 |
| Big companies like to do the same thing over and over again. |
The Madden NFL series is nearing its 25th year, and despite the lack of changes in recent entries, it is still wildly successful. This goes for most sports games. This brings up the question: is innovation and change the key to a successful franchise? Looking at Madden it seems like that question is a no. My real question is is the gaming industry afraid of change. The answer is yes.
Many gamers bemoan the series, but Call of Duty is another example of a game series that even with few major changes continues to be financially and critically successful Though sales numbers for Black Ops 2 may have been down compared to previous titles, it can not be argued that sales still warrant more entries which are coming.
So after looking at just two franchises it seems clear that change is not necessarily needed in order to continue a series, and other there are other franchise which would agree. Sonic the Hedgehog has tried doing different things from 3D platformers to RPGs. A quick glance at reviews for titles that did something different like Sonic the Hedgehog (2006) reveal that the spiky blue dude is best at doing the same old thing.
 |
| Is Link running from change? |
The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword, and the Zelda series as a whole, has been accused of lack of innovation. While I would disagree, many gamers will tell you that Skyward Sword is just another Zelda game, sticking to the tried and true formula that has worked for over 25 years.
Let's go back to my question: is the game industry afraid of change? Looking at some franchises it would seem like the answer is still yes. What is the reason for this? There maybe a couple factors in play.
Many gaming industry professionals strive to make gaming more like Hollywood, but for all the wrong reasons. Instead of focusing on making gaming unique, they try to make gaming like Hollywood, by making tent-pole franchises and doing what is successful until the consumer won't take any more.
Gamers are also a factor in the industry's fear of change. Gamers complain about stupid thing. They complained about the new look of Dante in DmC: Devil May Cry and complained about the ending to Mass Effect 3. Not to open an old wound, but that is absolutely ridiculous. What if readers complained about the ending of a book? Would they release a 10 page short story in order to better explain it? Hell no! So why do gamers pull this crap? They do this because us as gamers are just as afraid of change as the so called "professionals."
So what can we do to stop this? All I know is that signing an online petition won't help. Does this industry need change to survive? Leave a comment and tell me what you think.
I think it depends on what people are looking for in a game. Not all change is good either. Let's use Madden as an example - but several years ago they introduced a couple of changes - the vision cone for quarterbacks and the 'fight for the ball' on fumbles. Both were loudly complained about by fans, and were scrapped in future iterations. Then again, there are sometimes bigger changes than people realize - like the infinity engine or online franchises.
ReplyDeleteSports games struggle on a few counts and are probably not good examples for a conversation like this.
1) they release yearly, to coincide with their related sport. This is a completely logical thing to do. I am their target market - I'm a huge sports fan who plays video games. Every year your favorite team(s) have new life - some new free agents, some newly drafted players, whatever - and your team has new life. In reality the Lions will still suck most years, but I get excited to use their team with a new gloss of paint
2) the games themselves don't change much. What I mean by that is the NFL and NBA are largely the same year after year. It's the same sport. What changes are rosters mostly. Of course you can tweak controls and mechanics in a video game to try and make it even more 'like the game', but when the thing you are basing your game on doesn't really change year to year, it can be hard to make your game wildly varied as well.
3) limited time - this goes back to #1 but the shorter timeframe doesn't lend itself to innovation the way a 2 or 3 year gaming project might.
That being said... I do think there is room for more change - but it's hard to convince publishers. Why would Activision change up the CoD formula? They're making a ton of money on it. Some developers, like Ubisoft, claim that 'change' or 'innovation' have stagnated because this console cycle has dragged on too long. I'm not sure I agree with their assessment completely, but it does seem like publishers are willing to take more chances early on in a console's life cycle, when everything is new and experimental, than they are later on.
Anywho, those are my general thoughts. :)
THEIR WAS NO GOOD RTS GAME ON CONSOLE NOW BUT I HOPE SEE A VERY GOOD RTS GAME FOR THE WII U I HOPE SO SOME DAY?
ReplyDeleteWell I think the first thing to understand is that "change" is neither good nor bad. Especially now a-days, we have the idea that change is good, I cannot comprehend this idea as how can change always be for the betterment of the people. If we allowed our "system" to change into anarchy, would that be for the betterment of mankind? It is because of this that I believe this good connotation that change has is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, back tot subject at hand, change in games.
I believe, game companies should make whatever game they want, and allow sales to dictate weather or not a formula should change. In this way game companies follow their audience weather they want change or not.
But I am of course just one person.