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

Originally Posted by ClockHand

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

Originally Posted by Fenn

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

Originally Posted by Clock

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.