure what you're saying here so I might be completely wrong, but...isn't a game like Super Luigi bros U an example of a small game? It's the smaller instance of that larger NSMBU game.


----------



## ForteGospel (Dec 9, 2013)

its weird that you chose to criticize 3 nintendo games that got great reviews (super mario 3d world the best mario since galaxy 2, zelda albw the best zelda since OoT, pokemon xy the best pokemon since g/s)

also its not like they use the same formula over and over and over again,

for mario it was separated between 2d linear levels with 3d open (kind of) world, and super mario 3d combined both of those ideas (3d linear levels), then super mario 3d world came, so its mostly a new idea... only 2 games like that

for zelda, this is the first open world zelda since alttp? OoT had pseudo open world, the rest were mostly linear...

for pokemon, they didnt changed much, but added many required small features that makes the game feel bigger than the rest.


----------



## Mythrix (Dec 9, 2013)

I just read an article about Nintendo where it stated that Super Mario Galaxy (and Galaxy 2) was more expensive to develop, but just didn't sell as well as New Super Mario Bros, which was less expensive. Which explains why they have been "playing it safe" and made new versions of the "New" series and also the "3D" series (which according to that article was also cheaper to develop than Galaxy) lately instead of making more Mario Galaxy games. I don't really have any sources to back this up though.

Basically, gaming companies are in it to make money after all, so it is to be expected that they are making the types of games that it seems like people will buy... I wouldn't really call this corporate greed, it's more like "sensible business practice". I'd say that Nintendo is actually one of the "good" examples on this topic, because of all the different variations they have made on their IP (at least Mario). Mario has multiple different RPG series (Paper, Mario & Luigi), multiple platform series (New, 3D, Galaxy), and tons of different party games (Party, Kart, all the sports games). While it might seem to some people like they are "milking" the series now by making lots of similar games, the fact that they did (and still sometimes do) experiment with different genres deserve some praise in my opinion!

Even if not all of the stuff they're making is great. (*cough*Mario & Sonic Olympics*cough* though I guess that series really was made just for profit rather than for innovation in any way whatsoever). Speaking of Sonic, I guess SEGA also did experiment with different genres of Sonic games without any luck. Suddenly I don't really know what point I'm trying to arrive at.


----------



## Etheboss (Dec 9, 2013)

Why not ask a fair percentage of the gamers about what they want?
We live in a participation society now anyway.


----------



## Chocolina (Dec 9, 2013)

aiat_gamer said:


> Yeah this is what I wondered, I am planing on starting this game since I loved the original game but from reviews, I heard people criticizing the combat mostly, how different it is from Okami?


Combat isn't a seamless transition from field-to-battle. There isn't much other difference other than graphics.
The main gripe I read from many user-reviews was how there was no dig-related side quests.

As a DS game I think it excels. There are very, very, very few full-3D DS games that are full roaming. Most 3D DS games Are/were HUB based as you selected where you wanted to go on a list. By full roaming I mean a game like Mario 64 DS, where you can go anywhere you look, as apposed to something like Kingdom Hearts, where you gotta choose where you want to go from a list.
As a console game, full roaming isn't considered special as its pretty much a standard for any/most games, but as a DS game its a rarity. So as a typical game its nothing special, but if you remind yourself it's a DS game and remember what other DS games are like, its actually very special.

You'll enjoy Okamiden more if you play it as Okamiden, and not as Okami 2. You'll visit familiar places and re-meet familiar characters. Its one of those games you want to experience at it's fullest by playing on bright screen settings with headphones. The stylus makes brushing more seamless, and it's roughly a 13-hour game, and about 18 hours for all the collectibles, but it's only 18 if you're a thorough player or know where everything else is, otherwise its like a 26+ hour game. I personally place it in my Top 10 DS game lists, and I personally prefer it's soundtrack over Okami's.


----------



## aiat_gamer (Dec 9, 2013)

Etheboss said:


> Why not ask a fair percentage of the gamers about what they want?
> We live in a participation society now anyway.


 
Because most of the time, people do not know exactly what they want. If you would ask the users you would never have a game like Dark Souls for example. Remember that some of the promising games were ruined by the heavy reliance of focus groups, A.K.A Fuse...



Chocolina said:


> Combat isn't a seamless transition from field-to-battle. There isn't much other difference other than graphics.
> The main gripe I read from many user-reviews was how there was no dig-related side quests.
> 
> As a DS game I think it excels. There are very, very, very few full-3D DS games that are full roaming. Most 3D DS games Are/were HUB based as you selected where you wanted to go on a list. By full roaming I mean a game like Mario 64 DS, where you can go anywhere you look, as apposed to something like Kingdom Hearts, where you gotta choose where you want to go from a list.
> As a console game, full roaming isn't considered special as its pretty much a standard for any/most games, but as a DS game its a rarity. So as a typical game its nothing special, but if you remind yourself it's a DS game and remember what other DS games are like, its actually very special.


 
If I remember Combat wasn't seamless in Okami as well. 
Also, I don't think games should be viewed under the guise of it is a hand-held and cut it some slack. The game should be able to stand on its own regardless of which platform it is on.


----------



## Etheboss (Dec 9, 2013)

aiat_gamer said:


> Because most of the time, people do not know exactly what they want. If you would ask the users you would never have a game like Dark Souls for example. Remember that some of the promising games were ruined by the heavy reliance of focus groups, A.K.A Fuse...


So it's better to create a game that is so new or outragious or whatever (spending money and time, etc.) that people do not understand it or just don't like it and it never gets sold?

I do hope that companies take risk by renewing and refreshing games, but i don't think they are going to at this moment, unless maybe enough people say they will buy and play such a game before hand.


----------



## Arras (Dec 9, 2013)

aiat_gamer said:


> If I remember Combat wasn't seamless in Okami as well.
> Also, I don't think games should be viewed under the guise of it is a hand-held and cut it some slack. The game should be able to stand on its own regardless of which platform it is on.


It was more or less. If you ran into an enemy scroll thing an arena sort of erupted outward and a battle started, without loading or cutscenes or anything (unless it was an enemy you hadn't encountered before).



Hells Malice said:


> I like when a franchise takes risks, but it still has to remain that game.
> A Link Between Worlds is damn fun. I hated the idea at first that dungeons wont have proper loot, but in the end I was really enjoying having the freedom to use the items I wanted, when I wanted. But I think it was a little poorly implemented...but hey, they have to start somewhere. I think it was a valiant attempt and the game was still really good. It just really needed a bit more content. I think it would have been fine to add more interesting and "neat" but not essential to progress items in dungeons too, or item upgrades or what have you outside of the miamai or whatever upgrades.


Did you finish the game? Every single dungeon in the dark world (except the desert one, I think; that one is mandatory) does have an optional upgrade.


----------



## aiat_gamer (Dec 9, 2013)

Etheboss said:


> So it's better to create a game that is so new or outragious or whatever (spending money and time, etc.) that people do not understand it or just don't like it and it never gets sold?
> 
> I do hope that companies take risk by renewing and refreshing games, but i don't think they are going to at this moment, unless maybe enough people say they will buy and play such a game before hand.


 
I do not know about it being better or not, but that is what risk is all about isn't it? I mean this is what this discussion is all about :"
*Should Games Start Taking Risks?". *

There is no need to change the already working formula, they can just come up with a new and fresh game and then BAM! We have a new franchise which people will love!


----------



## DaniPoo (Dec 9, 2013)

I dunno but I really feel like ALBW was a great *tribute* to ALTTP. 
I remember way back when Nintendo had plans to make ALTTP a 3D classic, well that did not happen. 
I have heard that Nintendo started making the engine for a real ALTTP remake instead since they discontinued their 3D classics program. And that instead of creating a remake they ended up making ALBW (Still I dunno if thats true or just some rumor).

The safe card would have been to continue the ALTTP Remake, but they created a new game set in the very same world instead. 
I was pretty sceptic about the game taking place in the very same Hyrule as ALTTP, But nintendo pulled it off in a beautiful way!
I dont think Nintendo played their safest cards with this game.
And when it comes to Mario.. Hmm.. Im getting a little bit tired of the "New Super mario Bros" games by now.
But I have no problem with the main Mario games. And the handheld experience is getting better by each title.
Sure the story is almost the same in every game and the core gameplay stays the same. 
But remember that Mario is a famous trademark and one of Nintendos flagship franchises. 
I think Nintendo know what people expect from a Mario game these days. 
And they sure delivers when it comes to intressting level dessign and fun gameplay.

We have all these different kind of mario games that delivers different gameplay(From the main series) like Mario & Luigi, Mario Party, Mario Kart, Mario Tennis and so on for those that think the "Jumpman" formula is getting old. 

I have to say that the pokemon franchise evolves very slowly compared to other series, however.
I think believe they did that on purpose with X and Y. 
I believe they where focused on going 3D without loosing the feeling of a pokemon game instead of making lots and lots of new features. And since the FPS isn't really stable and that they didn't use 3D everywhere I believe the game is poorly optimized for the 3DS, and that makes me believe that they were pressed for time working on these games.
I also believe that these issues will be resolved in the next pokemon games since they they wont have to make a whole new engine this time. They just need to refine the engine a little and then they can focus on the new games. 
They wont have to remake all pokemon models either. They could just fokus on the game itself and all the new stuff.

All in all, I like change and improvement but I also like nostagia and that why I got both Nintendo and Playstation consoles.
Nintendo is changing however their games have a well established core gamplay that wont change.
Sony have powerfull systems that many developers can create new fresh experiences for.
But if you really want a complete new experience you should probably just try some franchise you havnt tried before instead of waiting for huge change in Super Mario.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 9, 2013)

calmwaters said:


> Honestly, I wish developers could release triple A games every two/three months, but that won't happen.


Isn't that what episodic gaming is supposed to be?

Personally I would like to take that a step further and have a rolling release type affair. It has already been demonstrated to work in other types of software, games already have it on a lot of mobile phone games and for video type things... that is what TV is.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 9, 2013)

I would answer "yes" to the poll question... If only the problem was actually real. To say that games are not taking risks is to be unfamiliar with th broad spectrum of contemporary games.

Take "The Walking Dead" for instance. The game practically single-handedly revived a dead genre - I haven't seen a single mainstream point-and-click adventure game since the dawn of the 3D era because developers figured that it's impossible to create one in 3D perspective - it was so easy to make this a shooter, the material was begging for it, but TellTale chose not to. In fact, another developer did make a shooter in the same franchise - "Survival Instinct" if I recall. Guess what? It sucks.

The same could be said about many other games - developers began mixing genes these days and it pays off. Battlefield for instance, on a grander scale, is more than a shooter - it requires teamwork and strategy, at times it play like a simulation and that gamplay style became the staple of the series.

There is no huge epidemy of regression - there were always some innovative games and some that were cliche. Fish out the good ones and you're golden.


----------



## Black-Ice (Dec 9, 2013)

As long as it adds a cool new dynamic to the game, risk away!


----------



## Clydefrosch (Dec 9, 2013)

considering how every successful franchise makes enough money per new game to fund like 5 new instances, why not take a step from the save road every other game?


----------



## WhiteMaze (Dec 9, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Still, it's kind of silly to go "People don't make games like this anymore!" when they literally just did.


 
Sure.

They make a single good game. And 500 rehashed ones. My point still stands.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 9, 2013)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> I think after so many goddamn stale DS games..Pokemon X and Y changed things enough to get me interested back in the series....and believe me..I swore to never pick up a copy of pokemon again after the staleness of Platinum pissed me off


 
X and Y is still basically a Pokemon game except both incredibly easy and it adds animu saiyans.


----------



## kakashi919 (Dec 9, 2013)

From what I've seen, X and Y focused on being more competitive for battling against each other. So yeah the main game is easy. Though I haven't played a lot of it, it's the first pokemon game I'm actually excited about in a long time.


----------



## WhiteMaze (Dec 9, 2013)

kakashi919 said:


> From what I've seen, X and Y focused on being more competitive for battling against each other. So yeah the main game is easy. Though I haven't played a lot of it, it's the first pokemon game I'm actually excited about in a long time.


 
Of course it is.

After 20 years of the same Helicopter 2D view crap, and after we've had 3D handheld technology for another 10 years, they finally decided to release a proper 3D Pokemon game. In 2013. The first (proper) 3D Pokemon game was released in *2013.*

This will be something for the history books.


----------



## kakashi919 (Dec 9, 2013)

Better late than never right?


----------



## Hells Malice (Dec 9, 2013)

Arras said:


> It was more or less. If you ran into an enemy scroll thing an arena sort of erupted outward and a battle started, without loading or cutscenes or anything (unless it was an enemy you hadn't encountered before).
> 
> 
> Did you finish the game? Every single dungeon in the dark world (except the desert one, I think; that one is mandatory) does have an optional upgrade.


 
Yeah but that was just a tiny little thing. +stamina, +def, +damage. I meant something more interesting, like a fun item or something, an item variation, something.


----------



## Arras (Dec 9, 2013)

Hells Malice said:


> Yeah but that was just a tiny little thing. +stamina, +def, +damage. I meant something more interesting, like a fun item or something, an item variation, something.


True, that would have been better. There are two item upgrades if you finish the battle tower thing, but those are just +damage on items you'll never use for dealing damage anyway.


----------



## Redhorse (Dec 9, 2013)

Someone said, "if it ain't broke don't fix it". I can not agree (though you're welcome to) with that:  Just because it's not presently broken does not mean it's not wearing down. IE Gee, my auto oil filter has worked just fine, why change it now?" Pft. 

A Doctor I once worked for said...

'Good Better best, never let it rest, until your good gets better and your better gets Best' words I've carried, in my mind,  throughout my years...

Dr. D.  knew a thing or two about achievement. That being said, I would hate to see too many changes in my favorite franchises Example: Advance Wars, .Fire Emblem etc.

In fact I personally feel the changes in the newest Fire Emblem  [Awakening] were a bit too much. It is the very first one I was not crazy about, since the first non english one I got my hands on here in the States.  It feels to me as though they took away what made the series fun to me. It's as though they just took the old adage about throwing enough around and something will stick.." literally. (Yeah I've heard how and why N gave I.S. free reign to throw all they wanted to in this as a last ditch effort to revive the series (here in the states) but can't help feel that proper promotion could have done far better. For me the series never waned.

As I said I wasn't pleased...

The Newest Fire Emblem [Awakening] reminds me of this old saying..

'An Old Maid in Silk Panties is like Chocolate Milk in a Champagne bottle.'


It just isn't what  I wanted or remembered ...
(back to my GB Micro..)


----------



## EgoTrip (Dec 9, 2013)

Regarding Zelda A Link Between Worlds, without going into details because of spoilers, there ARE unique items in some dungeons, and upgrades to items in others. I do agree that having most items available at the beginning, and the non-linear game play is slightly against the nature of Zelda games, but its not as bad as you make out.

As for the risks, corporations are in the business to make money so they are going to take the route with the least risk in doing so. Adding more will not please their shareholders.

The sad fact is that most people will happily take whatever they are spoon fed by the mainstream, the same happens with music and movies, yet be ignorant of the underground and independents, where people do take risks and produce stuff with real substance. Sure it may not always be polished to the same standard as an in-house Nintendo production, but beneath the glossy exterior, they can be just as good if not better. Just dig deeper.


----------



## tbgtbg (Dec 9, 2013)

I haven't played the new Zelda yet, but I'm quite interested to hear it's non-linear. You know what other game was non-linear? The Legend of Zelda. And that's still my favorite of the series (not that the others are chopped liver)


----------



## WhiteMaze (Dec 9, 2013)

kakashi919 said:


> Better late than never right?


 
True. But by that logic, we will be seeing the same 3D Pokemon games for the next 20 years, until they finally decide to innovate something. Again.

Brace yourselves boys, the next generation Pokemon shall reach the shelves in 2033. Yaaaaaaaay!


----------



## Ryukouki (Dec 9, 2013)

EgoTrip said:


> Regarding Zelda A Link Between Worlds, without going into details because of spoilers, there ARE unique items in some dungeons, and upgrades to items in others. I do agree that having most items available at the beginning, and the non-linear game play is slightly against the nature of Zelda games, but its not as bad as you make out.
> 
> As for the risks, corporations are in the business to make money so they are going to take the route with the least risk in doing so. Adding more will not please their shareholders.
> 
> The sad fact is that most people will happily take whatever they are spoon fed by the mainstream, the same happens with music and movies, yet be ignorant of the underground and independents, where people do take risks and produce stuff with real substance. Sure it may not always be polished to the same standard as an in-house Nintendo production, but beneath the glossy exterior, they can be just as good if not better. Just dig deeper.


 

Yeah, I just couldn't attach myself with a full inventory of loot. Considering I made 8000 rupees in like an hour LOL it kinda butchered the exploratory sense. I'm but one opinion though in a vast sea of users.  Kinda also why I like some indie games better.


----------



## calmwaters (Dec 9, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Isn't that what episodic gaming is supposed to be?
> 
> Personally I would like to take that a step further and have a rolling release type affair. It has already been demonstrated to work in other types of software, games already have it on a lot of mobile phone games and for video type things... that is what TV is.


 
I wish. Wouldn't it be great to have a Final Fantasy type game released every two/three months? But no, there aren't many people who could shell out 60/80 euros every two months for a game...  But if they were to release episodic games, I'd prefer Half-Life and/or a Mario RPG/puzzle/whatever. Maybe even Uncharted for those of you who like it.



Taleweaver said:


> Did you ever hear about this thing called "indie games"? The only reason some games are called AAA-games is because of the budget/resources allocated to it.
> 
> I'm also having trouble understanding what your analogy is about. the 8 oz. jar is smaller and thus cheaper, but has the same amount of quality put into it. And in games, providing that quality is actually the hardest thing. In other words: the costs are relatively the same to make a game with 8 levels as it is to make one with 40 levels. That, and that the 8 level game wouldn't sell because being too small, is why everything is big (at least in games).
> 
> Oh, and...as said, I'm not sure what you're saying here so I might be completely wrong, but...isn't a game like Super Luigi bros U an example of a small game? It's the smaller instance of that larger NSMBU game.


 
Well then we could switch to strictly indie games since those developers experiment with different game play mechanics. I don't think I was fair with my peanut butter analogy since I love the 40 oz jars; it'll last me for 2 weeks. But I'm not into games that take me 3 months to play from start to end. I prefer something that's short so I can finish it. The whole fun of playing games is getting to play them over and over again; games never have just one save slot, y'know? You shouldn't force people to play a game for 3/4 months; it gets stale after a while. Take Skyward Sword: I played that game for six months and got tired halfway into the third month. And then when I finished it and got to the hero mode, I said, "fuck no; I've had it." Now Chrono Trigger, which I got right after I "finished" Skyward Sword, I played that game for six months and it was just as awesome at the six month that it was in the beginning. Now I can beat that game in around 30 hours, not including the grinding... (jeez, derailed myself)

I think the NSLBU is a rewrite of NSMBU; it's just a code switch, but the playtime lasts as long as the Mario version. I believe.


----------



## Gahars (Dec 9, 2013)

calmwaters said:


> But if they were to release episodic games, I'd prefer Half-Life


 
Well, you know, they _tried_ that...


----------



## calmwaters (Dec 9, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Well, you know, they _tried_ that...


 
 thanks for letting them fail... maybe next time they'll succeed without _your_ help...

/sarcasm


----------



## Satangel (Dec 9, 2013)

grossaffe said:


> the problem is that developers dump too much money into games to be able to afford to take risks. If their expensive AAA title flops, they might be filing for bankruptcy. If you want games that take a risk, you mostly have to look to smaller developers that aren't going to spend so much money that they can't afford to try something new.


This pretty much. Been mentioned here a few times already, but they need to make money, and even 1 big investment that totally flops, can spell disaster for your company. So of course, the safe route is often (and understandably) much preferred


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Dec 10, 2013)

Honestly, I don't think so. Not until this generation of gamers dies first.

The problem is that this generation of gamers, we don't want anything new, but yet we do. Take IP's for example. We cry for more original IP's. But when we get them, we don't buy them.


----------



## Deleted-188346 (Dec 10, 2013)

Boy, tough question.

I'll pick the obvious answer and say no, we shouldn't take risks. Fresh, new, and exciting gameplay? That's for nerds! All the cool kids believe in constant repetition!


----------



## calmwaters (Dec 10, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Honestly, I don't think so. Not until this generation of gamers dies first.
> 
> The problem is that this generation of gamers, we don't want anything new, but yet we do. Take IP's for example. We cry for more original IP's. But when we get them, we don't buy them.


 
You mean this generation of gamers is content with playing Call of Doody Mario? But when something new comes out, we'd rather play Call of Doody Mario instead? You mean we can't be appeased by just *one* new title; we need a whole slew of them. Just look at the PS1 and the SNES if you don't think we want diverse, new games.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Dec 10, 2013)

WhiteMaze said:


> Of course it is.
> 
> After 20 years of the same Helicopter 2D view crap, and after we've had 3D handheld technology for another 10 years, they finally decided to release a proper 3D Pokemon game. In 2013. The first (proper) 3D Pokemon game was released in *2013.*
> 
> This will be something for the history books.


 

I know..even though Fossil FIghters, Dinosaurs Clash of Giants, Zoids DS, Dino King, had already attempted 3D character renders for the FIRST GEN DS. ...I think piracy on the first gen DS held them back..plus platinum, black and white were selling like hotcakes and they barely changed anything except ZOMG SCROLLING 3D CITIEZ


----------



## Hadrian (Dec 10, 2013)

For a lot of series I'd prefer if they went back to having some more gameplay rather then the "walk up a corridor, shoot people, in game cutscene, quicktime event" that we've been plagued with recently.  Play any Call of Duty games after CoD 4 and then play the first CoD and you'll notice that the first game actually seems larger and more imersive. If they remade it but only changed the graphics the critics will be like "wow this is the future".

I'm more than fine with what Nintendo is doing, people critiscise them for doing the same Zelda...(it's like they haven't played Spirit Tracks which changes a lot of the core gameplay and is kinda crappy) but that is the thing, if they change things people will moan and just go "oh we want a top down Zelda like LTTP but on a console in HD rabble rabble". Or with StarFox "rabble rabble we don't want this crap, go back to the N64 game rabble".

When people want a new Zelda, Mario or Metroid they want them because they love the style of gameplay they offered, Nintendo might as well save new ideas for new IPs...which no one will buy and will be forgotten until someone posts on Kotaku "lol lol it would be nice if Nintendo made fresh new series lol lol".


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Dec 10, 2013)

Hadrian said:


> For a lot of series I'd prefer if they went back to having some more gameplay rather then the "walk up a corridor, shoot people, in game cutscene, quicktime event" that we've been plagued with recently.  Play any Call of Duty games after CoD 4 and then play the first CoD and you'll notice that the first game actually seems larger and more imersive. If they remade it but only changed the graphics the critics will be like "wow this is the future".
> 
> I'm more than fine with what Nintendo is doing, people critiscise them for doing the same Zelda...(it's like they haven't played Spirit Tracks which changes a lot of the core gameplay and is kinda crappy) but that is the thing, if they change things people will moan and just go "oh we want a top down Zelda like LTTP but on a console in HD rabble rabble". Or with StarFox "rabble rabble we don't want this crap, go back to the N64 game rabble".
> 
> When people want a new Zelda, Mario or Metroid they want them because they love the style of gameplay they offered, Nintendo might as well save new ideas for new IPs...which no one will buy and will be forgotten until someone posts on Kotaku "lol lol it would be nice if Nintendo made fresh new series lol lol".



Well that's the thing right, none of Nintendo's IP's really feel the same to their counterparts.

Skyward Sword doesn't feel like Twilight Princess, TP doesn't feel like WW, WW doesn't feel like MM, and MM doesn't feel like OoT.
Mario 3D World doesn't feel like NSMB, Galaxy, Sunshine, Mario 64 etc.


----------



## Hadrian (Dec 10, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Well that's the thing right, none of Nintendo's IP's really feel the same to their counterparts.
> 
> Skyward Sword doesn't feel like Twilight Princess, TP doesn't feel like WW, WW doesn't feel like MM, and MM doesn't feel like OoT.
> Mario 3D World doesn't feel like NSMB, Galaxy, Sunshine, Mario 64 etc.


 
They are subtle evolutions that follow a basic formula, it's what Nintendo does best. They've done a yearly Mario platform since NSMB Wii and have added bits here and there to keep them from being the same game but still not taking out what was fun in the same place.

Seriously if Nintendo ever dies (which I don't see considering they ALWAYS have an incredibly popular handheld platform if a home console flops), I'd lose interest in console gaming.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Dec 10, 2013)

Hadrian said:


> They are subtle evolutions that follow a basic formula, it's what Nintendo does best. They've done a yearly Mario platform since NSMB Wii and have added bits here and there to keep them from being the same game but still not taking out what was fun in the same place.
> 
> Seriously if Nintendo ever dies (which I don't see considering they ALWAYS have an incredibly popular handheld platform if a home console flops), I'd lose interest in console gaming.



Honestly, not to sound like a fanboy, but I'm with you there. PC gaming is the closest thing to enjoyment that I get out of a Nintendo console.

I mean at the end of the day, sometimes I just like playing mindless fun like Mario where I'll know I'll have fun. Or a game that doesn't require tons and tons and tons of hours of my life and is tough, I get that out of Zelda.


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 10, 2013)

calmwaters said:


> You mean this generation of gamers is content with playing Call of Doody Mario? But when something new comes out, we'd rather play Call of Doody Mario instead? You mean we can't be appeased by just *one* new title; we need a whole slew of them. Just look at the PS1 and the SNES if you don't think we want diverse, new games.


To answer: yes, yes, and yes: give us the whole slew!

And yes, I'm looking at the PS1 and SNES. Have you checked how many of those companies filed for bankruptcy or were taken over by a larger company because they couldn't make ends meet? Yes...it's THAT MUCH we truly want (to pay for) diverse, new games.


----------



## DaniPoo (Dec 10, 2013)

Lets view it from another angle.. Why are many Final Fantasy fans angry with Square Enix these days?
Well it's because Square Enix has changed too much, drifting away from what the fans loved about the series.
they made an atempt to bring in more "final fantasy" elements with FFXIII-2 but they fail to understand what elements that they should bring back. They have to do more than just bring a moogle into the game and try a bit more complicated story.
They have to bring the soul of the series, I havnt had my eyes watering up since final fantasy X.
Every game before final fantasy X had the soul of a final fantasy game.

If nintendo were to take too many risks with their games it could end up the same for them. We dont want that right


----------



## calmwaters (Dec 10, 2013)

Taleweaver said:


> To answer: yes, yes, and yes: give us the whole slew!
> 
> And yes, I'm looking at the PS1 and SNES. Have you checked how many of those companies filed for bankruptcy or were taken over by a larger company because they couldn't make ends meet? Yes...it's THAT MUCH we truly want (to pay for) diverse, new games.


 
Hmmm; then I guess we don't want new titles; we made companies bankrupt because we didn't buy their games, even though there was such a variety. And I don't think we have the same variety now that we did back then. I suppose we'd rather stick with what we like (which there's nothing wrong with) rather than try something new. And by new, I don't mean a later Final Fantasy game; I'm talking more about games like The Mask or Moonwalker. Of course, I wouldn't mind a quality version of Mario's Time Machine... that'd be a truly interdimensional adventure


----------



## Blaze163 (Dec 10, 2013)

To me it all depends on the nature of the game in question. With long established franchises like Final Fantasy, their recent 'innovations' have deviated too far from the core mechanics long term fans associate with the overall experience, and the end result is that the last few games are pretty much universally despised. If Final Fantasy 13 hadn't had the Final Fantasy label, it would probably have skirted by as an interesting experiment by a new IP that had a few good points but failed overall. The moment they put the Final Fantasy brand on it, much like with the Spirits Within movie, expectations went through the roof and it failed to live up to its legacy.

So what I would suggest is that if developers want to try new things, do it with new IPs. If it works, you have a brand new franchise on your hands and can fold the successful elements back into your main series. If it doesn't, then you may have made a bad game, but you didn't besmirch the name of a long standing franchise doing it. Imagine if Nintendo wanted to get away from the kiddy image they're pretty much doomed to have for all time now. They're not about to give Mario an assault rifle. They'd try it out on something innocuous, and only if it made them a truckload of money would you see Mario finding an uzi in those power blocks instead of a fire flower.

The obvious flaw in this is that a lot of games, Like FF13, sell on the strength of the brand. While it may not be the most loved Final Fantasy (no matter how many confusing as fuck sequels they push out to force it down our throats) it must have made a decent amount of money from day one sales of people, myself included, rabid for the new Final Fantasy game. They'd likely lose some money from the lack of brand recognition, but on the other hand they'd not lose so much money overall I think because in my experience gamers will forgive flaws in new IPs just starting out and still give a tentative recommendation, whereas the standards are infinitely higher in well established franchises and anything short of absolute perfection is considered heresy.

Of course this isn't a universal rule. Try anything innovative in Sonic games and it's considered a pointless gimmick because the fans have pretty much decided that Sonic was perfect on the Mega Drive and any change otherwise is just stupid.

I will say for the record though that I think gaming as a whole could use an infusion of fresh ideas. I can't be the only one sick to death of the paint-by-numbers quick buck yearly FPS parade that clutters up the modern market. It's all starting to feel a little stale. It's been quite a while since I've seen a trailer for a game that made me paw at my monitor like a cat trying to catch a mouse on the television. I remember seeing an early advert for Ocarina of Time and it was all I could talk about for months. These days the big titles are largely just the latest sequels. New CoD, new Battlefield, new Assassin's Creed, new FIFA, blah blah blah. It's not completely hopeless yet, there are still great games. But nothing's dropped my jaw for a long time if I'm honest.


----------



## calmwaters (Dec 10, 2013)

Blaze163 said:


> To me it all depends on the nature of the game in question. With long established franchises like Final Fantasy, their recent 'innovations' have deviated too far from the core mechanics long term fans associate with the overall experience, and the end result is that the last few games are pretty much universally despised. If Final Fantasy 13 hadn't had the Final Fantasy label, it would probably have skirted by as an interesting experiment by a new IP that had a few good points but failed overall. The moment they put the Final Fantasy brand on it, much like with the Spirits Within movie, expectations went through the roof and it failed to live up to its legacy.
> 
> So what I would suggest is that if developers want to try new things, do it with new IPs. If it works, you have a brand new franchise on your hands and can fold the successful elements back into your main series. If it doesn't, then you may have made a bad game, but you didn't besmirch the name of a long standing franchise doing it. Imagine if Nintendo wanted to get away from the kiddy image they're pretty much doomed to have for all time now. They're not about to give Mario an assault rifle. They'd try it out on something innocuous, and only if it made them a truckload of money would you see Mario finding an uzi in those power blocks instead of a fire flower.
> 
> ...


 
But I still want a God of War type Mario game. Fans of the Mario series would like that.  I hope.


----------



## DaniPoo (Dec 12, 2013)

^ He is joking right? Nintendo would never ever do something like that.
Nintendo has a specific and simpel formula that you kan find in every Mario game exept for maybe Super Mario 2.
"Jump on enemies and use power-up's", Mario also has it's own "cartoony" visual style. They wont change this, atleast not in the main series. Closest thing I could see happening is a Whip Power-up and some onscreen button combo for a boss.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 12, 2013)

DaniPoo said:


> ^ He is joking right? Nintendo would never ever do something like that.
> Nintendo has a specific and simpel formula that you kan find in every Mario game exept for maybe Super Mario 2.
> "Jump on enemies and use power-up's", Mario also has it's own "cartoony" visual style. They wont change this, atleast not in the main series. Closest thing I could see happening is a Whip Power-up and some onscreen button combo for a boss.


 
But don't you want to see Mario cut off Bowser's balls and force-feed them to him?


----------



## DaniPoo (Dec 13, 2013)

Does Bowser have balls??


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 13, 2013)

DaniPoo said:


> Does Bowser have balls??


 
Not after Maritos is through with him.


----------



## DS1 (Dec 14, 2013)

Whoops, I meant to vote yes (the topic title is actually the opposite of the poll question). Taking risks would kill profits in the long run. Even fun, innovative, interesting titles do terrible compared to the long running behemoths.

Developers DO take risks when they create new IPs, and honestly I think that if they take any risk at all, it should be to expand those new IPs into a franchise, even if the original didn't sell as well as their blockbuster titles. Even if the original bombed! Some developers are taking that risk (Mirror's Edge 2), and though they may be ruining their franchises  in the process, at least they aren't afraid to go back and tool with old ideas.


----------

