304: Evolution, Not Deviation

[Chuck Wendig]

Evolution, Not Deviation

Chuck Wendig considers the delicate balance of innovation and imitation that turns one sequel into an emblem of betrayal and another into a beloved successor.

Read Full Article

 

[Jmurray21]

If this happens to industry it will truly be dead. We need new ideas that people can take in. Overall it is us, the consumers, who have the responsibility to latch on to new ideas so companies no longer see it as a "no broken don't fix it(waste money)' situation. Lets do our part and buy indie games and support new AAA titles when they do release. Who knows, we may find our next Portal, Half Life or Halo but we have to provide confidence for developers and publishers.

 

[Scout Tactical]

Perhaps we'll see a repeat of film history, where the AAA studios buy up all of the indie studios to take risks for them. Perhaps.

 

[Torrasque]

A really good read.

While there definitely needs to be those crazy random games where the idea, story, gameplay, and entire game is new and exciting (take Portal for instance), I think innovation is ultimately better than outright creation.
Take Final Fantasy for example. Each game is different from the last. The combat changes, the leveling changes, the equipment changes, the story changes, etc. While all those changes may or may not work, the development team still learns from their success' and failures to make the next one better.
Resident Evil is another good example. RE1-3 were all very similar in play style, but when RE4 came out, everyone was blown away. By building on the strong blocks they laid in the past, and chopping down the ones that were weak, they could make a much better game.

TL;DR
Humanity got to where it is by adding to what we learned from the past. While this is essential to our growth, those random bursts of ingenuity are awesome and keep us from getting bored.

 

[Tuqui]

Loved to read this, and made me think a lot, also reminded me about the extra credits video about metrics, since it works game companies will try the same giving sequels or more of the same instead of trying new things, sometimes they do try new things but inside the parameters of the saga, the ultima example you gave, but at the end it only works to divide the fans of the game, sometimes in equals sometimes different enough to make it a good change, but never a total acceptance of the change, tho you could also say the same about any new game, people will love it, people will hate it and there will be people who ultimately ignore it.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

In this author's not-so-humble opinion, the recently-released Dragon Age 2 is a game so worth loving that to be caught cradling the disc with one's pants down would not earn shame but rather, the understanding nods of passersby. And yet, many negative reviews cite the lack of a consistent set of characters between games as well as the far more personal and ultimately less epic storyline. With Dragon Age 2, BioWare chose not to go with a "more of the same" approach and, as a result, some fans cocked a suspicious eyebrow.

That's the key, isn't it? To make a sequel outside the comfort zone, beyond the "do the same thing, only bigger" attitude, you have to grab hold of what lies at the heart of a game property. And what lies at the heart isn't necessarily its mechanics, its characters, or its graphics. It can be, but every property is different. At the center of each game universe lurks a unique feel, a kernel of origin that, when maintained, can grow a whole separate game that still feels like a proper scion of the original. (For the record, this is why I think Dragon Age 2 works as a sequel despite its somewhat dramatic shift - it maintains that thing that makes the series what it is, which is to say, it continues to embrace the BioWare notion that the game doesn't merely have a story, but rather, the story is the game.)

Yeah, as soon as I started reading this article I knew where it was going.

The problem, of course, is that it's a lie. Dragon Age II wasn't about going outside the comfort zone, it was about stripping things out of the game that put CoD kiddies out of THEIR comfort zones. It was about turning an RPG into a simple action game.

This article is a general failure. The author just sort of vaguely tosses out the idea that there's good sequels and bad sequels, but doens't offer anything other than "I liked this sequel" and "I think I'm going to like this sequel based on this trailer" as support.

The real difference here is between evolution and dumbing down. It's about taking the ideas from the original and running with them versus trying to "streamline" the game into a more generic action game. It's about fixing the original game's flaws instead of just scrapping the systems that the flaws were a part of.

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

You know what I would like to see? More developers that do something with their older games to tie them to the newer games. I would like previous games in a series updated with the newer mechanics they introduce in a sequel. I would like things thrown in the new game where if you have their past game(s), you will be given (x) character or mechanic as an unlockable.

This would do a couple of things. People would be more inclined to go out and purchase an unplayed previous version of a game if it were "closer" to the game they just played, mechanics-wise. And people would also re-visit old games for a new play-through, keeping the game fresh in peoples' minds. People would hang onto their games just for an updated version to come along, rather than trade them in for a quick buck for the next big thing. It would make the online communities of multiplayer games more robust as well, rather than becoming a ghost town as soon as the newest game comes out; games that sell themselves on multiplayer play are more limited in lifespan right now. You have to play them here and now before they become irrelevant.

I want games to be more forward-compatable within a series. It's why I preferred Rock Band to the Guitar Hero series. I knew that my songs in each game would play in the next version with the new mechanics, so they were never "wasted" purchases. There are still licensing issues keeping me from playing some of the songs through the titles (it still irks me that I can't play "Enter Sandman" by Metallica or "Any Way You Want It" by Journey in the latest titles....). It was also the reason why I never wanted Rock Band Beatles...it wasn't cross compatable.

Imagine being able to play the oldest versions of Armored Core with the newest engine/mechanics. How about Grand Theft Auto 3? Diablo? Final Fantasy? Resident Evil in the above example? There are so many games that could be "strengthened" by doing this. Would it cost money? Sure it would. But not only would you get money from renewed sales (provided you still offered a way to purchase the game), it would tie more people to following developers throughout their career in a series (or across series...).

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Deviation and making dangerous games is something that I think should happen. Did David Bowie have a long career because he was too timid to appear to be not deviating from his image or not appearing like a dangerous nonconformist?

I think that a big problem with follow up games, and Hollywood re-imaginings of franchises as well, is that they are boringly conformist and safe to the point where anyone with a pulse finds them disgusting. They look back at the originals which seem strange, unique and memorable compared to the mass of content that is made using the conventional wisdom of the day. Then a remake or sequel is planned but the people remaking arrogantly think they can do better by sensibly applying current conventional wisdom and the essence is lost.

This is exactly what happened with Deus Ex, the leads are on record as saying so. They made the original as something dangerous and crazy to shame their fellow developers who were taking the safe option and gamers loved it. But one person complaining is louder than ten happy people so they lost their nerve with the sequel and made the sequel safer. I would also say that Dragon Age 2 is a significantly safer game than Dragon Age: Origins, at least in design if not in the end result in terms of public opinion.

What is the spirit of the original games that needs to be preserved? I would say that with some games if you ask ten different people you will get ten different answers so that a game re-imagined by one person is likely to disappoint a lot of people. In that case talking about the "spirit" of the game is only likely to anger people who think that the spirit of the original has been totally lost. You can't capture lightening in a bottle.

 

[Silver Scribbler]

Interesting read. I think for a perfect example of your ideas one should look to Final Fantasy. That series put sequels to a ridiculous extent before I'd even heard of them with 8 being the new one when I discovered the series and 7 being the first one I played.

And although they had totally different worlds and characters, there was definitely a defining 'something' that made then Final Fantasy games. This has been, in my mind, irrevocably lost with every addition since 10-2, and looks set to continue.

Sometimes formula shifts work though, I mean, look at Resident Evil 4.

Completely agree about Final Fantasy. I never played 7, but 8 through 10 share something that just makes them feel like a Final Fantasy game. Each one since then has just felt hollow, and definitely not right.

OT - A very interesting read, and I completely agree that that is how a sequel should be created. Of course, developers should still be encouraged to create completely original IP as often as possible. Good to see more of your articles on here Mr Wendig, I find them both interesting and amusing.

 

[JMeganSnow]

You bring up an interesting point about Dragon Age 2. Most of the people who seemed to dislike it the most were not big fans of the original game's setting/story, but liked the GAMEPLAY. (Gameplay in a Bioware game is usually not worth discussing even when they try to make improvements, at best, it manages to be only *slightly* annoying and repetitive.) And, yeah, DA2 had radically different gameplay. Or they liked some other cosmetic detail of the first game that was not reproduced in the sequel.

 

[Vault101]

DA2...not a bad game? what an interesting thourght

 

[Jhereg42]

Personally I've enjoyed DA2 quite a bit. I like playing as somebody who, while important, is really just out to try and make a place for him/herself with troubled and potentially disloyal NPC characters that have some very well discerned motivations. It was a nice departure from an Epic Fantasy story.

Gameplay wise, there are a lot of things that I like about both games. DA 2 can be very tactical, once you figure out the changes to the tactical equation. The only real difference (once I dug into it a bit) between the two to me is that you have to spam the attack button, and is that really worth trashing a game over?

 

[WanderingFool]

Great read, just one thing... maybe you should put Custard's Revenge down for a while... just saying...

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

One of the problems as I see it with modern design is that there is a focus on uninterrupted action in games. Its like if you have to break and run to heal,loot or just explore its some kind of game breaking event that developers have to remove and make sure that levels are one way corridors with no nooks to make sure the cosoletards are not confused or frustrated.

And what do you know this fast and shallow development mindset has infected RPGs as Dragon age and Mass effect are crap-tastitic with its mundane and dumbed down design.

 

[PrinceofPersia]

A very nice article that tries to delve into what the difference is between a beloved sequel and a hated update in gaming. A similar experience of evolution can be found in cinema, with the example of Star Wars A New Hope compared to The Empire Strikes Back. You begin with a simple movie that harkens back to the days of pulp cinema of flash gordon and by the second film it has matured a bit and is able to tell a more serious story with new and interesting characters while tantalizing us with hints of what was and what is to come. I also like the treatment of DA2. While I understand some of the games shortcomings (rehashed dungeon maps instead of new ones); it still doesn't take away from the fact that like its predecessor DA2 treats the story as the game and includes some interesting player/NPC interaction which is what most folks like about RPG's. The fact that it adds a few new tactical element to it is part of the evolution of the game.

 

[Sabrestar]

There were good ideas here, but I feel like the article spent the whole time asking questions, and then just tangentially tossed in a half-answer at the very end: "Oh, it's how it feels." I would have liked some actual investigation of that answer: so what is the feel of a game? How do you identify something so nebulous? How do you capture it again? How does it work differently for different kinds of games?

I think this article would have been dramatically improved by spending more time on the meat of the Question-and-Answer than on making long-winded 2600 jokes. It's a decent start and with more research and investigation, could be very good.

 

[Dastardly]

Evolution, Not Deviation

Chuck Wendig considers the delicate balance of innovation and imitation that turns one sequel into an emblem of betrayal and another into a beloved successor.

Read Full Article

Certainly a very worthy topic when dealing with sequels, and I think you've framed it very well. To me, it all comes down to the idea of "player equity."

When we buy a game, we're trading currency for it. While we play, we're taking in many different kinds of alternate currency. It takes many forms: your mechanical knowledge of control schemes, menu layouts, HUD elements, combat and item mechanics; your character's advancement (in skills and equipment) from newbie to hero; your familiarity (and attachment) to the character(s) under your control; your knowledge of the lore, which both deepens the world and affords you advantages in solving puzzles and conflicts, or even just navigating...

Ideally, the sum of this "currency" will outweigh the original monetary cost of the game. You've built up equity in this game. And then we start talking sequels.

You've invested, say, $60 in the series so far. Now they're asking for $60 more. To a certain part of your brain, this new game is $120 total. You're expecting that a certain amount of that "player equity" is going to follow you into this new game. If the game is too great a departure in too many ways, you feel betrayed. Not because the game itself was bad (though it might be), but because it just invalidated all that built-up equity.

It's not only telling you that you have to start over from scratch in the new game. It's also telling you that your time in the other game was basically a waste. Is it completely true? Of course not. You enjoyed the hell out of that game when you played it. But when the new game frames the experience this way, it hollows out our memory of the earlier game. And, whether rational or not, this feeling informs how we experience the game (and how we spend our dollars in the future).

A game can get by with changing any of the areas I mentioned earlier, and the existing playerbase can deal with that slight loss of equity... but you just can't drop it all at once. Different control scheme? Trying keeping some of the characters around. New characters? Make sure the equipment and skills work pretty much the same way. The player's character is back to being a newbie? Make sure the player's knowledge of the controls and the lore give him an advantage in your game world. Make sure the player feels that this game builds on what they've gained from the previous installment in one way or another.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

this is very true, and why i really can't get into indie games
either they're too out there or just sidescrolling clones of mario/contra/earthworm jim

EDIT: In other words, yes, evolution is the way to go. small subtle change, not huge upheaving ones that leave it so different from the previous that you can't even call it the same game.