Should Games Start Taking Risks?

[MarioFanatic64]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

, 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!​

​

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...

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.

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

​

​

Interestingly enough, the removal of the linearity of the title killed the game for me!​

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!)

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Chocolina]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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).

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]

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!