PDA

View Full Version : It's always "Remake" or "Reimagine"



Fenn
09-04-2011, 01:38 PM
Never "build off the previous title." Why, WHY is it so hard for developers to strike this balance?

On the one hand, you have companies like Nintendo determined to never ever improve on what they've done, and instead must work from the ground up whether the new idea is practical or not.

And on the other hand we have games that feel like the same thing every time. Madden, COD; it's more like an update than a sequel, and they come out every year. And don't get me started on all of Nintendo's "revivals" aka ports from 2 gens ago.

One great example of a sequel done right is Super Smash Bros. Call it a party game or whatever, but the original was a great game. A great game, yes, but with much more potential. So in Melee, they took the game and brought it to the next level. They took the original piece, sandpapered away some of its flaws, and built shiny new content on top of the foundation.

Every E3 now, the Big 3 companies seem determined to "change the way we play games." Why? Is something wrong with the way we play games? I'm all for innovation, but innovations relies on a solid ground to work up from. Instead, companies are trying to completely depart from contemporary gaming for the sake of being new.

WHY? W-W-WHYYYYYYYYY?

ClockHand
09-04-2011, 01:52 PM
Companies want money, if a product already gave them money, then a sequel have a chance of success guarantied. It's hard for a company to venture in something new because they are always afraid to lose.

Smash is great, the first smash had a awesome statement, and Mele improve everything. After this I feel it was done wrong with Brawl. The same it can be said of Mario Parties, which are entertaining, they are bad compared with the previews one.

Also, it's easy to remake or port to a new console a old game that sold well in the past, because you know its easy money, and this is what companies want. Reason why with the time indie developers are having more and more importance, because they have nothing to lose, so they can do what ever they want.

Some developers are getting aware of this (like the creators of Halo) and they have force them self in trying to do something new and stoping doing sequels and prequels. But sadly the big bosses of the companies are the ones who manage everything, so big companies as square enix, capcom, and others are going to lose their credibility, while new ones are going to gain their place in the gamers heart.


Also, Nintendo is the Apple of consoles.

Fenn
09-04-2011, 03:29 PM
Companies want money, if a product already gave them money, then a sequel have a chance of success guarantied. It's hard for a company to venture in something new because they are always afraid to lose.

Smash is great, the first smash had a awesome statement, and Mele improve everything. After this I feel it was done wrong with Brawl. The same it can be said of Mario Parties, which are entertaining, they are bad compared with the previews one.

Also, it's easy to remake or port to a new console a old game that sold well in the past, because you know its easy money, and this is what companies want. Reason why with the time indie developers are having more and more importance, because they have nothing to lose, so they can do what ever they want.

Some developers are getting aware of this (like the creators of Halo) and they have force them self in trying to do something new and stoping doing sequels and prequels. But sadly the big bosses of the companies are the ones who manage everything, so big companies as square enix, capcom, and others are going to lose their credibility, while new ones are going to gain their place in the gamers heart.


Also, Nintendo is the Apple of consoles.

Thats a great explaination of one half of my question. Darn moneygrubbers.

jubeh
09-04-2011, 05:34 PM
On the one hand, you have companies like Nintendo determined to never ever improve on what they've done, and instead must work from the ground up whether the new idea is practical or not.

Uh bullshit? There are two mario galaxies. Like a million Mario Parties. That's not even touching on the point that this isn't a bad thing at all unless you just hate original shit.


And on the other hand we have games that feel like the same thing every time. Madden, COD; it's more like an update than a sequel, and they come out every year.

Okay without stating the obvious to combat the obvious money "grubbing" isn't the 100% truth. Grubbing implies you already have a shitload of money and are trying to pinch more and more out. While this is true for big name publishers, the fact is game ideas are investments, and the gaming market is shallow. Don't blame the developers, blame the fact that Shadows of the Damned sold like shit and Call of Duty: Take a Dump edition will sell millions. Like any product it works its way around to the consumer.


One great example of a sequel done right is Super Smash Bros. Call it a party game or whatever, but the original was a great game. A great game, yes, but with much more potential. So in Melee, they took the game and brought it to the next level. They took the original piece, sandpapered away some of its flaws, and built shiny new content on top of the foundation.

Didn't you just say nintendo doesnt do this kind of stuff what is even going on anymore.


Every E3 now, the Big 3 companies seem determined to "change the way we play games." Why?

To create new experiences and draw in new markets? If that GD circlejerk thread from a while ago is any indication, you guys need to chill out when it comes to noobs invading your turf. This isn't a 50's delinquent movie guys.


Is something wrong with the way we play games? I'm all for innovation, but innovations relies on a solid ground to work up from.

Yes fenn for something to change something else has to be wrong. That's definitely how change works. Turn on your sarcasm meter btw.


Instead, companies are trying to completely depart from contemporary gaming for the sake of being new.

Like who


Also, it's easy to remake or port to a new console a old game that sold well in the past, because you know its easy money, and this is what companies want. Reason why with the time indie developers are having more and more importance, because they have nothing to lose, so they can do what ever they want.

Most indies have everything to lose. Ask Team Meat. The difference is that indie developers are game first, marketing second. Unfortunately that doesn't work in the major leagues. If you want proof, its in the numbers.


But sadly the big bosses of the companies are the ones who manage everything, so big companies as square enix, capcom, and others are going to lose their credibility, while new ones are going to gain their place in the gamers heart.

Gamers are fickle as fuck so to me this means diddly squat.

Fenn
09-04-2011, 07:56 PM
Okay, I made a big, big mistake by talking about remakes.

Hayashida
09-04-2011, 07:57 PM
jesus fenn

Fenn
09-04-2011, 07:57 PM
Okay, I made a big, big mistake by talking about remakes.

As far as the other half...


To create new experiences and draw in new markets? If that GD circlejerk thread from a while ago is any indication, you guys need to chill out when it comes to noobs invading your turf. This isn't a 50's delinquent movie guys.


Fine. And why must this come at the expense of a traditional style of gaming? I'm not about to dramatize this and start saying traditional gaming is nearing its death, but why do companies throw millions into an idea before even asking themselves if anyone else will be interested.

Okay, halfway I realized exactly what you would say to my reply. Money and business. I was about to start a hate rant on motion controls until I realized I was lying. If they had worked, I wouldn't be saying anything negative. And of course the businesses are pushing them more than traditional controls; they invested tons into them.

I guess my issue is that I didn't feel traditional gaming had reached its potential yet. I felt like it was still developing. It hadn't reached it's maximum level. If it had, and everyone was straining to come up with any way to make it better, I think I would have welcomed motion controls better.

As far as games, here's a perfect example of too much reimagining. Star Fox 64. Wonderful game. GC comes out and people are dying for the next level of Star Fox. Then Adventures comes out. No ship combat! Then Star Fox Assault. Okay, some ship combat, but a bit shallow on the air combat of 64. Then Command. Not even directly controllable ships.

Why no direct sequel? Why no next level of classic Star Fox, now with enhanced graphics, gameplay, etc?

jubeh
09-04-2011, 08:04 PM
Fine. And why must this come at the expense of a traditional style of gaming?

It doesn't


but why do companies throw millions into an idea before even asking themselves if anyone else will be interested.

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
Henry Ford

Also that's a really naive way of looking at business overall.

"Hey guys do you want this?"
"Nahhhhh."
"k."


I guess my issue is that I didn't feel traditional gaming had reached its potential yet. I felt like it was still developing. It hadn't reached it's maximum level. If it had, and everyone was straining to come up with any way to make it better, I think I would have welcomed motion controls better.

The reason your opinion is silly is because you only have shit against waggle controls. If publishers never experimented with different ways to play games these great titles would have never existed:

Dance Dance Revolution
Various Plastic Guitar Games
Steel Battalion
Time Crisis


Starfox nonsense

If you really don't know then google is your friend. There is a long and complicated story about why that game is the way it is.

Matt
09-04-2011, 09:21 PM
I loved Star Fox Assault and never really took to the first one--though, yes, it was pretty darn fun.

And I'm not sure what it was called, but there was this arcade game at my local AJ's where you had a gun, but you moved in and out of cover and such by moving your own body. Just throwing this out there: dodging bullets feels freaking amazing when it feels like you're actually doing it. I can see this benefiting from the more expensive 3D technology out there, like if you were able to dodge and watch a bullet fly by your head.

Anyway, addressing the sequel topic. As I frequent The Escapist, I've seen this come up multiple times. It's like movies, almost, where you almost never see a good action movie that isn't a remake or adaptation of a line of toys, a comic book, a game, etc. Not saying adaptations aren't good (Scott Pilgrim was awesome). Just, if developers know something is popular and will sell, they'll stick with it. Game budgets are so high now that anything less than absolute success can hurt a company pretty bad. Therefore, they stick to what they know works. This is why we're getting Call of Duty: Take a Dump Edition (BTW, that made my day).

Personally, I like Call of Duty and Halo and all them--I even like some of their clones (Sector 8, for one). I just don't feel like shelling out $60 every year for something I pretty much already have. I'd rather pay $15 for something I'll enjoy more than any amount of CoD: Turd Launcher Edition. Like Bastion. Best $15 I've ever spent.

CypressDahlia
09-04-2011, 11:50 PM
Gamers are fickle as fuck so to me this means diddly squat.

I think this is debatable as gamers can also be very one-tracked in their tastes. That's why CoD is so successful. It's on that one track.

jubeh
09-04-2011, 11:55 PM
When I was in high school it was all counter strike, and then halo, and then call of duty and dudes jumped from one to the other. I imagine call of duty will be the shit for a while until the next big thing shows up.

As for dudes who only play call of duty, for them I'd have to concede the point. Thats loyalty to the point of wondering why they spent 200+ dollars on a console to play one game.

CypressDahlia
09-05-2011, 12:00 AM
Well you can't say Halo, CS and CoD don't have very similar appeals. They are on that one track together, and rarely do any other franchises enter that pantheon of overrated FPSs.

jubeh
09-05-2011, 12:01 AM
They play wildly different from one another they just happen to be bro games.

CypressDahlia
09-05-2011, 12:06 AM
I wouldn't say wildly different. I've played all three and jumping between them is hardly a task. It takes maybe 1-2 practice rounds but you're back into the groove in no time. It's not like, say, jumping from Tekken to SF Alpha. But yeah, I don't really mean gameplay, I mean appeal. Sort of how most martial arts movies have the same appeal, despite having vastly different plots. Halo, CS and CoD all have that shooty explody grenady thing going for them, and gamers love that shit.

Outcast
09-05-2011, 02:21 AM
@matt: SECTION 8, also I fail to see how it's a clone of halo or CoD.

Power Armor doesn't equal halo clone.

CypressDahlia
09-05-2011, 08:14 AM
Hmm, I agree, Outcast. Power armor doesn't equal a Halo clone.

But nameless, voiceless hero single-handedly fighting off waves of religious/hivemind aliens does equal Halo clone. It's a genre in itself, at this point. Section 8 doesn't fall into this category as its gameplay is infinitely deeper than Halo's MP, but a lot of other games do. It's a type of story/character setup that barely has to justify itself.

Regantor
09-05-2011, 09:10 AM
But nameless, voiceless hero single-handedly fighting off waves of religious/hivemind aliens does equal Halo clone.

Doom, anyone?

But seriously, I think that the last two generations of consoles have really inspired the rise of "grizzly gamers" who only play "macho games" and watch "macho movies". It's more to do with culture overall, rather than just video gamer culture. People who love shallow action movies, simple gore porn zombie flicks and playing sports were not the guys playing N64s in the 90s, but the Xbox/PS2 changed all that- And were a damn sight more effective at gaining cash than even they thought, it seems. Nintendo responded by grabbing a new crowd of it's own; The family market.

My point is, no, video games do not belong to the "video gamers" anymore, in the same way that blockbusters do not belong to the "movie buffs". Music too. Everything becomes soulless with too much money involved. It's the price of a certain media becoming a respected genre, as ironic as that sounds.

No need to be too pessimistic, through, mind. I'm sure as long as our breed exists, at least some of us will keep growing up into new Suda 51s. That's an earmark of popular media too. The "I can make better shit than this myself!" effect. >_>

CypressDahlia
09-05-2011, 09:44 AM
The doom guy had infinitely more personality than Master Chief. I have no idea how MC receives so many "character of the year" awards. He's barely a character so much as a placeholder.

Kodos
09-05-2011, 10:14 AM
I agree with Reg - video games have become mainstream and in doing so have become commercialized. They were always commercial, yes, but there genuinely was, I think, more artistry in the past than today. That's not to say we don't have amazing game artists today, because we do, just I think the culture within game development studios was more conducive to artistic and/or fun appeal over profit back when. I suppose you can attribute this to two things, primarily; the fact that game studios were smaller back then and individual designers and developments teams had more freedom and less studio oversight, and the fact that without a large audience for games and with different development costs you could both take risks and/or cater to niche groups without needing to try and worry about demographics.

Call of Duty is in many ways the epitome of the commercialization of games. Well, not necessarily the game, but the business model surrounding it. Activision very clearly intends to do to COD what they did to Guitar Hero - release the exact same game with only minor changes (if even) more or less annually and reap massive profits until even the bro-magnons are so fed up with it that they stop buying it at which point Activision will declare that the game is no longer profitable and stop making it. That's what happened to GH, it's what will happen to COD. It's just a microcosm played out at a higher speed of the general problem with corporate cultures and why America is in the shitter, really - companies seek to maximize short term gain while being more or less unable to even conceptualize the concept of long-term ramifications and costs.

As for the whole sequelitis and remake fever, though - that is nothing new. Sonic had 3.5 games and numerous spinoffs all on one console - so did Mario. Castlevania had 3 games on one console, and a remake on the next console. I can go on with the list. What's new, I think, is how considerably low effort a lot of modern sequels are and how terrified game companies are to take risks - either with established franchises or developing new ones. When it comes to a lot of major studio games you can almost be certain that the pitches for new games in the studio board room probably went something like "it's like X but..." where X is some other game that sold well. I'm almost willing to bet money the pitch for Dead Space probably was "It's like Resident Evil 4 but gorier and in space! And look how well RE4 sold!"

Fenn
09-05-2011, 11:10 AM
Hm...

Gonna go out on a limb here (and I have just read al the preceding posts now): Why do devs often seem so distant from the gaming crowd when designing sequels? While I have reconciled the fact that reimagining breeds new experiences and repackages are a result of business, when it comes to these sequels, wouldn't it make sense to go to the gamers first for ideas?

It might end up being labeled laziness, but I'd argue if you went into a sequel with the idea to let gamers come up with all the new ideas, and then spent your design time filtering out the crap and collecting all the good ideas, then finally putting it together, you'd have a masterpiece. As user-created content has shown, gamers can at times be as if not more creative than the developers themselves. Yet the number of games relying on user-created content (i.e. Little Big Planet) are far fewer than I woudl expect.

Kodos
09-05-2011, 11:23 AM
It's never good to ignore your audience, but on the same token it's also generally a bad idea to listen to your audience. Most people have pretty terrible ideas for video games and really have no clue what they want. If developers listened to their audience constantly then pretty much games would suck even more than they do now. The problem is that developers ignore their audience completely, often, rather than trying to find the right balance between discretion and audience input.

Fenn
09-05-2011, 12:38 PM
It's never good to ignore your audience, but on the same token it's also generally a bad idea to listen to your audience. Most people have pretty terrible ideas for video games and really have no clue what they want. If developers listened to their audience constantly then pretty much games would suck even more than they do now. The problem is that developers ignore their audience completely, often, rather than trying to find the right balance between discretion and audience input.

If this is true, how come user created content, PC gam mods, and the like are often so impressive? I mean, it isn't THAT hard to filter out a majority of the junk. How many ideas do devs throw around that are admittedly terrible during the beginning of concept design? I was suggesting that the gamers more do the brainstorming, and the devs pull from the mass of ideas.

CypressDahlia
09-05-2011, 01:08 PM
Well, actually, the best games are the ones that allow user created content and then publish this content if its impressive or popular enough. Many PC FPS' and some console games use this, so it's not really something they aren't doing. Steam does this all the time. But remember, designing content creation tools is pretty much designing a game within a game, and sometimes that's too time- or resource-consuming. Especially if said tools have to be intuitive enough to be used via an XBox controller. This would also entail building network options into the game as well, not necessarily for MP but for contributing/downloading content. Forge in Halo is p. fun, but it takes way too much effort to design anything legit with the controller.

Kodos
09-05-2011, 01:30 PM
If this is true, how come user created content, PC gam mods, and the like are often so impressive?
They're not. There's a terrible signal:noise ratio for most user created content. It's just that the gems are generally so brilliant that they stick out more.


I mean, it isn't THAT hard to filter out a majority of the junk. How many ideas do devs throw around that are admittedly terrible during the beginning of concept design? I was suggesting that the gamers more do the brainstorming, and the devs pull from the mass of ideas.
Copyright laws would make this a nightmare.