Do Consumers Want Original Games?

Thanks to GameCritics.com for their 'Critical Hit' editorial discussing if consumers are actually interested in buying groundbreaking/unique videogames. Giving the example of Sega's PS2/DC shooter, Rez, the author asks: "United Game Artists' answer to the cries of gamers looking for those new and original games was largely met with ambivalence by those very same gamers.... Why is Sega, or any publisher for that matter, obligated to support a game or games that no one is interested in?" The article concludes: "...how do you criticize the industry when it produces these games yet consumers repeatedly flock to the likes of Square's, Konami's and Capcom's sequels and rehashes?"

Comments

Simple

[AlexMax2742]

Who here had ever seen a commercial for Rez? What about a magazine ad (more than one time)?

It's simply that it wasn't marketed enough. Ask almost any gamer what Rez is, and they will give you a dumbfounded look. This doesn't mean the game sucked, it means they didn't know about it. Not good. Yet look at all the ads for the dime-a-dozen games that you probably have played before in one way or another. See a difference?

Ratings mean jack shit. It's the marketing that counts. Unfortuniatly, it seems more recently that the budget gets blown on games that suck. Hopefully, the industry will realize this in time and make a quick 180 and start marketing the truely innovative games.

Re:Simple

[Golias]

Spending money on promotion is a wager. You are betting that the game will be accepted well enough to justify the money spent on advertising. Since most executives have no advanced sense of what consumers like (a perception often referred to as "taste"), they go for what they see as the safe bet, which is what consumers have bought before. This is why movies have sequels, TV shows have spin-offs, and game companies keep cranking out generic shooters with graphics and characters based on recent action blockbusters.

Spending money on advertising an original game is a gamble, unless you know for a fact that it's a really good game... but since game execs have no idea what a good game is, that's not really an option for them.

P.S. I also have no idea what Rez is. The game I played most on the Dreamcast was Soul Calibur (yet another sequel game).

More of the same?

[Decaffeinated Jedi]

I think Fry from Futurama put it best when he argued that people always wanted more of the same when it comes to entertainment, because "clever things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared."

DecafJedi

easy answer

[Anonymous Coward]

the easy answer is NO. sure, we may say we want something new and groundbreaking, etc. but as is human nature, we'll stick to things that we know and understand. we'll play the same games we've played a hundred times over but in a slightly different form. we'll only take the new games once they've proven themselves to be worth the risk. and by that point they'll have spawned clones anyways.

Re:Depends

[BigDork1001]

"And some consumers will continue to pay for and eat up the majority of recycled crap over years and years and years; aka morons"

So because I buy and play the different Mario games on the different Nintendo systems I'm a moron huh? I'm going to have to disagree with you. I'd say I'm not a moron, I just like a fun game. And sure Super Smash Bros. and Super Smash Bros. Melee are kind of the same thing but Melee added more characters and also improved upon the game play. Same can be said for the different Mario Kart games. While they are all basically race around a track as your favorite Nintendo characters the one for GC should be much improved ot the one for the SNES.On the other side of things I try original games when they look good and haven't gotten awful reviews. I enjoyed Pikmin which I consider to be pretty original for today's games.

As long as it's a good game I'll play it. I don't care if it's a sequel, a remake or original just as long I have fun.

Blame.

[August_zero]

Part of the blame falls squarely on the retailers. Most of the giant chain stores like E.B. and Gamestop only want to carry games that they know are going to sell in droves. I know for a fact, that these chains give very little option to their individual stores; the stock at your local EB/Gamestop is decided by a corporate office based on what they classify the paticular store as ("PC store", "Used/pre-owned store" etc). How do they decide what to send?

For A-list tiles like Wind Waker ort Soul Calibur, its a no brainer, they send tons of copies because they know its going to sell. But for games like Rez, or Ikaruga, or anyother non-mainstream game, they only bother to send copies if there are pre-sales and reserves. Which games get reserves? the titles that the company tells their staff to push, and what determines those games? The game companies that spend the most on store displays and advertising inside and outside the store. SO games like Rez already had 2 strikes against them from the get-go. Sega was hyping up thier A-list titles, and spent very little advertising Rez.

A very large percentage of your consumers base their choices on their level of exposure to a given game. Example: Rez gets no advertising in the US prior to its release. The only people that even knew about the game are those that either imported it, or keep their eyes on the Japanese game market. It gets released, no stores stock more than 1 or 2 copies if any at all because nobody pre-purchased it, and those few copies that are out there get bought up by the small group that actuall wanted it. When people finally start hearing about the game, its nowhere to be found. Now EB/Gamestop looks at their sales figures and sees "Rez: 1000 units sold nationwide" which seems dismal unless you consider the fact that 1000 is the total number in the field, but this is still chump change to the 100000 copies of Wind Waker that got sold (warning: above numbers made up to illustrate point)

Let's take a look

[Iscariot_]

Here is a list of the best selling games of all time:

1. "Super Mario Bros." for NES: 40 Million Units
2. "Tetris" for Gameboy: 33 Million Units
3. "Super Mario Bros. 3" for NES: 18 Million Units
4. "Super Mario World" for SNES: 17 Million Units
5. "Super Mario Land" for Gameboy: 14 Million Units
6. "Super Mario 64" for N64: 11 Million Units
7. "The Sims" for PC: 10 Million Units
8. "Super Mario Bros. 2" for NES: 10 Million Units
9. "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" for PS2: 8.5 Million Units
10. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" for PSX: 8 Million Units
11. "GoldenEye" for N64: 8 Million Units
12. "Donkey Kong Country" for SNES: 8 Million Units
13. "Super Mario Kart" for SNES: 8 Million Units
14. "Pokemon Red/Blue" for Gameboy: 8 Million Units
15. "Half-Life" for PC: 8 Million Units
16. "Tomb Raider II" for PSX: 8 Million Units
17. "Final Fantasy VII" for PSX: 7.8 Million Units
18. "Myst" for PC: 7 Million Units
19. "Gran Turismo 3" for PS2: 7 Million Units
20. "Dragon Warrior VII" for PS2: 6 Million Units

Of these twenty games, only four could really be considered "original" (imho). So based on this data I would conclude that most gamers do not want original content. They want improved versions of games they've already played.

Now for my opinion.

I don't think that it is necessary to make a game orignal solely for the sake of. Most of the games I own and regularly play these days are not original. However, eventually rehashes do become tired and old. Final Fantasy comes to mind. It has been a beautiful series that has taken many twists and turns. But, the last few iterations have been without innovation, simply substituting one battle system for another [similar] one. Eventually this series will die without radically changing direction. I know it is on the verge of losing my interest.

Usually every year there is at least one good original title released. And, inevitably, it is copied until it is no longer unique. But for every one good original title (Grand Theft Auto III), there are dozen's of bad ones(Star Wars Rebellion). This is why innovation is not the most important thing in the world to the gaming industry. It's all about fun factor. Wether or not something is truely unique/original/whatever is not so relevant to wether or not it is fun.

So I leave you with this. Half-life was not the first FPS, but it was (and perhaps still is) the most fun.

Not a big surprise

[0x0d0a]

Most of people that are complaining about a lack of original content are the extremely hard-core gamers and the reviewers. Why? Because they've played everything out there. They find more of the same boring.

For the overwhelming majority of the population, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a game that adds nothing new to the genre. Nobody has time to keep up with the vast flood of game content being produced. If an idea's been done twenty times before and *you haven't played those*, why would you care?

So...say Warcraft III comes out. Well, the game reviewers have played a ton of games like this one. They've played the earlier games in the series. They know exactly what's going to happen in it. Sure enough, they're bored. The typical game player *hasn't* played all these. He sits down and decides that he likes the game and plays it.

Furthermore, there's a big dislike from many reviewers over clones of popular games. Why? Because they just *played* a flood of similar games. They end up writing reviews like "this is yet another unoriginal entry in the RTS field". The game may well be excellent, but it doesn't matter to them.

It's just a sign of the vast disconnect between game reviewers and almost all game players.

Unique games and gameplay

[neostorm]

A unique game can come in many different forms. Graphics, gameplay, or just a new franchise. That about says it all. Gamers want different "different" things, and it also greatly depends on their perspective. I'm a person who loves a good game full of experimental gameplay, or a new graphical appearance, but often times I could go for the same old fantasy RPG who's only unique feature is a new universe with characters I've never seen before. However I don't always understand what the developers were trying to do with a title, and I think it may be the same for many other people.

Your first impression of a game is what nails you to your perspective. An example of this would be a control feature in the older Zelda: Ocarina that carried over to the later 3D Zelda games. At first glance you see a 3D platformer, but the first time you pick up the controller and learn there's no *jump* button, you're appalled. I hated it, I didn't understand, and until someone told me later that the developers wanted to create a more streamlined method of control that relied on less user input, I couldn't appreciate this unique take on 3D navigation.

The same applies to most other games that break the mold. Some may pick up Rez and decide it's the worst shooter in the world (compared to space harrier or it's very similar gameplay cousin Panzer Dragoon) and hate it. But when they realize that the creators were trying to merge a sensory experience using sound, visuals and physical sensation, they find it possible to gain more appreciation for it, and become more open minded towards this unique experience.

It's a state of mind that allows you to change your perspective, find an appreciation for what the game really *is*, instead of what you're expecting, and expectations are where most people lose their acceptance of experimentation in this medium.

Re:Rez & EB

[WaKall]

I think you could argue Deus Ex (from Ion Storm) as a low-budget hit. It saved the studio, and nobody expected it to do well. And it was pretty original - an FPS that's not really a shooter.

But seriously, if you want to see original games, you can't look to consoles. The licensing and publishing costs are basically fixed (except for per-unit costs), so only games that are expected to profit will be made. Only the big studios can afford to make original games without risking the company on it.

The PC game market, on the other hand, can produce some original hits. You can do electronic distribution, don't pay a thing for licensing. You just need developers/artists and a business unit.

Re:Depends

[Kethinov]

You misunderstand. Smash Bros and most other Nintendo made games do NOT factor into that equation. Nintendo is the minority console, so many if not most of its games are quality games; classics. But take a look at the hundreds of games for PS2. How many good ones can you name? Not many. You've got your FFX and besides that there's no real incentive to buy that console. On the other hand, me being someone who hates buying consoles finds it almost irresistable to resist the GC because of Metroid Prime, Windwaker, Smash Bros Melee, and other classic titles that Nintendo pumps out on a regular basis. Why isn't the best console (GC) the most popular? Why is it in fact the least popular? Because people are morons and they need their filler games, not classics.

Sega

[dafoomie]

Sega has made some original games. Jet Set Radio, Skies of Arcadia, Rez, Super Monkey Ball, Chu Chu Rocket, Crazy Taxi, Ooga Booga, Seaman, Samba de Amigo, Dance Dance Revolution, Sega Gaga (in Japan anyway). It's one of the reasons I'm a big Sega fan. But what do they get for it? Most of this stuff didn't sell. If you want original games, put your money where your mouth is and buy them. I don't blame developers for being very wary of making "original" games, because their fears of poor sales are well founded. Yes, Sega sucks when it comes to promoting games, but thats not the whole reason for poor sales.

A game doesn't have to be original or unique to be a good game. A game can be totally unique and suck. But it's nice not to have the same damn thing over and over again.

Originalilty?

[evilhayama]

The main contention with this article and the previous one about GBA games is that originality is just not that easy to define. Rez is a rail shooter. Ico is a 3rd person adventure, Space channel 5 and Frequency are rythmn games. You can compare everything made now to some game or other in the past. There are just levels of originality, with some games doing this better than others.

It would be as useful to say there are no original novels out, everything is just a romance story, an adventure story, sci-fi, etc etc. Not every good story has been written, and not every good game has been made.

Gamers want fun games more then Original Games

[LordZardoz]

There are two reasons why Original games (As in original game play AND original IP) are hard to find.

1) Most Companies make games to turn a profit.
2) Most Gamers play games to have fun.

From a gamers standpoint, a truly Original game is a mystery. They cannot ask their friends if it is any good. They cannot say "This game is just like X" to help them make a decision. All they can really do is rent it, and risk being out the $5 dollars for the rental.

And sure, if a game is truly excellent, it will do excellently and become a huge success. But that magnitude of success is rare. In the last 5 years, the only truly original game to take off that strongly is Pokemon. A strong "2nd Tier" Title like Super Monkey Ball will do ok as well, but it will take a while for it to become main stream accepted. In Monkey Balls case, it is only successful, I think, because the people who do like it, generally wont shut up about it to their friends. I have yet to meet someone who has played Monkey Ball say the game is terrible.

A game that is just average will probably fade into oblivion, remembered by only a handful of enthusiasts. And only the most successful games will have a sequel made for them.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:Rez 'Aint Original

[CheeseMonkey]

BS! You may have played the game til the end, but you missed the point entirely. As did nearly everyone, probably including Sega themselves. Or, at least, their American arm. This game received zero marketing and publicity in the U.S. (I don't know about Japan)

This game is an interactive work of art- I can't think of another game that even attempted this, let alone pulled it off as well as Rez.

The graphics in the game are simply amazing. Based (loosly- think art + Tron) on the abstract stylings of Kandisky, the game manages to translate art into a simplified digital form in a way that is, at times, breathtaking. And then, having the music (and, to a lesser degree, the vibration) tied into the visuals, all of which are hooked up to a feedback loop through you, the player... well, it all adds up to what they call it: synestaesia. If you haven't experienced this while playing Rez, then you haven't experienced the game at all.

Anyway, it's the totally ignorant view of the majority that Rez is "just another rail shooter" and that there's "nothing special" about it. If that's all you want to put into it, that's all you're going to get out of it. If you're open to it, it can be an experience like no other game you've played.

If not, go back to playing Tux Racer or whatever it is that you consider original and STFU!