Poll: If it ain't broke...?

[GoWithDAFro]

What do you guys think of when Games often rehash their old ideas for sequels with no significant changes. it seems to be frowned upon for Zelda/Mario/pokemon, but pefectly fine/a positive for games like Ratchet and Clank and God of war. So, If it aint broke, do you fix it anyway?

 

[crudus]

well, game developers should try to refine techniques and try not to make it look like you are cranking out the same game over and over again.

 

[Enigma6667]

Honestly, the phrase "If it ain't broke don't fix it" is perfect. However, you have to make sure that it doesn't go "stale" by just having it be the same damn thing. Therefore: A few tweaks and some new features here and there are fine.

 

[SantoUno]

Honestly this is something that should be really EASY. I mean look at KOTOR 2, pretty much exact same gameplay as KOTOR 1 but with additional content and a few added gameplay elements, yet it is IN NO WAY REPETIVIVE, in fact it makes combat far more fun than in the first KOTOR due to the much wider variety of feats/powers.

Of course developers should try to make some upgrades and and changes that will improve the gameplay and its experience, but I agree that the GOOD gameplay elements should be left the way they are and the BAD ones should either be changed for the better or just removed to reduce annoyances or frustration for the player.

 

[WaywardHaymaker]

I can't even think of how many times I've been disappointed by a sequel due to the developer mixing it up, but then you have Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2 deals. I didn't even know anything was wrong with ME1, and ME2 is miles better and puts memories of the original to shame. Same for Assassin's Creed 1 and 2.

But then you have games like Final Fantasy that were fun in the beginning but... Seriously? They haven't changed at all, in fact, they've gotten worse.

And on the other side of THAT spectrum are games like Pokemon or Battlefield that, at least to me, remain fairly fun with minimal changes.

So, experimentation is worth it. But if your changes fail, don't be afraid to revert to the original strategy... *coughSEGAcoughFIXcoughSONICcough*

 

[regallmighty]

like what they did to ME2 was great, kept the gameplay the same but added little changes to make it even better

 

[Kelbear]

What do you guys think of when Games often rehash their old ideas for sequels with no significant changes. it seems to be frowned upon for Zelda/Mario/pokemon, but pefectly fine/a positive for games like Ratchet and Clank and God of war. So, If it aint broke, do you fix it anyway?

Bottom line: Ensure the final product is good, and people will enjoy it. Innovating and failing on the implementation isn't good enough; an innovative failure is still just another failure.

If people liked the previous game, they'll still like it. If nothing else, sequels almost always upgrade the graphics so it's still a marginal improvement. They can change the game if they think they can do it well. If not, then they shouldn't bother.

 

[Fappy]

I can't even think of how many times I've been disappointed by a sequel due to the developer mixing it up, but then you have Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2 deals. I didn't even know anything was wrong with ME1, and ME2 is miles better and puts memories of the original to shame. Same for Assassin's Creed 1 and 2.

But then you have games like Final Fantasy that were fun in the beginning but... Seriously? They haven't changed at all, in fact, they've gotten worse.

And on the other side of THAT spectrum are games like Pokemon or Battlefield that, at least to me, remain fairly fun with minimal changes.

So, experimentation is worth it. But if your changes fail, don't be afraid to revert to the original strategy... *coughSEGAcoughFIXcoughSONICcough*

I went back and played through ME1 in one sitting and your memory is not tricking you in the least. The combat in ME1 doesn't even compare to ME2.

 

[internetzealot1]

-Thread about rehashes
-Mario and Zelda are two of the three games cited
-Minor Rage.