Slashdot Mirror
Not Every Game is a Sequel
Earth Wind and Metal writes "In response to a recent article from the Guardian about the lack of original games, Siliconera selected ten brand new titles set for release in 2006 to keep your eyes on. Five of the games are new to the USA and the other five are making their world debut. The list includes the robot house sim Chibi Robo, sandbox mecha RPG Steambot Chronicles, Taito's DS cooking game Cooking Mama and of course Okami." I am *really* looking forward to Okami.
My question is what therefore becomes an original concept for a game? Don't we really already have the most strangely unimaginable games out there? With games being the most lucrative form of entertainment and appealing to all sorts of genres we fall into the same stereotype as with movies. Every so often a gem comes out that everyone loves, but don't we still all go back to our old favorites, it's like comfort food. They become old friends and the sories and plots become our own sort of mythos. Therefore to me the idea of griping about original games is the same as griping about all the fantasy books being based on Tolkein, etc. Debate anyone?
It doesn't even necessarily need to add something to the gameplay of the original.
Some games have a good enough story that I just want to know what happens next.
e2 | LJ
I like how they try to respond to a cynical article about lack of originality in games by pointing out a bunch of cutesy Japanese titles (with the possible excpetion of the mech one).
And what's up with the Dynasty Warriors clone? "But it has more bad guys!!!111" It's good that someone broke the mold - and hey, maybe it's a fun game - but I wouldn't trumpet it as a genre-defying revolution in video games.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: Where are the gritty, realistic, 0% cute, immersive, nonlinear (within reason) sci-fi RPGs? Have any even been made in the past few years (other than KotOR of course)?
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
I disagree. The derivative sequels, by and large, tend to be worse than the original. Exceptions exist, but by and large their very lack of original gameplay makes them worse, because I played the first one. Having done it once, the second time is less fun, even if it is more polished.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Video game developers manage to do something which Hollywood has never been able to do - The sequels that we make are consistantly BETTER than the previous entry in the series. How many movies can say that?
People love to talk about how so many new games coming out are sequels, and they are - But so what? If the games are high quality and you have fun playing them, then just enjoy!
What we're selling is a visceral experience. When you first get a game like, say, Dance Dance Revolution USA, you have an amazing experience that is like none you've ever had before. You're blown away by the experience.
But players acclimate. If you find an arcade with DDR 5th mix, the increase in framerate and the addition of hold arrows is a nice touch that helps keep you interested. And maybe DDR Max 2 has a ton of new songs, many of which are in genres that you're interested in. Even though they're both technically superior, neither of these creates the same sense of awe that you had the first time you found this amazing new game. By DDR Extreme 2, the 9th or 13th in the series, you're burned out on it all and want to recapture that original rush.
Sure, in many ways it is the player's fault for buying something they're familiar with instead of taking a chance on something new. But it is also our fault for not providing them with new experiences, but rather more content.
Gamers in some ways are drug addicts. They get that amazing high of the new game. But their systems get acclimated and they take larger and larger doses for less and less payoff. In reality what they need is a new drug, one their system hasn't adapted to.
Why do I think that last paragraph is going to be taken out of context someday?
We screw up, too, in thinking that just because we devote our lives to an experience that the player should too. Game designs don't last forever... not even close. Yet we keep pushing ones we've felt were successful because, while everyone else has moved on, we still think the original game was pretty awesome.
And it was. That's great. Get over it and make something else.
The ______ Agenda
Some good points there, but I'm not with you on all of them.
First off, there are two genres that really, in my opinion, don't leave much room for originality...FPS's and sports. Sports more so, because once you have emulated the real-life sport, how much more is there really to do? You can adjust control schemes, improve graphics, make an even MORE in-depth "team management" engine (which many players actually don't like...some of us just want to play some hockey), and update rosters. I mean, what are you chances of actually successfully re-inventing the football game?
FPS's aren't quite as bad, but really you're still going to run into a bit of a wall as far as original ideas. You can change the weapons around a bit, add vehicles, have distinct character classes, or have some sort of levelling system for single-player mode. All of these have been done. Go much farther than that and you run a strong risk of departing from what fans of the genre actually enjoy.
Really, games just aren't much different than other forms of entertainment like movies or music: you have the occasional gem surrounded by a lot of derivitive crap. However, sequels specifically aren't really a bad thing by their nature. I really don't mind when a developer takes a game and refines it in the form of a sequel. It serves two purposes:
First, it gives gamers who did not play the previous games a chance to enjoy the experience in a "modern" form. As a newcomer to the series, I have a much greater chance of enjoying Simcity 4 or Civilization 4 than I would playing the originals...in both cases -I- have played every game in the series, and looking back each iteration, especially the first ones, while amazing at the time, are much too simplistic for my current tastes, as well as -badly- graphically outdated.
Second, it gives fans of previous games a chance to enjoy the core experience again, often with added/improved features...sometimes with drastically different gameplay. Again I'll fall back on Simcity 4, Civ 4. In each of these series, elements were added that drastically changed the gameplay. The addition of cultural victories in Civilization, for instance, or the use of a region in Simcity 4 which allows a player to create large "metro areas." No, if you didn't like the originals these features are far from guaranteed to interest you, but for a current fan of the series these features are more than worth the money for the new game.
And let's not forget "sequels" like Metroid Prime, which manage to fundamentally change the genre/gameplay, while simply keeping some of the core ideas of the franchise. And sequels in name/gameplay type only like the aforementioned Final Fantasy series.
And with all these sequels, let's not forget that at one point every one of them was an "original" game. At one point there was no Devil May Cry 2, or Gran Turismo 3, or Burnout 3, or Project Gotham Racing 3, or Halo 2. Just because a sequel was made afterwards does not retroactively make the orignal less...well, original.
Combine everything I said above with the number of original non-franchises that come out every year (which, while not a majority, is also a non-trivial number), and the whole problem of sequels seems to be a bit overstated to me.